SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
women s rights
As Always, It’s Up to Us: Questions for a Second Trump Presidency
As a scholar of social movements in the United States, I look to what the activists of the past show us: Justice doesn’t come from the White House. It comes from the people.
Nov 06, 2024
Former U.S. President Donald Trump won a second term. Handily. I see, already, the overwhelming dread flooding my social media. After all, Americans elected a man who has bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, who has bred fear and hatred toward Central American migrants, who has pledged to undo any climate protections he can get his grubby little orange hands on, who oversaw the eradication of abortion rights, who has praised white supremacist, antisemitic marchers as “very fine people,” and who fostered an insurrection. Again.
Knowing this, what do we do next?
As a scholar of social movements in the United States, I look to what the activists of the past show us: Justice doesn’t come from the White House. It comes from us.
In 1977, dozens of disabled activists occupied a federal building in San Francisco, demanding that the Carter administration enforce Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 was the first piece of federal legislation that prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities, yet four years after its passage, the law just sat on the books with no regulation to power it. Disabled protestors camped out for 26 days, supported by a coalition of labor, queer, and Black groups—most importantly, the Black Panther Party, who fed the protestors warm food every single day. Eventually, the administration relented, vowing to regulate Section 504. If you know a child who has benefited from a 504 plan in school, that wasn’t because of the goodness of the government’s heart but because of the sweat, the joy, and the organizing of a group of disabled activists and their allies in the Bay Area.
There are countless examples before and after 1977 of tireless activists creating the world they want to live in despite the apathy of their government. And we can continue to follow their roadmap today by building the worlds we want to live in, we want to grow families in, without the permission of the electorate.
Here are some questions to guide us.
The Trump campaign mobilized its base by villainizing some of the most vulnerable youth, transgender, and non-binary kids, as symbols of a decaying world order. Knowing that, how are we going to uplift gender-non-conforming kids in our communities? Who are we going to elect to school board that will affirm trans kids’ dignity and protect their privacy? How are we going to open our homes to queer and trans youth who are rejected from their families? How are we going to build spaces for kids to explore their gender with love and curiosity?
The reality is, these are the same questions we should have been asking ourselves even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency.
The president-elect has been recorded bragging about touching women’s genitals without their consent, was found liable for sexual assault, and ushered in the end of Roe v Wade. Knowing that, how are we going to raise children with confidence in their bodily autonomy—and respect for others? How are we going to create reporting structures in our workplaces and schools that believe and support survivors? How can we move toward restorative justice practices that prioritize the healing of survivors and communities and prevent further harm? How are we going to mobilize to ensure every person has access to safe abortion care, no matter what state they live in, whenever it is needed?
The Trump campaign promised mass deportations, characterized immigrants as criminals, and admitted to spreading false claims about immigrants eating pets. Knowing this, how we do build communities that welcome immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers? How do we amplify stories that illustrate the humanity of brown and Black immigrants? How do we advocate local governments for policies that protect our neighbors from deportations and criminalization? How do we teach our children to welcome new cultures and traditions rather than fear the unknown?
The Trump campaign has vowed to undo the minimal environmental protections we had. Knowing that, how are we going to ensure that our cities don’t dump environmental disasters on the doorsteps of our working class, Black, and brown neighborhoods? How are we going to push state governments to invest in clean energy, clean water, and clean air? How are we going to support Indigenous-led movements to return the land to its original stewards and protectors? How are we going to re-organize our daily lives to privilege sustainability over convenience and thus divest from corporate solutions that pollute our world?
The Trump campaign has used vulgar, racist, sexist, and just plain rude language to describe its opponents. How do we build communities grounded in love and kindness? How do we model such love and kindness to our children? How do we listen to marginalized communities and follow their lead on what language to use when organizing with them? How do we organize ourselves to protect the most targeted as beloved kin? How do we create opportunities for collective joy and creativity and friendship?
As individuals, we cannot tackle every question listed above, and in my post-election haze, I know I have left out critical issues. (How do we protect our children from gun violence? How do we stop the genocides in Gaza and Sudan and emerging genocidal threats across the globe? How do we abolish systems that criminalize Blackness, disability, and poverty?) But if you’re new to organizing and activism, you can find a group of people who are already grappling with the questions that resonate for you and can figure out how to amplify and support their work. And if you have been already doing this work for years, I thank you.
The reality is, these are the same questions we should have been asking ourselves even if Kamala Harris had won the presidency. Presidential candidates will never be our saviors. As always, it is up to us to forge the path to liberation, even in times of the deepest despair, grief, and shock. Especially in these times.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Know What’s Behind Biodiversity Loss—It’s Time to Actually Tackle It
To halt global biodiversity loss in an equitable and gender-responsive manner, countries must stop subsidizing export-oriented economic sectors.
Oct 24, 2024
As global leaders converge in Colombia for the COP16 global biodiversity summit this week, they face a stark reality: Despite over a decade of pledges to protect biodiversity, not a single global target has been fully achieved.
Forests continue to burn, habitats are vanishing, and biodiversity is spiraling toward collapse. Without addressing the systemic drivers of environmental destruction—especially in the Global South—this failure will persist.
The last biodiversity summit (COP15) saw the adoption of decisions on instruments to reduce inequalities, ensure a gender-responsive approach to biodiversity action, take a human rights-based approach, and guarantee access to justice and participation in decision-making by communities. These points are found in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity’s Gender Plan of Action and the Global Biodiversity Framework’s Targets 22 and 23 and Section C on implementation.
The economic model that Global South countries are forced to pursue by the international financial institutions, based on natural resource extraction with highly unequal distribution of benefits and impacts, is driving extinction and global biodiversity loss.
In Cali, countries will take stock of the targets and commitments adopted so far. This meeting is a crucial opportunity to assess how well the 196 signatories of the convention—sadly, the United States is not one of them—have tackled biodiversity loss so far. And because the crisis we face is so urgent, it’s also a moment in which we must look toward the leadership of women, who play key roles in local agricultural production, family and local economies, and stewardship of biodiversity in key areas like the Amazon.
Picture women like Lucy Mulenkei, a Masai woman who has championed the interests of marginalized pastoralist and hunter-gatherer communities throughout Africa. Or Patricia Gualinga, who has led her Kichwa community in the Amazon in keeping oil drilling off their land and proposing a “living forest” model for rights-based conservation. And Xananine Calvillo, a young woman from Mexico who recently called on the World Bank to stop loaning money to factory farming companies that destroy forests and rivers in sensitive ecosystems.
Our governments and institutions have failed in the past, but they have a chance to listen to women leaders this week. It’s urgent that they do this, and start putting their money where their mouth is, ending subsidies for harmful industries that are behind biodiversity loss.
Why Past Plans on Biodiversity Failed
The strategy agreed in 2010 to guide global action during the U.N. Decade on Biodiversity (2011-2020) recognized the need to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss. The failure to tackle these root causes is one of the reasons cited in the third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook as to why we didn’t meet the first global biodiversity target in 2010.
Building on this analysis, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 structured the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets around five Strategic Goals, setting benchmarks for progress through relevant policies and enabling conditions.
However, at the global level, none of the 20 Aichi Targets were fully achieved.
Target 4 on sustainable production and consumption was deemed not achieved with “high confidence,” which means that actions to reduce the ecological footprint failed after a decade of commitment. Between 2011 and 2016, the ecological footprint remained at approximately 1.7 times the level of biocapacity—in other words, requiring “1.7 Earths” to regenerate the biological resources used by our societies.
The rate of loss of all natural habitats including forests, which is considered in Aichi Target 5, is not lower than that of previous decades, with South America surpassing a record for forest fires this year, with 433,000 fire hotspots and over 14.4 million hectares of forest cover burned or affected in different biomes of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Peru. Brazil and Bolivia alone have seen their forest devastated by 7 million hectares each, while the Amazon river basin is reporting the lowest levels on record amid a severe drought driven by climate change.
What’s Behind Biodiversity Loss
Governments continue to provide billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and other perverse incentives to support deforestation, water pollution, and fossil fuel consumption which directly work against the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework.
By some measures, countries spend at least $2.6 trillion a year on propping up polluting industries, which is equal to 2.5% of global GDP. And the wealthiest nations claim there isn’t enough money to help Global South countries respond to the crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.
The failure to tackle the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, including fossil fuel extraction, mining, industrial agriculture, intensive livestock farming, large-scale infrastructure projects, and monoculture tree plantations— estimated to drive up to 90% of biodiversity loss—are partly linked to the contradictions within the Global Biodiversity Framework. Biodiversity offsets and other market-based schemes considered in Target 19(d) undermine Goal C of the framework, which is to protect the integrity, connectivity, and resilience of all ecosystems.
Forest fires continue to rage in the Amazon, and there’s no time to let companies swoop in with false solutions to the problem.
Letting the market have its way with biodiversity policy is not the way to achieve biodiversity protection, either. So-called biodiversity investment projects have increasingly been exposed for human rights violations, social and gender impacts, conceptual flaws like inattention to ecosystem integrity, and problems with compliance and effectiveness.
The economic model that Global South countries are forced to pursue by the international financial institutions, based on natural resource extraction with highly unequal distribution of benefits and impacts, is driving extinction and global biodiversity loss. That’s why, if we really want to enable urgent and transformative action, government support for export-oriented economic sectors, subsidies, preferential tax subsidies, and diluting environmental regulations must end immediately.
Here’s What Should Happen at COP16
The biodiversity summit this week in Colombia presents us with an opportunity to reaffirm our collective commitment to forest and biodiversity conservation.
Women in all their diversity, Indigenous peoples and local communities, Afro-descendants, peasants, youth, and grassroots movements must be central in shaping the policies that will guide our future. Governments must prioritize people and the planet over corporate profit in a way that is just and equitable, gender-responsive, rights-based, and rooted in a non-market-based approach led by real, community-led solutions.
Transformative change necessarily demands challenging the international financial and monetary systems that force Global South governments to maintain and expand extractive activities and perpetuate the destruction of nature, as well as gender and social inequalities.
As global leaders gather in Cali to review the state of implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and show the alignment of their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans with the Framework, it is crucial that we critically examine the level of biodiversity commitments and address the structural drivers of biodiversity loss.
If we ignore those structural drivers, the harmful activities that are the same ones countries have been propping up with subsidies and favorable terms, there’s no way to halt the biodiversity crisis. Forest fires continue to rage in the Amazon, and there’s no time to let companies swoop in with false solutions to the problem. Transformative change is what is needed, and women like Xananine, Lucy, and Patricia will be there at COP16 with real solutions in their hands.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Childcare Crisis Is Finally an Election Issue
As one of the only industrialized countries in the world without national paid leave, the United States forces moms in particular to choose between continuing to work or raising our children.
Sep 30, 2024
Every mother in America knows this struggle well: How do you afford to raise a child?
My daughter was born almost 14 years ago, and my family is still financially recovering from the struggle of supporting a newborn. And we’re not alone—American families are spending a greater and greater portion of their income on childcare.
According to the nonprofit Child Care Aware, the average cost of childcare in the U.S. is now more than $10,000 per year—and even higher for infants and toddlers. And the problem is only getting worse. It’s no wonder so many women are choosing not to have children because they say they can’t afford them.
I’ve come to understand my experience as a failure of our elected leaders to provide basic needs like affordable, accessible childcare and paid family and medical leave.
Right before I found out I was pregnant, I was let go from my job and lost my benefits and stable income.
Once my daughter was born, instead of enjoying every moment of being new parents, my partner and I were stressed about our financial situation. I didn’t have a job to go back to, and even if I did, we wouldn’t have been able to afford childcare.
I remember tirelessly googling childcare providers in the area and becoming exasperated at the costs. There was no way that we could afford to pay $300-plus a week just for daycare—we wouldn’t be able to cover our basic living expenses.
The situation became a Catch-22: If I didn’t work, it would be impossible to balance our bills and afford the essentials to raise a child. But if I did, we wouldn’t be able to afford those things anyway, because all the money would be going to daycare.
This is why so many mothers like me are driven out of the workforce. As one of the only industrialized countries in the world without national paid leave, the United States forces moms in particular to choose between continuing to work or raising our children.
The fortunate mothers who do have access to a paid leave program are significantly less likely to quit their jobs and more likely to work for the same employer after the birth of their first child. That’s not just good for mothers—that’s good for employers and our economy as a whole.
As I think back to those days, I remember always feeling sad, not realizing that like 10-15% of new mothers I was likely dealing with postpartum depression. That feeling was only compounded by isolation and the stress of financial insecurity.
Paid leave can help address those mental stressors. According to one study, women who took longer than 12 weeks maternity leave reported fewer depressive symptoms, a reduction in severe depression, and an improvement in their overall mental health. I know I would’ve benefited greatly from knowing that I could take the time to care for my child without worrying about winding up in dire financial straits.
Having a child should be a joyful event, not a deeply stressful one. I’ve come to understand my experience as a failure of our elected leaders to provide basic needs like affordable, accessible childcare and paid family and medical leave.
I’m glad that unlike elections in the past, this crisis has become a major issue. I hope to see a day when no mother has to go through what I did.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular