Finding Balance In The Time Of Trump

 

By Tammy Severino

Over the past seventeen months, a whole host of changes have taken place in this nation. The changes are not just about a different party at the helm, they are about reversing course to a time in history when life was much more tenuous for women, people of color, the gay community, non-Christians – communities where are, and have always been, easy to be called ‘other’. For many, the current calls to “Make America Great Again’ are nothing short of a dog whistle to embolden those who ascribe to the ugliest times and sentiments in our nation’s history. Further, reversing course on the environment, creating trade wars [that will, ultimately, cause financial pain to those the tariffs claim to help], and other like policies/political actions are alienating our allies and isolating our nation on the world stage.

If we consider a math equation where ‘X’ is all of the above actions and ‘Y’ is the incessant tweeting of the current White House resident, along with the ability to access news 24/7 via an array of modalities, then the sum of these two equals a more extreme stress level than most people have ever before experienced.

Never before have I seen an election result in people ‘disowning’ friends or relatives, complete with unfriending of people on social media, avoiding social situations, or shutting down certain avenues (i.e. social media) altogether. These efforts to avoid friends, family or colleagues who disagree politically [or engage in non-stop discussion about political happenings] is an extreme the like of which has never before occurred in our nation’s history. But then again, 45 is a ‘leader’ unlike any who has ever held the highest office in the land. Personally, I have found myself alternating between absorbing everything I can read and complete avoidance of the news of the day. Both extremes, in truth, are unhealthy.

For many years the concept of work/life balance was all the rage. Working women are still in quest of the elusive perfect balance. I am of the belief that the concept is timely and fitting for what many – perhaps more than half the nation (if votes in the 2016 election are an indication) – are experiencing. In order to survive and thrive until the 2020 election takes place, it is important to find ways to manage stress during the time of Trump.

It is my opinion that all of the things we do to stay healthy – both physically and emotionally – are equally important during this patch of history. Eating well, being physical, getting enough sleep – all of the things your doctor would tell you to do regularly – are even more important right now. However, I have some tips for how to keep stress [related to the goings on of 45] in check. Please feel free to tap into any or all of them until you find the blend that works for you.

Yoga is my great go-to when I feel daily stress getting too intense. It is a great activity for people of any age and any fitness level. A good instructor will offer modified moves for those just beginning their practice, so you need not feel uncomfortable. However, if heading to a local yoga studio is outside your comfort zone, pick up a blue-ray and a mat for your practice at home. As you improve, you may add to your collection with varying routines designed for differing results (focus, relaxation, weight loss, etc.). You may even look for videos on YouTube or other video sights. Keep looking around until you find an instructor who works for you (tone of voice, pace, background music, etc.). When you know you have a stressful day ahead, try 30 minutes of yoga to help you maintain your composure and balance throughout the day. Or, conversely, use it to unwind after a particularly challenging experience. Other practices, including meditation and Reiki also offer the ability to less the stress dissipate and leave your body. You may elect to use one or all to find the right blend for you. A gym workout will help increase endorphins, channel energy and enhance your physical state. It is a different release than yoga or meditation but is definitely a positive to help you achieve a reduction in stress.

It is important to limit how much time you spend soaking up his activities and actions. While I do believe it is important to be educated and informed (which will limit stress caused by being uninformed), try limiting the amount of time you spend watching/listening/reading the news. Try a local channel for updates on news happening near your home versus all of the national activities. While in the car [or other mode of transportation], put on a playlist or favorite music station. Try to avoid keeping the news on all day. You may not be listening to him directly, but hours upon hours of talking heads and panels discussing his every move will be just as damaging. Listening to your favorite songs, books on tape, or other non-news entertainment will focus your mind on something more positive. In the same vein, head into your settings for ALL of your devices. Turn off the push notifications for all of your news outlets. There is no reason to get an update every time he orders another fast food burger and fries or angers yet another ally.

Try allocating regular time for something social with people who make you laugh. There are few things more beneficial for the soul than laughter. I think the friends with whom I am closest are those who can make me laugh – even on the gloomiest of days [you know who you are]. If need be, set a rule that there will be absolutely no political talk during your time together. You will find that the time will be spent discussing entertainment, books, family, sports, shopping, travel…all of the social things you have in common that brought you together as friends in the first place. If you happen to disagree politically, it may also save your friendship.

Take time for yourself. We don’t often spend time just being with ourselves. Sometimes it can be absolutely refreshing to go for a walk, a drive, a swim…whatever you like to do…all alone. It will allow you to think and, perhaps, think an issue weighing on you more clearly. If you are able, try not to think at all. Rather, just be in the moment. That is by far more challenging but will allow you to release more stress.

If none of these tips provide you with sufficient help – enough to feel in control of your anxiety levels during this time, please seek help. Finding the right professional can make all of the difference in your life. He/she will work with you to find ways to regain control and move forward in a positive manner. There is no shame in seeking help. In fact, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It is important to note that you are not alone. Following the election and inauguration of Trump, the American Psychology Association reported that, for the first time in over a decade, stress and anxiety levels among Americans had a marked increase. More than sixty-six percent of adults in the nation reported increased stress levels about the future and direction of our nation under his leadership. Those are remarkable levels. However, it is important to note that he has woken up many in the country who realize sitting on the sidelines is not a good plan of action. More women and people of color have registered to run for local, state and national elections than ever before. People who have never volunteered are getting involved. And, for those who are neither campaigning or volunteering, remember that your vote counts. Be heard and be counted. If you chose not to vote last time, please don’t make the same mistake in ’18 or in ’20.

Remember, the greatest thing the Founding Fathers did was create a system of checks and balances. We elect a President and in 2020 we will elect another. America is not just a place; it is an idea. That idea is not lost…it just took a wrong turn. So, don’t let your stress get out of control. Take steps to claim power in your own life and, if you see another who needs help in doing the same, be a friend and offer a hand. We are in this together.

______________

Tammy Severino is a writer, marketer, development consultant and professional seeker of knowledge. When not with her family – both the bipeds and quadrupeds – she spends her time reading, writing, drinking copious amounts of coffee, and exploring new ideas.

On Caster Semenya And The Sin of Womanly Exceptionalism

By Kimberly Congdon, PhD

The International Association of Athletics Federations are going after Caster Semenya again. Subjecting her to what I can only imagine was a gruesome and demeaning “sex verification test” wasn’t enough for them, they’ve now instituted some new rules on testosterone levels and competition. WHY? Oh, for so many reasons. Because we can’t allow women to be exceptional. Because gender exists to categorize people, and when people defy those categories, we punish them. And just as we punish men for failing to be manly enough, we punish women for failing to be womanly enough. Caster Semenya doesn’t fit the IAAF’s definition of  “woman”,  and so she must be punished for her sin. Here’s the thing, though: gender is a social construct. I know this, because people ask if my dog is male or female (sex), not if she’s a man or a woman (gender). It’s about how you feel, and what category society decides to force you in based on the way you choose to express how you feel. The list of items that designate a category have changed over time. In other words, the way we define “man” and “woman” have changed over the course of history. They also vary from culture to culture. But those changes are gradual, and rarely does a society recognize a non-binary definition of gender. So regardless of the nuance of an individual’s identity, society forces them to pick a box and conform to it as best they can. And when they do, they are stuck with ALL the other conditions in that box. Which, for women, means “don’t ever be too good at anything.”

We punish women for their exceptionalism all the time, and when we do, we tend to do it in terms that questions their “woman” credentials – we use language to either imply, or directly declare, that she’s not womanly enough. Women who are too smart, too ambitious, too accomplished – all of them are criticized for those traits. Women are denied the right to be exceptional at anything, because exceptionalism is for men alone. And now, with Caster Semenya, the partriarchy has found a whole new way to apply this form of oppression. Ms. Semenya runs too fast, she improved her own records too quickly, so she can’t possibly be a woman. That’s not an exaggeration of what happened – when her times in the 1500 and 800 meter races improved, the IAAF ordered she undergo a “sex verification test”, because 1. They equate sex and gender, and 2. A woman can’t be that good, so if she is that good, she must not be a woman. While, at the time, the tests failed to confirm she is not a woman, the IAAF attempted to suppress her exceptionalism by forcing her to take hormone suppressants. A legal challenge ultimately ended that, but they’re at it again. They have instituted revised restrictions on testosterone levels for specific races – the races she participates in (what a coincidence!). The idea of exceptional women offends these people SO MUCH that they will force an exceptional woman to deny her own exceptionalism to be allowed to be a woman. She must now take testosterone-suppressing drugs to compete, because the IAAF has decided her exceptionalism is linked to her testosterone levels, and that those levels are too high.

Consider the circular logic these people will accommodate to stop womanly exceptionalism. Ms. Semenya identifies as a woman, and based off whatever humiliating “sex verification test” she was forced to endure, can’t be identified as something other than female, but her testosterone levels are high. Both males and females have testosterone, and the amount varies within the sexes, but males typically have more, and testosterone is a big part of the male stereotype. But testosterone level is not a definition of sex (or gender, fyi). Caster runs like the WIND (good for her). She ran so fast, someone decided she can’t be a woman (because women can’t run that fast). So they tested her womanness by testing her sex (not the same thing). And they decided that her testosterone level (their definition of MANNESS as well as MALENESS) was too high, so even though they can’t prove she’s not a woman, she isn’t enough of a woman by their standards, so they’re forcing her to suppress her own biology, to fit their definition of womanness, which requires her be less great than she is. She can’t be a woman, because she’s too exceptional, but they can’t prove she isn’t a woman using the (already flawed) ways of equating sex and gender, so they pick something about her that they feel is anomalous, and use that to determine she’s not a woman – because she’s too good to be a woman, so she must not be.

So now, Caster Semenya has a choice – be a mediocre woman, or a mediocre man (because her times, while great for women runners, would put her near the bottom of the pack of men runners). There is a deep-seated hatred of women at the root of this treatment of Ms. Semenya. If you want to be a woman, you can’t be exceptional. That’s the statement the IAAF is making with this rule – women are not that good at anything, so if you are that good, you aren’t a woman, and if you want to be a woman, you have to stop being that good. This is what sexism looks like.

ICYMI:

http://bit.ly/2sdBbVF_LipstickRepublic

http://bit.ly/2s4vlGB_LipstickRepublic

http://bit.ly/2x79JhH_LipstickRepublic

______________

Dr. Congdon is an anthropologist, anatomist, scientist, feminist, activist, conservationist. When those things collide, she writes about it here. She wants you to vote, and stop littering.

A Letter To Barnard

By Rachael Severino

Dear Dean Hinkson,

I am writing to you today to explain why I will not be applying to Barnard College for my Bachelor’s degree this fall.

I would like to start by introducing myself. My name is Rachael. I am a sixteen-year-old Jewish young woman. I have been on the Dean’s List every year and I deeply care about school. My life-long passion lies in writing, and, had I attended your school, I would have majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing.

Recently, your students voted to take an incredibly anti-Israel stance, which I am sure you are well aware, as there has been quite a bit of backlash. Your school has remarkably strong ties to the Jewish community, evidenced by the fact that roughly 33% of the student population identifies as such. However, more than half the students have turned their back on their peers by campaigning, and subsequently voting, to sever ties with businesses which are pro-Israel.

I have read nothing but heartbroken responses from your students. Holding this vote on the eve of Israel’s Independence Day proves how tremendously disrespectful a portion of your students have become towards their Jewish peers. Students at your school seem to have tunnel vision with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as exhibited by setting up an anti-Israel booth only feet from the Holocaust Remembrance Day booth. Palestinian terrorist groups have a poor habit of abducting, torturing, and murdering Israelis and Jewish tourists, along with stoning anyone in reach of the border. Yet, your students remain blind.

Israel has created a powerful army, and an even more powerful intelligence and counter-terrorism agency, Mossad, to combat being sandwiched between states that hate Jews, who happen to be the indigenous people of Israel. Not becoming martyrs [like other native populations] doesn’t make Jews the villains in this story.

When is one Jewish life important? When stonings, bombings, and beheadings are a staple in everyday life, the Israeli government has the right to defend their people.

The Palestinians are not to blame, but the terrorists who reside among them are.

Those of the Muslim religion have suffered in America for a great deal of time. Having young people come to their aid and rally for a hate-free world is fantastic, but defending Palestinian terrorist groups is not the way to go.

Jewish women have stood arm in arm with their Muslim counterparts in the on-going civil rights battle. Both groups fully understand what it means to long for a safe place to worship, and America, despite being the self-proclaimed land of the free, has not been kind to those who wish to be free when their faith is not Christianity.

Jews know what it means to be without a safe place. They have had a single homeland for only seventy years, preceded by thousands of years displaced and homeless.

Neither the Muslim nor Jewish communities are to blame for this conflict; ignorant groups fueled by hate are.

Your students do not seem to understand the situation at hand and have let centuries of both latent and overt anti-Semitism blind them.

College is meant to be a safe environment – one where students gather information and take steps into their future. How can a Jewish student feel safe when more than half the other attendees are rallying against them and their faith?

Barnard has been hailed as a place of learning that creative, talented, and bright young women of all backgrounds can attend, to both join together and change the world. The women currently at your school are changing things, but not for the better.

Jewish women have suffered since their religion first came to be more than 5,000 years ago. Barnard has spent it’s one hundred and twenty-nine-year long history drawing these women in, providing them with a safe place to flourish; now, it is just another place that stands against them.

Liberal colleges have never been kind to the Jewish people, leaving them out of their activist revolutions and renaming them as the scapegoat. The ignorant who forget history are inclined to repeat it, as your students have so clearly done; yet your history department is renowned. How can this be? How can they be so blinded by hate, even now? It begs the question, what are they learning at your school?

How can the women of your school turn around and hate the most marginalized group to have ever been?

Barnard has taken the horrific role of leading the charge against Jewish-American students.

Your Jewish students have so much to offer your college and the world. Brilliant and talented Jewish women want to go to your school. There are, however, other colleges, with similar opportunities that offer a safer environment. As evidenced in Twitter posts and comments following the vote, many of the 33% of your school are considering their options, including transferring to schools that will not only protect them, but respect them. They are exhausted from constantly defending [out of necessity] who they are, particularly in a space that is supposed to accept and celebrate them as part of the diverse culture at Barnard.

I have wanted to attend your college since I was twelve years old; since I learned about Columbia, but then found Barnard and wanted to attend there even more. Barnard, the school Jewish women raved about and beamed at me for when I said it was my dream school. Barnard, the school my friends oohed and ahhed at. Barnard, the school I would have been proud to mention in my author’s letter on my first book. Barnard, the school I looked at online nearly every night. Barnard, the school that helped mold Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the first African- American women on New York’s highest court, Ann Bernays, a novelist, Katherine Boo, a journalist and recipient of the Pulitzer, Ann Brashaes, an author, Elise Clews Parsons, the “founding mother of anthropology”, Edwidge Danticat, an author, Helen Gahagan Douglas, the first Democrat women elected to the USA Congress, Delia Ephron, an author, playwright, and screenwriter, Muriel Fox, founder of NOW, Cristiana Garcia, a journalist and novelist, Greta Gerwig, an actress, screenwriter, and director, Mary Gordon, an author, and countless others.

Barnard, the school that I have removed from my college list.

Barnard, the school that has become yet another unsafe space.

Barnard, the school that could have been.

With great sadness,
Rachael

______________

Rachael Severino is a quirky eleventh grader, aspiring author, tiny feminist, and cat enthusiast.

Privilege Part 2: Internal vs External Effects

By Kimberly Congdon, PhD

Previously, I wrote a piece explaining privilege and intersectionality. This is just a brief follow-up. If you missed it, check here. From that, it should be clear the trouble that is created by privilege in modern western society. The focus of much of today’s activism is in dismantling the effect of privilege, through enacting protections for groups lacking those privileges, and through making us all aware of how privilege affects us. This has led to disagreement over the impact of privilege, who really has it, and how much it matters. In order to get past this argument, we have to understand how privilege impacts our lives. The truth is that privilege has TWO effects – an internal effect, and an external effect. Often when people disagree on the role of privilege, it’s because they aren’t talking about the same effect.

Let’s start with the external effect of privilege. This is when people, or a system, treat you differently because of your identity. It results in things like white people having an easier time getting mortgages than black people, wealthy kids being able to access educational support not available to poor kids, and cisgender people having an easier time getting hired than transgender people. These, ultimately, are examples of discrimination, which in some cases is illegal already, in other cases is not but should be, and in yet other cases, not reasonably dictated by law, but in need of changing through policy measures nonetheless. This differential access to resources, based off aspects of identity, is the core of the inherent inequality in our society. It’s what racism/sexism/homophobia/insert-bigotry-of-your-choice-here looks like. When people say things like “The system is racist!” this is what they’re talking about. So, the external effect of privilege is really important, because it helps to maintain the power imbalance, by giving more advantages to the people already benefitting the most from inequality.

With that said, the internal effect of privilege may actually be more insidious, and harder to eradicate. Because the internal effect is the belief that you actually deserve the benefits of privilege. It’s the internalization of a lifetime of advantage and deference that is actually just the result of your identity, incorporated instead as a sense of merit. You didn’t get that job because you’re white, you got it because you earned it. You didn’t get into Harvard because your parents went to Harvard, you got in because you deserved to. You didn’t ace the SAT because your parents could afford a tutor, you aced it because you’re just that smart. And so on. Dangerously, the internal effects of privilege are very good at blinding people to the external effects of privilege. Because in order to get people to recognize their privilege, they have to be willing to believe that, perhaps, they DIDN’T earn that promotion, they aren’t that smart, they aren’t that talented, they’re just privileged. That’s a very hard pill for almost anyone to swallow, so there’s no wonder they resist it. Especially in the US, where we’ve done such a great job selling the American Dream, convincing people that they’ve succeeded not on their merits, but on their race, gender, sexual identity or orientation, family status, etc, is bound to be an uphill battle. It can even be so insidious that people will fully recognize the existence of privilege IN GENERAL while refusing to recognize that they themselves benefitted from it. When people are resistant to recognizing their own privilege, they will be unable to ally with others and fight for their equality. Instead, they will interpret their sphere as one that’s unique in being merit-based, and disbelieve that others are disadvantaged because of their identity. These are people who will vote liberally, donate to charities, spend their time registering voters, and in their own workplace, not speak up when time and again, POC are passed over for promotion, gay co-workers face microaggressions not lobbed at straight co-workers, and disabled co-workers are seen as lazy, instead of lacking necessary accommodations. And just like all politics are local, so is all activism. If you aren’t an ally in your own backyard, you’re not really an ally anywhere.

If we do a sufficient job of eradicating the external effects of privilege, eventually the internal effects disappear. However, it’s unlikely we’ll have the power to do that without the support of people who have been brainwashed by the internal effects of privilege. Therefore, our first goal has to be developing techniques for making people aware of not just privilege in general, but the role of privilege in their own lives.

______________

Dr. Congdon is an anthropologist, anatomist, scientist, feminist, activist, conservationist. When those things collide, she writes about it here. She wants you to vote, and stop littering.

Understanding Privilege and Intersectionality: A Primer

By Kimberly Congdon, PhD

 

Privilege and intersectionality are two concepts that get tossed around a lot these days. “Privilege” can be a very contentious idea, and there has been a lot of pushback and denial that it even exists, let alone that it’s an important sociocultural force. “Intersectionality” on the other hand is the newest buzzword among allies. The problem is that a lot of so-called allies touting intersectionality are the same people arguing against the existence and power of privilege, and that’s a problem because – privilege and intersectionality are linked concepts. You can’t really understand one if you don’t understand the other. That also means you can’t be truly intersectional unless you understand and acknowledge privilege. So, here’s a primer, breaking the two down, and explaining how they link.

Intersectionality is the idea that each person’s identity is made up of multiple components. No one is just one thing. I am a woman, and white, and a liberal, and a scientist, and an academic, and single, and middle class, and an American citizen, and a native English speaker, and and and … If we think of life as made up of adjacent and overlapping spheres, then each element composing our identity affects our ability to move in those spheres. Spheres come in all types. Your work environment is a sphere. The bar you go to for Friday Happy Hour is a sphere. The subway car is a sphere. The Internet is a sphere. Each sphere has a power structure, and where you fit in that power structure dictates the ease with which you move through that sphere. The various aspects of your identity determine where you fit into each power structure controlling each sphere. Access to that power structure is a privilege.

Privilege is the positive consequence inherently associated with specific elements of an identity. Depending on the sphere, certain privileges may be worth more than they are in other spheres. If a privilege is associated with a certain identity, and you have that identity, you have that privilege. It doesn’t matter if you feel it, or if you’ve ever recognized the effect, because privilege comes from how others treat you, and that relies on how THEY see you, not how you see yourself (more on this another day). Privilege comes in two types – those that are innate, and those you can acquire. For innate privilege, we’re talking about issues like race, sex, gender, sexual orientation and citizenship. Acquired privileges are things like education, wealth and residency (although you can be born into some of those, too). Having innate privileges can make it easier to get acquired privileges. Changing circumstances can eliminate acquired privileges, but never innate privileges. And lacking one type of privilege does not necessarily eliminate the effects of the other kinds. For example, growing up in poverty doesn’t eliminate any racial privilege you may have, it just means you lack economic/class privilege. Since some spheres are controlled by a power structure based on race, and others are controlled by a power structure based on class or wealth, you still have privilege in the race-based spheres, regardless of how you’re treated in the wealth-based spheres.

Who has the most privilege? Rich, straight, cis, white men will always have the most power, in any sphere. After that, generally speaking, white people have more privilege than non-white people. But the problem is that people think this is an adding game. It isn’t. It’s about spheres of influence, unfair power differentials, and using our privilege to elevate those who lack it. Spheres overlap more often than they stack. A white woman will have more privilege than a black man in spheres where race is more important, and less privilege in spheres where gender is more important. (This may seem complicated, but it’s still a simplified view. The idea of spheres I’ve presented is much more discrete than the reality. In reality, no matter the sphere – race ALWAYS matters, gender ALWAYS matters, sexual orientation ALWAYS matters – it’s really more about proportions than absolutes. And because of the variable nature of humans, things can vary. Not all work spheres are created equal. In some jobs, gender carries more power than race, and in others, it’s the opposite. So you can’t really ever take your personal experience and judge the validity of the claims of others based on whether or not it matches yours. Keep that in mind when you encounter people who state they’ve experienced biases you’re unfamiliar with.)

What this all means is that no two people who share one identity have experienced that identity in the same way. It means that what my experience of womanhood has been is not the same as the experience of womanhood of a black woman because my experience of womanhood has been modified by my whiteness, while hers has been modified by her blackness. However, her experience is not necessarily identical to that of another black woman, either, because one may be an American citizen and the other may not be, or one my straight while the other is gay ….. see how it starts to get complicated? This complexity matters, and treating it like it matters is called “being intersectional”. The REASON it matters is that those individuals who lack power in a sphere also lack visibility. When we identify figureheads for identities, we tend to choose those who are visible. Therefore, when we talk about “feminism”, we’re probably talking about white feminism, when we talk about what women need to be equal, we’re probably talking about what WHITE women need – because they’re the ones we see. They’re the ones with the visibility, and they get inserted into the default setting. But when we do that, and we address the issues of white women under the false notion that we are in fact helping ALL women, all we do is increase the gap between white women and non-white women (or cis women and trans women, or straight women and gay women, etc). We have to recognize the least visible and acknowledge that their needs, while different, are just as important. And THAT is being “intersectional” – it’s recognizing the diverse needs of people who share one identity that is the result of the fact that they have other identities that they don’t share with you.

I also want to take a minute to be clear – this is not just about race. Too often, people dissolve “intersectionality” down to an issue of race. That is specifically problematic in intersectional feminism, when it gets treated as meaning “women of color have it worse than white women”. That’s true, but that’s not the be-all, end-all of intersectionality. Intersectionality isn’t just about race. It’s about gender, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, economic status, citizenship…ALL identities can be served by an intersectional approach to activism, not just racial ones.

So, recognize what privileges you have, recognize what spheres in which you have power, and start using that power to elevate the voices of those trying to exist in that sphere without the advantage of the privilege. That’s really the only way we save everyone – by elevating those with the least power – by being intersectional.

______________

Dr. Congdon is an anthropologist, anatomist, scientist, feminist, activist, conservationist. When those things collide, she writes about it here. She wants you to vote, and stop littering.

Save The Children

In its persistent quest for justice and to champion ALL women everywhere, Lipstick Republic is proud to announce a new contributor to our site. Rachael Severino is a sixteen-year-old high school student who will lend her voice to our mission. We hope you enjoy this first of many Op-ed pieces by her below.
By Rachael Severino

Continue reading “Save The Children”

A Modest Proposal To Eliminate Gun Violence (Hint: It Has Nothing To Do With the Size of Your Weapon or How Quickly You Discharge It)

By Judi Zirin

It would be surprisingly easy to limit gun violence in the US. There is one particular group that should be precluded from owning guns. This is a group that has been shown, consistently and statistically, to both be more violent and have more guns, so it makes sense they should have their access to firearms appropriately limited. They are most likely to engage in violent criminal behavior, most likely to both own guns and to misuse them, most likely to kill for sport, and most likely to keep their guns stored close by, locked and loaded.

Continue reading “A Modest Proposal To Eliminate Gun Violence (Hint: It Has Nothing To Do With the Size of Your Weapon or How Quickly You Discharge It)”