Author: Aaliyah Guzman

Beverly Hills Blocks All-Trimester Clinic

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

In a stark reminder that threats to abortion access lurk even in progressive strongholds, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has taken unprecedented legal action against Beverly Hills for systematically obstructing the opening of an abortion clinic. This battle in one of America’s wealthiest cities highlights how the war on reproductive rights extends far beyond red state borders.

The case emerges as conservative states continue their relentless assault on abortion rights nationwide, with 14 states now enforcing near-total bans following the fall of Roe v. Wade. Even in California, where voters enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution, local officials can deploy bureaucratic weapons to deny women essential healthcare access.

DuPont Clinic, one of the few facilities in the country providing all-trimester abortion care, faced what AG Bonta called a “two-pronged” attack from Beverly Hills officials. The city’s tactics—ranging from permit delays to pressuring landlords—mirror strategies long used by anti-choice localities nationwide to circumvent legal protections for abortion rights.

The clinic remains unopened, forcing patients to travel further for essential care at a time when abortion refugees from restrictive states are already straining California’s healthcare system.

The judgment mandates comprehensive reproductive rights training for city employees and the appointment of a compliance officer. However, the broader significance lies in California’s willingness to aggressively defend abortion rights against local obstruction—setting a crucial precedent as reproductive healthcare faces mounting threats across America.

“This isn’t just about one clinic in Beverly Hills,” Bonta declared. “This is about standing firm against the erosion of reproductive freedom happening everywhere, even in places we least expect it.”

This story has become all too familiar in the Trump and post-Trump eras. Trump transformed into a self-proclaimed champion of the anti-abortion movement during his presidency, frequently boasting about appointing three Supreme Court justices who would later vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. His rhetoric is increasingly extreme, referring to abortion procedures in inflammatory terms like “execution” and falsely claiming that Democrats support terminating pregnancies “after the moment of birth.” Recently, he’s taken credit for being “proudly the person responsible” for ending federal abortion rights.

Beyond rhetoric, Trump’s presidential policies systematically dismantled reproductive healthcare access. His administration reinstated and expanded the global gag rule blocking federal funding for organizations that provide abortion services or referrals, appointed scores of anti-abortion federal judges, allowed healthcare workers to refuse to participate in procedures that violated their religious beliefs, and became the first administration to speak at the March for Life. A second Trump term is frightening, but as demonstrated in Beverly Hills by AG Bonta, as long as people are willing to fight, we can win. Protecting abortion access is of the utmost importance in the next four years, and having the courage to stand up to and call out anyone who does not stand with it is a courageous act we all must be willing to take.

The Alt-Right Pipeline and the Rise of Trump: How Digital Radicalization Found Its Political Voice

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

When Trump descended the escalator at Trump Tower in 2015 to announce his presidential campaign, he tapped into something that had been brewing in online spaces for years. What made Trump unique wasn’t just his message, but his ability to speak the language of internet culture – his unfiltered tweets, his willingness to be politically incorrect, and his embrace of meme culture all aligned perfectly with the communication style of online spaces.

The synergy was immediate and decisive. Trump’s campaign became a real-world extension of the online communities that had been developing for years. His rallies echoed the tone and energy of online forums. At the same time, his use of social media – particularly X (formerly known as Twitter) – helped bridge the gap between digital spaces and mainstream political discourse. His presence in mainstream politics made it easier for content creators to draw people into more extreme positions. 

The relationship was symbiotic. As Trump’s political movement grew, it provided new entry points for the pipeline. Young men who might have initially been drawn to Trump through traditional conservative family values or economic policies found themselves exposed to more extreme content through pro-Trump online communities. Meanwhile, those communities became increasingly effective at mobilizing support for Trump and spreading his messages.

The Pipeline: From Conservative Content to Alt-Right Extremism

Joe Rogan exemplifies what many consider the entry point of the pipeline. His podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, draws millions of listeners with its blend of comedy, martial arts, fitness, and long-form conversations about everything from psychedelics to politics. Rogan’s positioning as a “just asking questions” figure is particularly significant. His approach – presenting himself as an everyday guy curious about the world – resonates strongly with young men who feel alienated by mainstream media and traditional authority figures. Rogan’s appeal lies in his accessibility and apparent authenticity. He platforms various guests, from mainstream scientists and comedians to controversial political figures and conspiracy theorists. This mix creates a perfect entry point for the pipeline: viewers might come for interviews with their favorite comedians or athletes, but they’re gradually exposed to more controversial content through YouTube’s recommendation algorithm. Rogan maintains plausible deniability through his self-proclaimed position as a “curious skeptic” while often amplifying voices that align with pipeline narratives.

Further along the pipeline sits Andrew Tate, representing a more overt step toward extremist ideology. Tate burst onto the social media scene with a carefully crafted image combining hypermasculinity, displays of wealth, and increasingly controversial statements about gender roles and society. His rise demonstrates how the pipeline has evolved to exploit new platforms like TikTok and Instagram, where short clips optimized for viral sharing can reach millions of young viewers. Tate’s message is more directly radical than Rogan’s, explicitly promoting regressive views about gender relations and social hierarchy. His content often appeals to young men’s insecurities about masculinity, success, and social status, offering simple but problematic solutions wrapped in an appealing package of luxury cars, expensive watches, and promises of financial success. His famous catchphrase “What color is your Bugatti?” exemplifies how material success is used to deflect criticism and legitimize controversial views.

The pipeline often works through a progression of influencers:

1. Mainstream figures like Rogan serve as gateway content, encouraging viewers to question conventional narratives.

2. Self-help and masculinity influencers like Jordan Peterson offer pseudo-intellectual frameworks for understanding social issues.

3. More overtly political commentators begin introducing explicit ideological content.

4. Figures like Tate present radical views packaged with lifestyle aspirations.

5. Finally, viewers may engage with explicit extremist content and communities.

This progression is particularly compelling because each level feels like a natural extension of the previous one. A young man might start by watching Rogan’s interviews with comedians or athletes, begin exploring his more controversial political content, find himself drawn to guests like Peterson, and gradually move toward more extreme voices. The algorithm facilitates this journey by recommending slightly more radical content based on viewing patterns. However, with the development of the Trump era, the pipeline also works in reverse. The pipeline could now start with relatively mainstream Trump supporter content and gradually guide viewers toward more radical positions while maintaining a sense of legitimacy through association with a sitting president. News events and controversies during his presidency fueled content creation and radicalization.

The Appeal of Online Influencers for Young Men

For Gen Z men, with whom Trump gained 15 points, these influencers offer what appears to be a complete worldview: explanations for their frustrations, solutions to their problems, and models for success. 

Understanding this influencer ecosystem is crucial for addressing online radicalization. These figures aren’t just content creators – they’re architects of worldviews, each playing a specific role in guiding young men toward increasingly extreme positions. Any effective response must account for how these different levels of influence work together to create a compelling narrative that can draw viewers deeper into radical ideologies. 

The marriage of Trump’s political movement with online radicalization pipelines had created particularly challenging dynamics for Gen Z. Many came of political age during Trump’s presidency when the boundaries between mainstream conservative politics and more extreme online communities were at their most vague. For young men trying to understand their place in the world, the combination of Trump’s charismatic leadership and the sophisticated recruitment techniques of online spaces proved incredibly potent.

Reconnection and Community Support: The Path Forward

The challenge in helping young men exit the pipeline lies in understanding that we’re not just asking them to change their minds about a few political issues – we’re asking them to reconstruct their worldview. For many young men, the pipeline hasn’t just provided them with opinions; it’s given them a community, an identity, and what feels like clarity in a confusing world. Pulling away from that means facing uncertainty again and potentially feeling alone. This is why simple arguments or confrontations rarely work, and recovery requires a more holistic approach.

It begins with one of the most crucial aspects of supporting recovery: creating alternative spaces where young men can find the belonging and purpose they sought online. These spaces need to feel authentic, unlike thinly veiled attempts at “deprogramming.” They might be sports teams, volunteer groups, creative workshops, or other communities that offer real-world connection and achievement. The key is that they provide positive male spaces where men can be vulnerable and supported without the toxic elements common to pipeline communities. The role of empathetic listening also cannot be overstated. Many young men enter the pipeline because they have legitimate struggles and concerns that aren’t taken seriously elsewhere. Economic anxiety, relationship difficulties, mental health challenges, and a sense of purposelessness are real issues that deserve real attention. By acknowledging these concerns without judgment, we create space for authentic dialogue and build trust that can lead to positive change.

Digital literacy education plays a crucial role but needs to be approached as empowerment rather than criticism. Understanding how recommendation algorithms shape our viewpoints, how content creators use emotional manipulation, and how to think critically about sources can help young men feel more in control of their online experiences. This education works best when it’s collaborative and curious rather than prescriptive. The path of recovery isn’t linear. Progress often comes with setbacks, and beliefs don’t change overnight. What starts as skepticism about one aspect of pipeline ideology might gradually expand to questioning other elements, but this process takes time. Supporting someone through this journey requires patience, consistency, and recognition that small steps forward are still progress.

Prevention remains equally crucial as recovery. Creating resilient communities where young men feel valued and supported from an early age can help prevent them from seeking validation in harmful online spaces. This means investing in youth programs, providing positive male role models, and creating spaces where young men can authentically express their struggles without fear of judgment. Helping young men find their way back from radicalization is, at its core, about reconnection – with their communities, with their authentic selves, and with hope for their futures. It requires us to believe in the possibility of change while remaining patient with its pace. Most importantly, we must see these young men not as enemies to be defeated but as community members who need support finding their way back to healthier ways of engaging with the world. By approaching this challenge with compassion, understanding, and practical support, we can help create pathways back for those who’ve been led astray while strengthening our communities against future radicalization.

Italy Bans Surrogacy Internationally

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

Photo by Omar Lopez

Italy’s recent ban on international surrogacy, spearheaded by the far-right party led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, has ignited controversy and raised concerns about LGBTQ+ rights in the country. This legislation expands upon an existing domestic surrogacy ban, further limiting options for couples seeking to have children through this method. The move is part of a broader trend of policies that have been criticized for curtailing LGBTQ+ rights in Italy.

Prime Minister Meloni has publicly stated that the ban is not intended to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples, despite her deep history of homophobic beliefs. However, the rhetoric surrounding the legislation has raised eyebrows. Supporters of the ban have framed it as a victory for traditional family structures, with one notable statement celebrating it as a “Hurrah for children and their right, which is a priority, to have a father and a mother.” Brothers of Italy (Italian: Fratelli d’Italia, FdI) is a national-conservative and right-wing populist political party in Italy’s parliament that has strong fascist and anti-LGBTQ beliefs, something they have not been shy about promoting. 

It’s important to note that the impact of this ban extends beyond the LGBTQ+ community. According to Rainbow Families President Alessia Crocini, approximately 90% of Italian couples seeking surrogacy are heterosexual. This statistic underscores the fact that surrogacy is a reproductive option utilized by a diverse range of individuals and couples. LGBTQ+ advocates have expressed concern that the law may disproportionately affect same-sex couples, particularly gay men, for whom surrogacy is often one of the few available paths to biological parenthood. The worry is that since same-sex couples are more easily identifiable as having used surrogacy, they may face greater scrutiny and potential legal consequences under the new law. This recent development in Italy is set against the backdrop of a long and complex history of surrogacy as a feminist issue. The debate surrounding surrogacy has been contentious and multifaceted, with perspectives evolving.

In the early days of surrogacy, feminist critiques often centered around the concept of “wombs for rent.” This provocative phrase encapsulated fears about the commodification of women’s bodies and reproductive capabilities. Critics argued that surrogacy could lead to the exploitation of economically vulnerable women, creating a troubling dynamic where wealthy individuals could effectively purchase reproductive labor from those with fewer resources. As surrogacy became more widespread, the feminist debate intensified. Some maintained that surrogacy, especially in its commercial form, was inherently exploitative and reinforced patriarchal control over women’s bodies. They pointed to cases of surrogates in developing countries working under potentially coercive conditions as evidence of the dangers of treating reproduction as a commercial transaction. This became the case in countries such as Cambodia, where women were given vast sums of money for surrogate motherhood just to be left with a child that was never retrieved and no payments made. 

However, this narrative was challenged by other voices within the feminist movement. These perspectives argued that framing surrogacy solely as exploitation denied women’s agency and right to make decisions about their bodies. From this viewpoint, surrogacy could be seen as a form of empowerment, allowing women to use their unique biological capabilities to help others while potentially improving their economic situations. The advent of gestational surrogacy, where the surrogate is not genetically related to the child, added new layers to the debate. Some argued that this form of surrogacy mitigated concerns about women selling their genetic offspring, while others maintained that it still represented a form of bodily commodification.

As the LGBTQ+ rights movement gained momentum, surrogacy took on new significance in the broader conversation about reproductive rights and family formation. For many same-sex couples, particularly gay men, surrogacy represented one of the few ways to have genetically related children. This led to a complex intersection of feminist concerns about exploitation and the reproductive rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to have families of their own.

Advocates for LGBTQ+ families have argued that access to surrogacy is a matter of reproductive justice and equality. They point out that restricting surrogacy disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ individuals’ ability to form families. This perspective has challenged feminists to consider how their stance on surrogacy might impact other marginalized groups. 

Intersectionality is a key pillar of feminism, and it is crucial to understanding how issues can be intertwined in complicated ways. It is essential to recognize that as feminists, standing with the LGBTQ+ community is vital to support women and allies who live in that intersection. Simultaneously, the issues of commercial surrogacy are ever-present, and the ongoing debate has led to a more nuanced understanding of surrogacy. Many now advocate for carefully regulated surrogacy practices that protect the rights and well-being of surrogates while still allowing access for those who need it, including LGBTQ+ individuals. This approach aims to address concerns about exploitation while recognizing surrogacy’s potential to help create families for those who couldn’t otherwise have biological children.

In the context of Italy’s recent ban, these complex issues come to the forefront. The legislation highlights the ongoing tension between concerns about potential exploitation in surrogacy arrangements and the reproductive rights of individuals and couples, including those in the LGBTQ+ community. And while Italy’s parliament mostly used this ban as a way to undercut LGBTQ+ families, it has brought forth the ever-complicated nature of the act itself. As the global conversation around surrogacy continues to evolve, policies like Italy’s ban serve as flashpoints for broader debates about reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ equality, and the ethical implications of assisted reproductive technologies.

The Deepening Crisis: The Texas Abortion Ban and Its Far-Reaching Implications

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

Photo by Reed Naliboff 

In a pivotal moment for reproductive rights in America, the Supreme Court has declined to intervene in the clash between federal emergency care law and Texas’ near-total abortion ban. This decision marks a significant setback for advocates of reproductive rights and has far-reaching implications, particularly for women of color in Texas.

The high court’s rejection of the Biden administration’s appeal means that the lower court decision blocking the federal government from enforcing its guidance on emergency abortions will stand. This guidance, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services in July 2022, stated that when a state’s abortion law doesn’t include exceptions for the life and health of the mother, it’s preempted by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene leaves several critical issues unresolved. It fails to provide clarity on whether physicians in states with the most restrictive laws must provide abortion care in certain emergency circumstances. It leaves a lower court ruling that prevents the federal government from enforcing its interpretation of EMTALA in Texas. Furthermore, it creates a potential patchwork of emergency care standards across the country, with Texas operating under different rules than other states.

Texas officials argue that their state law allows for abortions when the mother is at risk of death or faces a serious risk of “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” However, medical professionals and legal experts point out that the law’s language is vague and open to interpretation, creating a chilling effect on healthcare providers. The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that state law doesn’t require the mother’s death to be imminent or that she suffer physical impairment to perform an abortion. However, this clarification has done little to assuage the fears of healthcare providers, who still face potential criminal charges if their interpretation of “substantial impairment” differs from that of prosecutors.

The implications of this decision are particularly severe for women of color, especially Black women in Texas. Statistical evidence paints a grim picture. Black women in Texas are already three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women. This disparity is expected to widen under the current restrictions. Black women are more likely to experience maternal health complications throughout pregnancy, and the restriction on abortion access exacerbates these risks. Many Black women lack access to proper prenatal care, especially in rural and low-income areas. The abortion ban compounds these existing healthcare disparities.

The abortion ban’s impact extends beyond physical health. Almost 40% of Black people who give birth experience maternal mental health conditions, yet they are half as likely to receive treatment compared to white women. Experts anticipate an increase in poverty rates among Black women due to job losses related to pregnancy complications and childcare needs. The ban’s effects ripple through entire communities, as Black women are often primary breadwinners and caregivers in their families and broader social networks.

The medical community in Texas finds itself in an untenable position. Doctors must now weigh medical ethics against potential legal consequences, often at the expense of patient care. The law’s vague language has led to hesitation in providing necessary care, even in cases that might qualify as medical emergencies. This situation has led to increased requests for sterilization procedures among women fearing pregnancy under the current legal framework. There’s a chilling effect on obstetrics and gynecology practice in Texas, with some doctors considering leaving the state. Delays in care for women experiencing pregnancy complications have become more common as doctors wait for conditions to worsen before intervening.

The Texas case is not isolated. It reflects a broader national trend following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Nearly two dozen states have passed measures curtailing access to abortion, and fourteen states now have bans with limited exceptions. The conflict between state abortion bans and federal emergency care law is likely to play out in other states, potentially leading to a patchwork of emergency care standards across the country.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Texas abortion ban marks a critical juncture in the ongoing struggle for reproductive rights in America. For women in Texas, particularly women of color, it represents a significant threat to their health, autonomy, and economic well-being. As the situation continues to evolve, it’s clear that the fight for reproductive justice in Texas and across the nation is far from over. The coming months and years will likely see intensified legal battles, political campaigns, and grassroots activism as advocates work to protect and restore reproductive rights.

The Texas case serves as a stark reminder of the complex interplay between state and federal law, the role of the judiciary in shaping healthcare policy, and the real-world impacts of these legal and political decisions on the lives of women, particularly those from marginalized communities. As this crisis deepens, it demands continued attention, analysis, and action from all those committed to reproductive rights and health equity.

Defending Title IX and the Future of Gender Equality in Education

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

Photo by Element5 Digital

In 1972, American education underwent a monumental shift with the passage of Title IX. This landmark civil rights law prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal funding. Emerging from the women’s rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s, Title IX was crafted to ensure equal opportunities for women in education.

While Title IX is often associated with athletics—significantly increasing women’s participation in sports at all educational levels—its impact extends far beyond the playing field. It has also been pivotal in addressing issues like sexual harassment, sexual assault, and gender-based discrimination in academic programs and activities.

Over the years, Title IX has evolved through various court rulings and administrative interpretations, broadening its protections. A major development came in 2020, when the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County extended Title VII protections against sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This ruling had a ripple effect, influencing the interpretation of Title IX as well.

However, a new conservative policy agenda, Project 2025—developed by the Heritage Foundation—seeks to radically change Title IX, rolling back protections for women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Among its most drastic proposals is redefining “sex” under Title IX to mean only “biological sex recognized at birth.” This would effectively strip protections from transgender and non-binary students, reversing significant gains in LGBTQ+ rights. Project 2025 also calls for eliminating the Department of Education, which currently enforces Title IX, instead shifting enforcement to litigation through the Department of Justice. This would make it much harder and more costly for individuals to fight discrimination.

The plan also seeks to overturn the Biden administration’s regulations that strengthened protections against sexual harassment and assault in schools. Instead, Project 2025 proposes reinstating Trump-era regulations, which granted more rights to those accused of sexual misconduct—policies that could discourage victims from coming forward. Moreover, the plan targets the elimination of “disparate impact” theory in Title IX cases, making it harder to challenge policies that, while seemingly neutral, disproportionately harm women or girls.

In contrast, the Biden administration has worked to reinforce and expand Title IX protections. In 2021, the Department of Education reinstated Obama-era guidance on sexual misconduct, which had been rolled back during the Trump administration. This move signaled a return to broader protections for victims of sexual harassment and assault. Additionally, the Biden administration has interpreted Title IX to align with the Bostock decision, extending protections to students facing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This has been especially significant for transgender students.

In 2022, the Biden administration proposed new Title IX regulations aimed at strengthening protections against sex-based harassment, clarifying schools’ responsibilities to prevent and address discrimination, and ensuring LGBTQ+ students’ rights are safeguarded. Despite challenges from conservative states and legal blockades, these proposals reflect the administration’s commitment to fostering a more inclusive and equitable educational environment.

The stark contrast between Project 2025 and the Biden administration’s approach to Title IX could not be clearer. Project 2025 represents a significant threat to decades of progress in gender equality and women’s rights in education, rolling back protections for both women and LGBTQ+ students. Conversely, the Biden administration’s efforts align with feminist goals of expanding equality, protecting vulnerable students, and promoting inclusivity in schools.

As we look ahead, Title IX remains a critical battleground in the fight for gender equity. The future will require continued efforts to address ongoing issues like the underrepresentation of women in STEM, combating sexual harassment and assault on campuses, and ensuring that Title IX protections consider the unique challenges faced by women of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and students with disabilities.

Proposition 1: New York’s Next Step Toward Equality in a Post-Roe World

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

Photo by Gayatri Malhotra

New York stands at a crossroads of history as election signs sprout like late-blooming flowers. This year’s ballot holds more than names; it carries the weight of generations of struggle, hope, and relentless pursuit of equality. New York Proposition 1 isn’t just another line item—it’s the latest chapter in a story that began long before we were born.

Imagine a world where women couldn’t vote, own property, or control their bodies. Imagine the courage to stand up and say, “No more.” That’s where our story begins.

In 1923, three years after women won the right to vote, Alice Paul drafted the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Its original words were simple yet revolutionary: “Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.” For Paul and her sisters-in-arms, this wasn’t just about legal equality – it was about fundamentally reshaping a society built on patriarchal foundations.

Fast-forward to 1972. The ERA passed Congress, riding a wave of second-wave feminist energy. At the same time, feminists were pushing for state ERAs across the country. There are currently 22 states with ERAs included in their state constitutions and 6 states with limited gender equality provisions.

This brings us to New York’s 2024 ballot. Proposition 1 stands as a testament to this legacy of persistence. The proposal amends Article 1, Section 11 of the New York Constitution — the Equal Protection Clause. Section 11 currently protects against unequal treatment based on race, color, creed, and religion. The amendment will expand the protections to gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, reproductive healthcare, and autonomy. This is an important step toward protecting reproductive rights and access in New York.

In the tradition of intersectional feminism, Proposition 1 recognizes that oppression doesn’t exist in a vacuum. By including protections for ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability alongside gender and sexuality, it acknowledges the complex identities that shape our experiences. And yes, it talks about abortion. In a post-Roe v. Wade world, where the right to bodily autonomy can no longer be taken for granted, Proposition 1 stands as a bulwark. In no uncertain terms, it says that reproductive healthcare and autonomy are fundamental rights, as essential as clean air and water.

Of course, some oppose Proposition 1. Their arguments might sound new—judicial overreach, state government overstepping its bounds—but listen closely, and you’ll hear echoes of the past. These are the same voices that said women didn’t need the vote, that the ERA would destroy society, and that reproductive rights were a step too far.

But we’ve heard these voices before and moved forward despite them.

As New Yorkers step into voting booths this November, they’re not just casting a ballot. They’re taking part in a story that stretches back decades, with women and their allies fighting for a more just and equal world.

Proposition 1 is a significant step toward equality. Most of all, it’s a reminder that the fight isn’t over. Each generation has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to push the boundaries of equality a little further. As you vote, remember you’re not just deciding on a law. You’re deciding what kind of future you want to build—a future where equality isn’t just a dream but a constitutional right. a future that honors the struggles of the past while boldly pushing for a more just tomorrow.

The Gender Wage Gap Has Increased for the First Time in 20 Years

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

Photo by Alexander Grey

In 2024, it’s nothing short of outrageous that we’re still grappling with a wage gap between men and women. This persistent disparity isn’t just a number on a spreadsheet – it’s a glaring symbol of the systemic sexism that continues to plague our society. For the first time in over 20 years, the gender pay gap has increased between men and women, according to new census data. Furthermore, analysis by the National Partnership for Women & Families provided the following statistics: 

  • Latina women workers are paid 51 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
  • Black women workers are paid 64 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
  • Asian American women workers are paid 83 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
  • White women workers are paid 73 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
  • Overall, women are paid $14,170 less than men over the course of a year.

The undervaluing of women’s critical role in the workforce reminds us of the ideologies and beliefs that aim to restrict women’s opportunities. The wage gap isn’t just about money – it’s about power, respect, and the value we place on women’s contributions to society. When we pay women less, we’re sending a clear message that their work, their time, and their expertise are worth less than men’s. This outdated and sexist notion has no place in a society that claims to value equality.

The consequences of this wage disparity ripple through every aspect of women’s lives, creating a domino effect of inequality that extends far beyond the paycheck. 

First is financial insecurity. The wage gap is not just about having less spending money – it’s about systemic financial vulnerability. With lower wages, women struggle to build emergency funds. When life throws a curveball – be it a medical emergency, job loss, or global pandemic – women are often left scrambling, forced to take on debt or make impossible choices, especially when they are more likely to be responsible for childcare.

Secondly, the wage gap compounds over time, leading to a retirement savings gap that’s nothing short of catastrophic. On average, women live longer than men, yet they’re expected to survive on significantly smaller nest eggs. This sets the stage for a crisis of elderly poverty that disproportionately affects women. Financial insecurity doesn’t just affect individual women – it ripples through generations. Women with less financial stability are less able to support their children’s education or help them get a start in life, perpetuating cycles of economic disadvantage.

The wage gap acts as both a symptom and a cause of career barriers for women. When women see that certain industries or positions consistently undervalue and underpay them, they’re less likely to pursue those paths. This leads to a need for more female representation in high-paying fields and leadership roles, further entrenching the wage gap. When women are discouraged from specific career paths, we all lose out on their potential innovations and contributions. How many groundbreaking ideas have never seen the light of day because talented women were pushed out of male-dominated fields? The wage gap creates a lower baseline for women in salary negotiations. Even when women negotiate as assertively as men, they often start from a lower initial offer, leading to perpetually lower salaries throughout their careers.

The wage gap doesn’t just affect women at work—it shapes entire family dynamics. When families question who should step back from their careers to care for children or elderly parents, the lower-earning partner is the “logical” choice. Due to the wage gap, this is most often the woman, reinforcing outdated gender roles and stalling career progress. Similarly, the “mommy penalty” is real. Women who take career breaks for caregiving face significant challenges re-entering the workforce, often at lower pay rates. Meanwhile, fathers usually see a “daddy bonus” in wages, widening the gap further.

The wage gap is not just a number—it’s a pervasive force that profoundly and lastingly shapes women’s lives, opportunities, and well-being. It’s a form of economic violence that we must confront and dismantle if we truly believe in equality and justice. The fight for equal pay is for women’s autonomy, dignity, and fundamental human rights. It’s time to recognize the true cost of the wage gap and take decisive action to close it once and for all.

Rolling Back Progress: What the End of Affirmative Action Means for Women’s Equality and Racial Justice

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

Photo by Elvert Barnes

In a devastating blow to progress, the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to overturn affirmative action in college admissions has begun to unravel decades of hard-won gains for women and students of color in higher education and beyond. Recent statistics from Brown University reported a 40% drop in Black student enrollment in their 2024 freshman class, a disappointing yet predictable outcome. Affirmative action has long been a cornerstone of feminist advocacy, serving as a vital tool to dismantle systemic barriers that have historically excluded marginalized groups from white male-dominated fields. By promoting diversity in higher education, these policies have opened doors for countless women, particularly in STEM fields, where gender disparities remain stark.

The gains made through affirmative action are undeniable. Since its implementation, we’ve seen a significant increase in women’s enrollment in universities and their representation in professional schools. This progress has translated into greater economic opportunities and representation in leadership positions across various sectors. Opponents of affirmative action often tout the idea of a “merit-based” system as a fair alternative. However, this argument fundamentally misunderstands the deep-seated inequalities that persist in our education system and society at large. Standardized tests and traditional metrics of academic achievement often reflect privilege more than true potential or merit.

For women, especially those from marginalized communities, these “merit-based” systems can be particularly punitive. They fail to account for the additional hurdles women face, such as gender bias in STEM education, the disproportionate burden of family care responsibilities, and the subtle yet pervasive discouragement of girls from pursuing certain career paths. Affirmative action, flawed as it might have been, was one of the few tools we had to address these compounded disadvantages. It recognized that equality sometimes requires equity – a level playing field isn’t truly level if some players start miles behind the line.

As a Black woman in the feminist movement, I’ve always known that my experience of gender discrimination is inextricably linked with my knowledge of racial bias. This understanding – intersectionality – isn’t just academic jargon; it’s the lived reality for millions of women across America. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s groundbreaking work on intersectionality in the late 1980s gave us the language to articulate what many of us had long known: oppression doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The challenges faced by a working-class Latina mother in the Bronx fundamentally differ from those encountered by a middle-class white woman in suburbia. Both experience sexism, yes, but the former also grapples with racism, classism, and, often, linguistic discrimination.

I remember my college application process three years ago. Affirmative action policies allowed me to show who I indeed was – not just a set of numbers, but a determined young woman with dreams of making a difference. That opportunity changed the trajectory of my life. But it wasn’t just about me. I saw firsthand how different perspectives enriched our learning in that diverse college environment. My best friend, a white girl from Wisconsin, challenged my urban-centric views. My study group, a mix of races, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds, taught me more about problem-solving than any textbook ever could.

The Supreme Court’s decision threatens to unravel this tapestry we’ve so carefully woven. It’s not just about college admissions – it’s about who gets to be in the rooms where decisions are made, whose voices are heard in policy discussions, who gets to shape the future of our nation. By limiting diversity in higher education, we risk perpetuating gender imbalances in high-paying professions, leadership positions, and policy-making roles. This, in turn, hampers our ability to address gender-based issues effectively and comprehensively in all spheres of society.

Moreover, diverse educational environments have been shown to benefit all students, fostering creativity, critical thinking, and a more nuanced understanding of complex social issues. By dismantling affirmative action, we’re not just holding back women and minorities; we’re diminishing the quality of education for everyone. I think of the young girls in the younger generations – Black, Latina, Asian, Indigenous – all bright-eyed and full of potential. How do we tell them that the doors cracked open for my generation might be slamming shut for theirs?

The Impact of Gender Violence on Kenya’s Female Athletes

Posted on by Aaliyah Guzman

Photo by by Narnabi

Ugandan Track and Field Olympian Rebecca Cheptegei was murdered by her partner, Dickson Ndiema, just weeks after returning from the Olympic games. The initial dispute between the couple concerned land she had purchased in Kenya to live closer to training facilities; Ndiema quickly turned violent and doused Cheptegei with petrol and set her on fire. However, this is not an isolated tragedy. In 2021, Kenyan distance runner Agnes Tirop was found stabbed to death in her home in Iten, in northwest Kenya. The perpetrator was her husband, Ibrahim Rotich. This string of high-profile murders highlights an even bigger issue of violence against women: a problem that has reached alarming levels in Africa, particularly in Kenya.

The sleepy town of Iten, nestled along Kenya’s Great Rift Valley, has earned a legendary status in long-distance running. This unassuming place, perched at a breathtaking 8,000 feet above sea level, has become a pilgrimage site for athletes seeking to unlock the secrets of Kenyan running prowess. The region’s dominance in cross-country races, marathons, and road-racing circuits is extraordinary, sparking intense scientific curiosity. Researchers have proposed various theories to explain this phenomenon: perhaps the high altitude training boosts red blood cell production, or the endless stretches of dirt roads provide perfect training grounds. Whatever the reason, year after year, aspiring champions flock to this high-altitude haven, hoping to absorb some of the magic that seems to permeate the very air of Kenya’s running capital. For women in this area, this is a glimmer of hope. It can be a way out of oppressive structures and obtain some form of financial freedom. However, men of the area prey on these young, hopeful runners, promising them coaching and success and then trapping them in abusive relationships. These women who come to Iten are already vulnerable and only find themselves in even more vulnerable situations as these men take advantage of them.  

According to recent studies, Kenya has one of the highest rates of femicide in Africa, with hundreds of women and girls losing their lives each year to gender-based violence. In 2022, at least 34% of Kenyan women said they had experienced physical violence, according to a national survey. Femicide, the killing of women and girls because of their gender, is a grave human rights violation forged in the systems of patriarchy that inherently devalue women and treat women as property or second-class citizens. But culture alone doesn’t tell the whole story. Kenya’s economic landscape plays a crucial role. In a country where nearly 40% of the population lives below the poverty line, financial dependency becomes a trap for many women.

However, hope is still possible. Feminists worldwide are stepping into this space and demanding freedom and safety for all women. Legislators such as Hon. Millie Odhiambo have championed laws to protect women in the Kenyan Parliament. The Protection Against Domestic Violence Act of 2015 was a significant step forward, providing legal recourse for victims of abuse. However, Odhiambo notes, “It was not just about awareness or lack of representation – the laws themselves were defective. Gender discrimination was allowed under the old constitution.”

In addition to advocating for new legislation, grassroots organizations are also leading the charge on the ground. In Korogocho, one of Nairobi’s largest slums, the Feminists in Kenya group runs workshops teaching women about their rights and how to seek help. The group Tirop’s Angels was set up to combat gender-based violence in honor of record-breaking Kenyan runner Agnes Tirop, 25, who was stabbed to death at her home. Groups like these, in partnership with legislation, are critical to tackling the struggle of femicide and calling attention to the murder of women. We must work to protect our sisters across the globe, who should not have to continue living in fear every day. 

>

Support eh ERA banner