Archives for December 2017

We, as a country, are facing a reckoning. A wake up call. From Roy Moore to Louis C.K. to the President of the United States, prominent male celebrities and politicians are being accused of sexual assault at an alarming rate. Many of these men have been fired from their jobs as a result. While the country ponders how best to react to this phenomenon, we should be asking one question: what kind of culture allows this?

We live in a society where restrictive masculinity reigns supreme. Where the phrase ”be a man” is not meant to encourage young boys and men to express themselves in a healthy manner, but to fit a societal mold. This rigid definition of masculinity tells boys to strive for physical strength and dominance, sexual aggression, financial success, and to repress their emotions. The truth is that there is no one way to be a man. We all express our gender differently, and this restrictive definition is harmful to everyone in our society.

Restrictive masculinity is, first and foremost, harmful to men. The requirements of restrictive masculinity force men to repress their emotions and aspects of their personality in order to fit this facade. However, when men fail to satisfy these masculine requirements, or fall short when comparing themselves to other men, they often experience lowered self-confidence and inadequacy. Processing these feelings can be frustrating and upsetting, and this lowered self-esteem can lead to mental health issues. Men are almost four times more likely to commit suicide than women (https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/). This anger can also be expressed through outward physical and emotional violence toward others, sometimes as sexual assault against women.

Another crucial aspect to note is that restrictive masculinity enforces a gendered power dynamic in which men must be superior to people of other genders. In general, the man should hold a position of power. This means he should be the breadwinner of his household. In workplaces and industries where a toxic culture of masculinity prevails, this gendered power dynamic may excuse and even perpetuate sexually predatory behavior. Harvey Weinstein was at the top of a hierarchical industry, Hollywood, (https://newrepublic.com/article/145269/hollywoods-inequality-enabled-harvey-weinstein) and he used his power to harrass and assault women hopeful in kicking off their careers. Today, we’re seeing a shift. A shift from quietly allowing systemic sexual violence towards women to listening to survivors as they come forward with their stories. This is a step in the right direction, but how should we move forward if we want the problem to stop?

We need to do more than just tell men “Don’t rape.” Instead, we need to address the underlying culture that leads to men perpetrating sexual violence. I hope we will see this national conversation surrounding sexual assault lead to a conversation about how we raise our boys and the pressures we place on them to act certain ways. There is nothing inherently wrong with many of the traits we deem as “traditionally masculine,” like bravery, strength, intelligence, and taking care of others. But masculinity becomes harmful when we allow a strict definition to put men into boxes. Expanding this definition to allow men to feel comfortable showing compassion towards others, practicing self-love, and expressing their emotions in a healthy way will revolutionize our society. If we can first teach men to value their own emotional and mental health needs, only then can we expect them to respect the humanity of others.

Our country needs a culture shift. To an extent, we are witnessing a change in how we react to the stories of survivors. We are believing them more and taking action against their assaulters. But if we want to create a more peaceful society, we have to start talking to each other. Men, we need to start having conversations about what “being a man” is and isn’t. We need to acknowledge our culture’s link to perpetuating interpersonal violence, and we need to hold each other accountable. We must have these conversations with our male peers. We have to allow each other to be vulnerable and to fail. We have to allow each other to express our gender identity in whatever way we choose so long as it is healthy to ourselves and to others.

Learning how to be a responsible ally takes time. Starting a cultural shift takes even more time. But we have to start trying. It’s important that we, men, take responsibility for the ways our culture promotes violence. Only then can we hope to end sexual assault.

Last October, I had the immense privilege of seeing former Vice President Joe Biden at the fifth annual Tom Johnson Lectureship. Unsure of what he was going to discuss, I was surprised to find that most of his conversation was related to the harms of political polarization.

The beginning of his interview shadowed what we’ve learned in our Brumley class concerning the art of interviewing. It started very light, mostly around his childhood in Scranton, Pennsylvania and memories of his early years as a lawyer and politician. While I was impatient to hear more about his experience in the White House, I was surprised to find that this portion of the interview was pleasant to hear. Humanizing Biden made me realize that there are human qualities of politicians that we rarely consider.

For the remainder of the interview, Biden strikes this chord. He believes that one of the main causes of divide in America today is emboldened by politicians making personal attacks, equating personality with political motives. While it is easy enough to understand how politics complicated, filled with ulterior motives and actors, to what extent should I excuse politicians for problematic political behaviors? Is all political decision making strictly a part of the political game?

Obviously, these are difficult questions to ask. Knowing one’s intention is nearly impossible, which Biden understands. While he condemned personal attacks, he recognized that at the end of the day, even he is not fully aware of the intentions of his fellow colleagues. However, where does this leave us?

While I have absentmindedly commented that politics seem so divided nowadays, I did so with the assumption that politics was always divisive. However, upon hearing Biden’s past stories of bipartisan support made me think: Are we more divided than ever? And if we are, how, and should we, address it?

Sources show that political divide has widened in President Trump’s first year as President. Dr. Robb Willer, a professor at Stanford University, discusses in his TED Talk that political divide has seeped into our daily lives. No longer is polarization an issue when passing comprehensive legislation, but it is now affecting how we view ourselves, our peers, and our greater community. As a university student, I empathize with this point. While college is supposed to be a space of collaboration, diversity, and knowledge, I do believe that the Clinton-Trump election cycle sprung us into uncertain grounds. Friendships and relationships were broken over the election cycle. Being a ‘Clinton Supporter’ or ‘Trump Supporter’ somehow equated one’s personality, individualism, and character to a clump of political statements and campaign promises. While I have my own political views, I don’t think it is right to ignore one’s personality and individuality in favor of a political message. Quite honestly, I feel that it is an excuse not to take on the challenge of understanding others and facing difficult conversations. It’s easy to judge one another based off politics. But to sit down and have challenging conversations with those who don’t share your political views…that takes emotional and mental effort that should not be understated.

Undoubtedly, polarization should be addressed. Having a united country is logically more effective, stable, and enjoyable to live in than a divided one. I think the more crucial question is how we should approach this problem. Biden offered little advice in his interview. He believes that it is the younger generation’s duty to narrow the divide and to offer better communication to their political counterparts. While I think this is an optimistic viewpoint, it does not address the fact that the divide is widening across all boards. While I see political divide within my own generation, I also see it with older generations as well.

Willer’s Ted Talk offers another solution that keeps all generations accountable: moral reframing. He explains this through a series of studies and experiment that he conducted. He claims that that Liberals and Conservatives have underlying differences in values. To convince others of your own values is difficult, he shows. Further, to tell others that their values are wrong is just as difficult. Instead, moral reframing is to take into consideration others’ values when discussing an issue. This includes taking the time to understand where others stand in terms of their values and how we can craft conversations in phrases that speak to others’ values.

While Biden’s advice on polarization was lacking, the attention he brought to the issue is relevant in today’s time. His interview made me think about how I might polarize others due to their political views and how I can make active change to overcome this. It also made me wonder how we can collectively promote thoughtfulness when engaging in conversation with others that we don’t agree with politically.

 

 

I sat down with Dr. Stephanie Holmsten to discuss her career path, interests in public policy, and how she approaches policy issues.

Dr. Holmsten is a Lecturer of International Relations and Global Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research focuses on the election of ethnic minorities and women to national legislatures around the world, with attention to the role of electoral institutions. She received her MA in International Relations from American University and PhD in Government from the University of Texas at Austin.

---

Dr. Holmsten attended Wheaton College with a degree in political science. Her past experiences helped inspire her interest and pursuit in studying political science, specifically looking at institutions and political structures. While she grew up in Houston, she spent much of her time travelling to Mexico. Travelling to other countries, such as Europe and Israel, also helped open her eyes to how life for individuals is in different conditions.

These situations opened her see how certain political institutions can systematically marginalize certain individuals. Considering the perspectives of others, she realized that individuals have a different set of opportunities than other individuals that live in more inclusive and stable democratic systems.

Upon graduating Wheaton College, Holmsten decided to work as a National Campus Advocacy Organizer for Bread for the World, an advocacy group in Washington, DC. At Bread for the World, she educated advocacy leaders about US public policy related to poverty, domestic welfare programs, and low-income populations. Looking at how to mobilize money and the structure of foreign aid helped her understand policy.

When Holmsten worked at Bread for the World, her primary duties included mobilizing people. She had to represent Bread for the World’s message to people of different backgrounds and locations. To successfully do this, Holmsten had to understand her audience well. Understanding different perspectives, she believes, is important for policy research and outreach. She says, “(As an advocate) we always demanded bipartisan support. We had to think creatively about how our audience would receive the information, we had to consider political realities, what members would be willing to do…we had to think about what other people’s interests were.”

After working for Bread for the World for nearly seven years, Holmsten decided to further her studies in American University in International Relations, and later pursued a PhD in Government at UT-Austin. Holmsten’s shift towards academia was influenced by her motivation to become involved in long-term considerations in policy work. While she does admit that academic work might seem less realistic and more idealistic, she wanted to dive deep into questions of effectiveness, data, and long-term evidence. She wanted more creativity and freedom to pursue topics that weren’t necessarily constrained with a specific message.

However, Holmsten expressed deep appreciation for her experience as a mobilizer for an advocacy group. She believes that her previous work as a mobilizer has contributed greatly towards her work as an academic. She says, “I think having been an advocate and having to work across party lines, and as well as across the country, I think that the idea of honestly understanding the preferences, opinions, motivations of other people makes my research a little bit better…I’m less willing to set aside argument that I don’t understand.”

As a professor, Holmsten also finds that understanding different perspectives is an important lesson for her students to learn. She says, “I do find myself both in the classroom and in writing more attentive to the variety of opinions. And so, for example, in the classroom I urge students to take a real honest read of the scholarship that they disagree with.”

---

After speaking with Dr. Holmsten, I realized that policy can be addressed in many forms, whether that be in the non-profit sector or in academia. Our conversation also showed me the importance of understanding audiences and perspectives when writing or persuading others of your message. This is essential when crafting policy with others.

Relating back to my time with the Brumley Scholars, I have experienced firsthand how relevant Dr. Holmsten’s advice is. Much of what I have learned in the classroom has been inspired by my classmates, my ability to voice my opinions appropriately, and mutual respect and attention for each other’s voice. For example, when we wrote policy proposals in class, the feedback I received made my work more substantial. Through our discussions on policy, I now understand that collaboration and and having an open mind is necessary for good quality work.

Embracing perspectives can be difficult, but it is a tool that is essential for policy influencers to adopt.