In Defense of the Women's March on Washington

Being a part of the Women's March on Washington was one of the most empowering moments of my life, and it will likely go down in the history books as well. The feeling of being surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people who were also committed to equality, diversity, and democracy was reenergizing in the wake of an election that shocked and divided our country.

Yet, my high from the march was crushed the following day when I woke up to comments by friends, family, and trolls on the Internet dismissing the marchers. Some on the right thought that American women have no reason to complain or that the march was disrespectful. Others on the left thought the march was the epitome of non-intersectional feminism. There have been plenty of think pieces dedicated to the Women's March, but I want to add my voice, hoping it will reach those in my network who have kept a closed mind.

Why we marched

While women have made large strides in the past few decades and have the illusion of equality, we still face many barriers that men don't.

Some glass ceilings have shattered, yet women still aren't respected in the workplace: women don't get the same pay for equal work, are discriminated against in fields ranging from STEM to music, and are absent from leadership roles in corporate world, nonprofit world, and government. In and outside the workplace, women are subjected to a culture which tells women that they should be beautiful and not smart, that being a stay at home mom, working mom, or no mom at all is each a unique betrayal to womanhood, that being assertive is "bossy," etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. This culminates in rape culture, through which men harass women on the streets, at home, and on campuses with little or no consequence. Corporations even turn around and use these sexist fantasies to market products. That doesn't even get into the male lawmakers who deny women their constitutional right to abortion and reproduction freedom.

Think globally, act locally

Do women in other parts of the world have it worse? Absolutely, but women in some countries also have it better than American women do. As an American citizen, however, I have a civic duty to stand up for my values in my own community. Marching in the streets is not disrespectful to women in sexist countries; it is an act of solidarity. Marching in the streets is not disrespectful to Mr. Trump either; it is a patriotic embrace of my right to freedom of speech and assembly. Do you know what is disrespectful? Mr. Trump's treatment of women.

Women's issues are intersectional

The Women's March was about so much more than women's issues; rather, the march recognized that immigrant rights, black lives matter, LGBT rights, climate action, and gun control are also women's issues. They matter to women and they matter for women's equality, as the fight to end sexism, racism, and homophobia are all intertwined. And men are willing to join us in the fight.

Early on, the march was criticized for not including women of color, and the organizers quickly reacted and included diverse women in their leadership. From the leadership to the people in the streets, people of all walks of lives were represented at the march. That's why it disappointed me to read this Medium article criticizing the march. I can't deny her experience, but I can speak to my own: I heard loud chants of "black lives matter" and "trans lives matter" as I marched alongside women of all abilities, ages, color, shapes, and zipcodes. As to the comment that it was disrespectful to shout "march" over Janelle Monae's #SayHerName/ BLM performance, the reality was that most marchers couldn't hear her or any of the other speakers due to poor A/V planning. We had been standing in the crowd for hours with no clear communication about why the march hadn't started and eager to take to the streets.

Criticism isn't action in itself
It is easy for both sides to be critical, especially given the shear magnitude of the Women's March. While critical thinking should be encouraged, criticism without action accomplishes the same as silence. Sitting at your computer making memes isn't going to change things. Getting hundreds of thousands of people in the street will.

So if you think that American women can't complain since women "have it worse" in Saudi Arabia, what are you doing to help those women? If you think that the women's march is excluding important groups, what are you doing to make the movement more inclusive? If your life is perfect and you have nothing to complain about, what are you going to do for those who are less privileged? I know what I am going to do: I am going to continue to march, to write my representatives, and to advocate for equality loud and clear. History has its eyes on us.

***

More information about the Women's March on Washington:

Vision and mission statement
Full recording of speakers and performers
10 Actions for the First 100 Days campaign

A history of hypocrisy

image taken from ariverrr on devinantart.com

It’s ironic that, in the process of her big media tour in remembrance of our country's history, Sarah Palin has shown that doesn't even know basic history like the ride of Paul Revere. It’s evidence of how the Tea Party just picks and chooses aspects of American history that fits their political agenda without really stopping to fully understand our nation’s complicated history. Yet Sarah Palin’s biggest mistake isn’t that she’s confused parts of our history like Paul Revere’s midnight ride (which has already been largely fictionalized), it’s in ignoring the darker parts of our history that are just as much a part of our identity today.

Our history is valuable, but we must remember all of it in order to truly value it. We must remember or mistakes, virtues, and hypocrisies- of which there are many. We are a country that celebrates personal freedom, yet our founding fathers relied on abusive slave labor to run their plantations. We are a country obsessed with private property, yet we stole our land from native American Indians (whom we also massacred). We are a country that boasts of our democracy, yet women only recently were given the right to vote. We are a country that celebrates diversity, yet we forcefully interned thousands of Japanese-American citizens during World War II out of fear and racism. We are a country that values freedom of expression, yet we imprisoned and marginalized American communists during the Cold War. We are a country that was founded by illegal immigrants, yet we exploit the immigrants that come to our country. We are a country that idolizes democracy, yet the CIA overthrew democratic governments abroad that threatened our businesses. We are a country that promises the American Dream to our children, yet we have the 43rd most unequal distribution of wealth in the world. We are a country that fought against our British colonial overlords, yet we have set up our own colonial governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are a country that promises freedom of religion to its citizens, yet we protested the construction of a mosque in New York City. We are a country that sings of our ''purple mountains majesty'' and ''fruited plains'' yet we strip mine our mountains into oblivion and choke our crops with pollution.

The truth is, our history is stained by exclusivity and hypocrisy. Yet no one talks about it honestly. We let our pride, patriotism, and self-love get in the way of truly comprehending our nation’s past. After all, that’s what sells books and gets votes (just ask Sarah Palin).

The good news is, that although American does have a history that includes innumerable mistakes, we also have a history that includes people fighting against those mistakes. Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr, and Cesár Chávez have done more for the majority of our country than our Founding Fathers- who ignored the rights of women, blacks, and Hispanics. If Sarah Palin starts talking about these leaders on her book tour, then maybe I’ll give her a listen.

In the end, I believe that the real strength of our nation isn't our history, but our tradition of learning from the past and progressing to a better future. However, in order to keep progressing as a nation we must confront the mistakes of our past, not ignore them.

Presidential elections according to a gringa

After lots of build up and anticipation, today was the first round of presidential and congressional elections in Peru. Even Google Peru was prepared for the elections today and changed its homepage. As for myself, I've really enjoyed being able to witness the campaigning and election process in Peru from the very moment I set foot in Lima. I remember being surprised by the never-ending sea of giant billboards alongside the road and the discarded political propaganda on the streets when I first got here. Even the sierra (mountains) and selva (rainforest) regions of Peru were inundated with political advertisements. I was puzzled by the sight of rocks hand-painted with party slogans in what I thought was the middle of nowhere. Regrettably, I never got to attend a rally or a protest because it's illegal for foreigners to participate in them, even as a bystander.

Wall painted in favor of Keiko in the mountains of Tarma

There is no dearth of differences between the US and Peruvian electoral system. To begin with, to the dismay of nearly everyone, the sale and consumption of alcohol was prohibited beginning on Friday in order to prepare for the elections (it's called the la ley seca, or the dry law). A more relevant difference is the fact that voting is compulsory in Peru. Everyone between 18 and 70 is required to vote in their hometown. Those that don't vote must pay a fine around 350 soles (~$130). To avoid having to choose between the lesser of two evils, some voters invalidate their ballots by marking all of the candidates or making stray marks. However, most Peruvians I've talked with don't seem to mind the compulsory voting. Although Peruvians are famous for being indecisive before the elections, everyone I've talked to had an opinion about the candidates and was more or less informed about the elections.

Campaign HQ in Tarma that was
blasting Castaneda's theme song
when we walked by.

Another visible difference between the political environment is the weakness of party structure here. Instead, politics is driven by the strength of the caudillo (strong man) that leads a loose coalition of parties as their presidential candidate. Congressional candidates are labeled by what presidential candidate they support (which brings me to another difference- the national legislature is unicameral). However, it's not common for someone to vote for different "political parties" for President and congress, because again, the person is more important than the party. Caudillos spent a lot of time building their image, charisma, and persona. I enjoyed the fact that nearly every presidential candidate had his/her own theme song and mascot. PPK had PPKuy (cuy= guinea pig) and Keiko had a slightly terrifying star-person.

L to R: Castaneda, Toledo, Keiko, Ollanta, PPK
(from livinginperu.com)

The five principle presidential candidates were, in general order of popularlity, Ollanta Humala of Gana Perú, Keiko Fujimori of Fuerza 2011, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (PPK) of Alianza por el Gran Cambio, Alejandro Toledo of Perú Posible, and Luis Castaneda of Solidaridad Nacional. (As a sign of the transitory nature of political parties, Keiko's party is called Force 2011- a name that clearly won't apply in the future). Although the results are not official yet, it's generally accepted that Ollanta and Keiko will go on to the second round. They are easily the two most polarizing candidates, and the general public is up in arms. Peruvian Nobel Prize winner Mario Vargas Llosa equated having to choose between them in the final round to "having to chose between AIDS and cancer."

Ollanta, by far the handsomest of
the candidates. (from AP)

Ollanta Humala will once again pass on to the second round (he was a finalist in last term's elections). Ollanta was the only viable left-wing candidate on the ballot, though he also represents a comparatively extreme left. His opponents liken him to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Nevertheless, he has maintained a consistent level of popularity, especially among the poor in the South and rural areas. Considering the fact that 40% of Peruvians live below the poverty line, his popularity as the candidate that "steals from the rich to give to the poor" is not surprising. I was more or less in favor of Ollanta until it was unsurfaced that he equated Peruvian Maoist terrorist group Sendero Luminoso to the Robbing Hood of the poor. Peru's history with Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) is still very touchy, as 70,000 Peruvians died at the hands of terrorist group and the government's equally inhuman response. And that brings me to Keiko.

Political cartoon of Keiko by renowned cartoonist Carlin.

Keiko Fujimori will also advance to the second round, though I haven't met anyone who actually supports her. She is the daugther of previous president/ dictator Alberto Fujimori who is currently incarcerated for a long list of human rights violations during his dictatorship and reckless fight against Sendero Luminoso. The political cartoon to the left references the extensive corruption of her father's regime, and implies that she doesn't fall far from the tree. Although she is an eloquent speaker and boasts degrees from NYU and Boston, her claim to fame (and infamy) comes more from her father's legacy than her own. Surprisingly, many Peruvians support Alberto Fujimori because he effectively eliminated Sendero Luminoso; although at the cost of human rights violations and the loss of innocent lives.

Aforementioned PPKuy

Coming in third place (surging ahead of former president Alejandro Toledo at the last minute) was Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (PPK). PPK was easily the favored candidate among the urban elite and university students. He is an economic technocrat, having held executive positions in the World Bank and American bank. He also was the Economic Minister during his current presidential opponent Toledo's government. More controversially, he also has dual US-Peruvian citizenship, and his opponents have branded him as Mister Kuczynski or El Gringo. In the past, PPK has donated thousands of dollars to Republican candidates in the US, including former Pres. George Bush. That was the deal-breaker for me.

I'm glad that I didn't have to vote in the elections, because I don't know who I would vote for. I probably would have supported Toledo, the least polemic of the candidates. Or maybe I would have invalidated my ballot. Who knows. I'm glad I'll be able to vote for Obama next year.

Nevertheless, now Peru has to decide between Ollanta and Keiko- "AIDS and cancer." After the results of the first round of elections just a few hours ago, an atmosphere of fear and apprehension has begun to take over Lima (if not just the gazillion wall posts from my Peruvian friends on Facebook). Before the results of the elections, Peru was generally marked by an atmosphere of pride and optimism. The economy has been growing at impressing rates, and Peru has recently branded itself as a prime destination for eco- and gastro-tourism. I like to think that the Peruvian spirit is so strong that not even a bad president could change that. Viva Peru.