Skip to main content

Protesting Privilege in the Name of Equality

While protests may be fairly common, there's been a significant uptick in them since Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20th. From the Women's March on Washington to chants of "No ban! No wall!" and beyond, Donald Trump's presidency has attracted protesters like Tom Brady attracts deflated balls. Since the inception of these protests, I've heard conservatives ask countless times, "What's the point? What are they protesting against? Where were these protests when Obama was elected? What do they have to complain about?" Well, allow me to answer those questions...

What all these protests have in common is a fight for equality, which many conservatives have falsely branded as a fight for socialism. The majority of conservatives I've spoken to who have derided the protests as pointless and counterproductive are white, male, straight, and Christian. I, myself, happen to be white, male, straight, and was born and raised in a Christian household. What do these Trump supporters and myself have in common? We've been provided a certain privilege which other groups of people haven't been afforded. Some of us have falsely equated this privilege with normal life and have incorrectly claimed that the attainment of additional rights by other demographics strips us of our own. What we fail to accomplish with this mentality is any sense of empathy, or worse yet, any cognizance or willingness to empathize. We then play off this ignorance as those different from us being whiny and lazy, when it's a certain fear and insecurity which prompts many straight white Christian men to feel such things. However, while denial can prove temporarily effective in an individual's mental blockage of certain events or ideas, it can't ultimately deny the truth. Not only have these widespread protests been a fight for equality, they've been a fight for empathy and truth.

Many United States citizens, especially those on the right side of the aisle, often like to brand America as the greatest, freest, most democratic country in the world, as being accurately depicted in our national anthem as the, "Land of the free, home of the brave." Ironically, many of these same individuals, who will also refer to themselves as Constitutionalists, seem to believe this absolute freedom should only be applied to those like them. According to them, while a man may force himself upon a woman and impregnate her, that woman shouldn't have the right to end her pregnancy. While Christians should be allowed to build churches wherever they'd like and worship however they so please, Muslims shouldn't be permitted to build mosques in many of these areas and should be surveilled rather closely in their places of worship. Men and women should be able to marry and divorce one another as often as they'd like, but same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry even once. While none of us would be here without immigration, we should still build a wall along our southern border and ban refugees from seven countries. Yes, according to them, the freedoms of speech and religion should only apply to their circles.

The reason so many have protested the rise of Donald Trump is because the man's campaign and his presence in the White House is an affront to equality, empathy, and truth. Why did millions of women feel the need to march on Washington during inauguration weekend? Donald Trump has a long history of sexist behavior and rhetoric. The man has been married three times, cheated on all three of his wives, was alleged to have sexually assaulted at least 20 women, was caught describing sexual assault in a leaked Access Hollywood video, faced a lawsuit for raping a 13-year-old girl, made rather disturbing comments to Miss Teen USA contestants, used his power and authority to walk in on beauty pageant contestants in the dressing room, and throughout his years, has showcased that he sees women as good for one thing and one thing only - looking good. From a legislative standpoint, the man has said he thinks women should be punished for having abortions, called pregnant employees an "inconvenience," and has yet to speak out about pay inequalities, maternity leave, contraception coverage in employer-based healthcare plans, etc. When Donald Trump won the election, millions of women around the country felt violated. For months, they saw a man bully a woman on the national stage and get away with it because he was "just being a guy," while his female opponent got scrutinized for every minute detail, from a slight exaggeration in numbers to her choice of clothing. A dishonest, disloyal, abusive man got away with pushing around a woman, and any time she tried to push back, she was met with criticism. For all the progressions women have made through the years, election day made millions feel as though they were sent back to the 1950s, like they were without a voice, without rights, without supporters, without a country. So after the post-election grieve, these women decided they'd come too far to let these progressions go by the wayside, stood proudly together, and let it be known loud and clear if Donald Trump wanted to continue getting away with grabbing women's pussies, he'd have fight through them first.

Millions from around the world have also stood up in opposition to Donald Trump's immigration executive order which temporarily barred travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. Why? Because we already have a stringent vetting process in place. Because many of us have friends or family who are Muslim or reside in a foreign nation. Because none of us would be here without the concept of immigration. Because we believe in the Constitution and the American dream for all, not just a select few.

What is "the land of the free" if it isn't applied across all demographics? Gay and lesbian couples being granted the right to marry isn't privilege, it's equality. Straight couples weren't stripped of their right to marry due to this Supreme Court decision; they simply saw their privilege downgraded to equality, which it should have been in the first place. Muslims being able to freely practice Islam isn't privilege, it's equality. Women being paid the same as men isn't privilege, it's equality. Viewing blacks the same as whites in the eyes of the law isn't privilege, it's equality. If just one person isn't granted equal rights under the law, what does that say about our country, the supposed "land of the free"? What does it say when we willingly skate through life with certain undeniable privileges, all the while not speaking up or fighting for equal rights of those around us? What will it take for more to empathize, or at least try to empathize with those different from us? Millions have marched for women, immigrants, LGBTs, Muslims, etc. because we believe in the idealistic vision of America. We believe one's gender, race, orientation, or creed shouldn't be relevant in the eyes of the law. We believe, like our ancestors did before us, law-abiding individuals should have the right to provide a better life for their families. As a man, I will forever fight for women's rights. Though I'm white, I will always fight for the rights of other races. I may be straight, but I will continue to fight for the rights of the LGBT community. While I may be nonreligious, I will forever fight for the rights of the religious, regardless of their affiliation, for if anyone is without freedom in this country, who's to say any of us are free? For anyone who wants to question or criticize the post-inauguration protests, that's your right, but just remember, that right you've often taken for granted millions of others are still fighting to achieve.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"