Thursday, August 15, 2013

Experiencing Feminism as a WOC: A Response to the Twitter Battle

When Jerin asked me to put together some thoughts about the Twitter fight that had erupted over the coverage/non-coverage of a feminist event, and how this inflamed a dichotomy within our ranks between feminists who are and are not WOC, I have to say that I had a bit of a time getting my thoughts together, mostly because there is so much, and also so little to say on the matter.

I also had some concerns that I would be attacked for what I say. 

Bring it on. 

The problem can be summarized thusly:

Can white feminists ever be able to understand the experience of WOC feminists?
No.  Don’t even argue.

Do women of color experience feminism differently than white women?

Do women of color care about different care about different issues than white women?

Should they?

Has this argument gone completely off the rails?
Yes.  Right now there are Republicans, conservatives, and all manner of anti-women groups—both overt and covert—that are giddy over this internal battle.  We’re more concerned that we are policing the conversation than we are about the conversation itself.  We are too busy replying to a tweet before we think about what we want to say.

Here’s my answer:

We all care about the exact same things, but we lack the perspective to realize that all of these issues are intricately interrelated.  My suggestion is that we STFU and CTFD, and let’s draw some parallels.  Bickering only makes us look disorganized, and it is this fracturing that has failed us EACH AND EVERY TIME. We need to discuss the inequalities within the movement, and it is imperative that we find a way to do this in such a way that it includes both older and young feminists alike.   A recent article by Robert Reich discusses these differences in greater detail.  One July 24th, 2013, he writes in the Huffington Post that:
“People who respect authority, follow orders, want clear answers, obey commands, and prefer precise organization and control, tend to gravitate toward Republicans. On the other hand, people who don't much like authority, recoil from orders, don't believe in clear answers, often disobey commands, and prefer things a bit undefined, tend to gravitate to the Democrats. In short, the Republican Party is the party of the authoritarian personality; the Democratic Party is the party of the anti-authoritarian personality (Reich 2013).”

It is no different for feminists. As women, we are second class citizens.  This fact is inarguable, regardless of how you might feel about yourself.  However, in grouping all women into the category of “women”, we neglect the many nuances of experience that age, upbringing, culture, schooling, economics, politics, health, personal experiences of freedom, religion, citizenship, workplace, family, and life bring to the conversation when we try to define feminism.  Feminism is all of these things, and none of these things. 

There is no clear answer to what we stand for because the issues are varied.  Previous attempts have angered one faction or another.  This is our fault, and we need to take ownership of that responsibility.   We have left Feminism undefined (and I do not mean that there is no mission statement on the NOW websites—there is) in an attempt to be inclusive to all.  While this is noble, it is also fraught with pitfalls.  How can someone identify with a movement that cannot clearly identify itself amongst itself?  We also need to fix it, and fix ourselves—in part by becoming less sensitive to comments (so we can respond calmly and not like the buffoons on TV to someone ignorant—though innocent—question), but also because feminism is constantly ADDING to its definition.  We do not EVOLVE or CHANGE the definition, as I fear some younger feminists seem to think. 

For example, a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body is NOT less significant just because the issue began to receive public notice over 40 years ago, but it might not be chief among the concerns of all feminists.  That’s completely acceptable.  The persecution of women in the foreign countries is appalling, but for some feminists the issue of reproductive choice, Social Security, Medicare, and Voting Rights is of a greater concern.  This is also fine.  In fact, I fail to see the issue that has been raised at all—and over lack of media coverage.

Let me share a personal story, so that I can give everyone a bit of background about myself.

I am both Spanish and Italian.  This makes me both Hispanic  and Caucasian.  I fail to see how the differentiation is made, but no matter.  I have been reminded—constantly and with prejudice of what I am and am not.  This is in part because to look at me, anyone would see a white person (unless you have family members of Spanish descent).  I mention in part because my education level (Ph.D. candidate in the sciences), family situation (married for 10 years, no kids, going to be 38 soon), and job level/income (I work as an engineer by day, and I teach dance in the evenings) also tend to throw into flux a casual observers snap judgment.
Why is this important?  I’ve been reminded—rudely—by other Hispanics that I am not Hispanic if I am from Spain (not true technically, but hey I don’t have to hang out with haters).  I’ve also been reminded by whites that I am not actually white, usually like this:

Me:  Hi, I’m [insert Hispanic sounding name replete with accent}
Them: Oh.  Where are you from? [Not even a Hello, mind you]
Me:  Huntington
Them:  I mean where were you born? [That takes some nerve…]
Me: New York
Them: No I mean are you from this country [yes and I’m a citizen and pay taxes and I managed to finish high school without getting pregnant too.  Funny considering I’m Hispanic, huh?]

I’m not saying that my experience of life is typical, nor that it should be held up as an example.  What I am saying is this:

Does there exist a thinly-veiled racism amongst whites towards persons of color?
Heck yeah. 

Is it as prevalent today as it was decades ago?
Yes.  I don’t see where we’ve made much progress (more on this later).

Will white people try to deny it and say that racism is no longer an issue.
Yes.  They’ve never experienced the legacy of hate.  They can’t understand.

Are persons of color also racist?
Heck yeah.

Is it as prevalent today as it was decades ago?
Yes.  Let’s own our faults.

Will persons of color try to deny that they are racist, or try to justify their racism by saying that it is a response to racism that they have experienced at the hands of white?

How do I know all of this?  Because when I am in a room with all white people, they will make racist comments until they learn that I am not “white”.  Likewise, when I am around other Hispanics, and reveal that I am also Hispanic, there exist a tendency to bash white people (this should not be news.  We have all seen every flavor of comedian explore this).  What’s my point?


It’s not hard to draw the parallels between my personal experiences of how whites and persons of color perceive racism, and how different parties within NOW perceive feminism.  What we are forgetting is that we are essentially the same, but are quibbling over the semantics so much—trying to carve out a niche for ourselves, or perhaps to establish our own unique stamp on a movement—that we are failing women. 

Let’s not deny the truth.  The chief reason that so much progress that we have gained over the past 40+ years is currently being rolled back is because we were lazy.  We wanted to believe we were safe, and that the issues we had fought were settled.  Yeah, right.  Just like racism was settled all those years ago, right?  Perhaps we were so exhausted from the fight that we wanted to believe that certain issues were “handled.”  Wrong.  My advice is for us to face our failure, and now redouble our efforts, taking a page from the incredibly efficient and well-organized Republicans to get our house in order. 

Why do I say that?  Let’s take an issue such as violence against women.  Does it matter if it occurs to Christian women in the US or Muslim women in Afghanistan or undocumented workers in an ICE holding cell or on a Federal Indian reservation? How about reproductive choice?  Can anyone honestly say that an undocumented worker in the United States doesn’t care about being able to be afforded the right to choose whether to start a family, and a white middle class woman does?  What about the economy?  Are we saying that feminists are so concerned over trans-vaginal ultrasounds and which politician is trivializing rape that we fail to see that Congress has made multiple attempts to defund health care, infrastructure, education, and attempted destroy Social Security and Medicare?  Has anyone wondered where our right to vote has gone and why?

All of our issues are intricately interrelated.  Let me give you a summary of my master’s thesis:

Disenfranchisement of the poorest amongst us (minorities, students, elderly—who tend to vote more liberally) means that we lose our voice in our legislative bodies.  This results not only in gerrymandering of a district, which further restricts representation, but also in laws that do not reflect the will of the people.  Isolation within districts causes cognitive dissonance in our representatives, who then vote according to how they feel because they feel safe within their districts.  On the national level, this can have significant consequences, which in turn affect the states as well as specific districts.  The trend towards party-line voting, with no significant bipartisan support of any legislation to date, creates controversial issues out of things which once were not.

In the cognitive dissonant mind, education is now seen as an “entitlement” so young people should feel proud to take out crushing amounts of loans and ashamed of themselves if they cannot pay it back. Infrastructure is a luxury we cannot afford to upkeep, not even when a hurricane destroys several states, unless we cut funding to Social Security.  Paying back interest on our debts is held hostage until such time as healthcare reform is repealed, since socialist usurpation of government.  Gun control is a fascist control of freedom. Voter fraud is something that actually exists.   Block grants should more than pay for an elderly person to afford private health care on their reduced Social Security income, as long as the elderly get part time jobs in the underpaid and non-union service industry of their choice.  Women are sluts simply for pursuing higher education and stepping out into the workforce when they should be focused on raising a family, and they should be satisfied with making 77/100 cents and grateful that they were not raped in the parking lot since access to abortion and contraception is slowly diminishing, and the police won’t believe they weren’t asking for it even if the perpetrator posts a video of the attack on YouTube.  As for immigrants, you are all terrorists.

There is not one word of this summary that does not apply to everyone woman in the US.  I am sure that I have missed more than a few issues (like that dichotomy between young and old feminists), but if we approach our cause with a spirit of integration, rather than isolating ourselves to only a few causes, we should be able to attract many more voices to our cause.  Let’s not waste time with twitter fights over misunderstandings.  Let’s go do something much more important—resurrect the rights we have lost for the next generation of young feminists to not appreciate it but benefit greatly from it.  That would make me a happy woman indeed

Sources Cited

Reich, R. 2013.  Why Republicans Are Disciplined and Democrats Aren't.  Retrieved on August 15, 2013, from

Friday, November 9, 2012

Ohio 'Heartbeat Bill' Is Revived In State Legislature

Here's a rant for you:  Are your FREAKING KIDDING ME?  Who/what/why were these people elected or re-elected in Ohio?  

Someone forgot that NO MEANS NO.  I'm guessing it was the male constituency of the Ohio state legislature, but I've seen some whoppers come from female politicians as well...
Just two days after a majority of Ohio voters indicated at the polls that they support abortion rights, the GOP-controlled Ohio state legislature announced plans to reconsider a controversial bill that would ban all abortions after the fetal heartbeat is detected, without exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother. Read Laura Basset on Huffington Post

Calling All Feminists: Stop being grateful that we have elected Democrats


We need to be quite a bit more vigilant as to who gets elected to office.  The most current example, but unfortunately not the only example, is the Indiana Senate race between Mourdock and Connelly.  Let me quote an article by Ann Friedman:
Mourdock’s opponent, Democrat Joe Donnelly, also believes “life begins at conception” and opposes abortion except for cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the mother. Last year, he co-sponsored HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, that would have banned abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges. Maybe he didn’t make a stupid comment about divinely inspired pregnancies as a result of rape, but he does cite his faith as a reason he opposes women’s right to choose. NARAL gives him a score of only 20 percent. He voted twice to block Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funding. (
Call them Conservadems, call them Blue Dogs, it all reads the same:  These democrats are socially conservative, and just like their Republican counterparts, are putting PRIVATE morality above PUBLIC morality.  Women, and likewise men, do not need government to tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies--regardless of whether we are talking about abortion or birth control.  But ladies WE ARE AT FAULT FOR BEING LOW INFORMATION VOTERS if we allow someone like Connelly to win (which is the case in Indianna, unfortunately).  I can understand voting for the "lesser of two evils," but consider this--when he writes, sponsors, and votes for legislation that restricts our right to legal medical care, how can we be shocked if we allowed this person to be elected to office?  

My plea is simply this:  We allowed our vigilance to fail, hence why we are fighting this fight again after 40+ years.  We did not find a candidate to run against him in the Democratic Primary to defeat him.  We will also pay the price for this lack of vigilance for the next 6 years, because he will not soften his position. He will not compromise.  We have for far too long.  

I suggest we mount a grassroots campaign in all states, starting with Indiana, making transparent exactly how our newly elected officials have voted.  Let's circulate a PETITION TO DENOUNCE ALL DEMOCRATS THAT DO NOT SUPPORT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.  We can, and should thereafter, submit a petition to both chambers to DEMAND THE FOCUS OF CONGRESS BE ON THE PUBLIC MORALITY (i.e regulating Wall Street, removing the payroll cap on Social Security, campaign finance reform, ending the Bush Tax Cuts, etc.). We owe it to ourselves, and to future generations (whether they will appreciate it or not) to make highly informed choices. 

Friday, April 27, 2012

March Because "Equal Enough" for Women Is Unacceptable
American women need to be recognized as full citizens. Yes, women in this country. It's me again, sitting in my office, by myself, saying that "equal enough" is NOT. But, I am not alone.
Tomorrow, Saturday, April 28th, thousands of women and men will participate in 53 marches and rallies for women's rights in 45 states and the District of Columbia. These events are part of UNITEWOMEN.ORG movement against the War on Women. In truth, I don't care what the sustained legislative assault on women's rights by the Republican party is called. Nor do I care, actually, for the Unitewomen moniker, because although I am happy for anything that offsets a cultural preference to portray women as enemies, I believe that men and women who understand the importance and benefits of equality must work together. However, I agree wholeheartedly with UNITEWOMEN.ORG's goals and intent. If you are not joining them, you should ask yourself why and consider doing it.

Why should you march?

Because women's and girls' fundamental rights, to privacy, to life, to bodily integrity, to chose when to plan their reproduction are being violated.

Because women can't afford to nor should be forced to live their lives according to rules that assume they are dependent on men.

Because women and girls should not be punished, denigrated and publicly humiliated for speaking civilly and intelligently in their own interest or making their own choices.

Because boys and girls should be taught what equality, not entitlement, means.

Without fail, when I talk to people about gender inequality in the United States, someone inevitably says some variation of this: "Compared to other women, women here are equal enough." First of all, women are not in competition with other women for safety from violence and freedom. Second, this type of comparison, with its echo of threat, is an unacceptable and irrelevant framework for considering citizenship and protection under the law. Women are citizens and should have the full rights and privileges of citizens.
We should. But we don't.

If you are uncertain about what I am saying and think I am exaggerating the harm, consider the effect of one distillation of events: the degree to which the conservative "political" agenda requires that all women, regardless of color, faith, economic status or sexual preference, seek men's review and approval before acting. (Those factors, race, economic status, sexual preference magnify the effect.) "Informed consent, " "permission slips," wage policies determined because "money may be more important to men," "man-up finances," women's health care being determined by all-male religious leaders and congressional panels, refusal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act because of homophobia (and racism). On and on and one: every time the baseline requirement for women to exercise their rights and live freely is the intervention and approval of men. This is not just unfair to girls and women, but imposes unreasonable responsibilities and pressures on boys and men.

Even the phrasing of hot button issues -- "Mommy Wars" and "Slutgate" -- are coded conversations that define women, their health, their choices and their incomes primarily in terms of their relationships to men. Those frameworks are unacceptable. These attempts to legislate the subordination of women are not just distasteful and embarrassing but designed ultimately to humiliate women and keep them in their place.

TO BE CLEAR: This is not a man-bashing exercise. I do not hate men. I hate inequality and oppression. This is about men and women being mutually central as humans and, together, fighting systematized biases against girls' and women's full engagement with the world.

All over the world women seek equality. Men and women, who understand this, fight against everything from subtle, cultural sexism to extreme and violent gendered oppression. Here, in the US, many people really do think women are "equal enough." I am told we should "consider ourselves lucky." I am not going to compare oppressions. Nor am I in any way dismissing the dehumanizing and life-crushing hatred that women face in too many places on the planet. But, because others are violently deprived of rights and life does not mean that we should be content with circumscribed rights and lives. Women should not have to be thankful for hard-won rights, be penalized for seeking to live better lives or have to settle for "enough" when it comes to equality. In theory, we are citizens with full rights.

Republicans would have you believe that the word "war" is not a valid way to describe the assault on women's rights represented by the hundreds of bills (916 since January 2012 alone) and laws they've pursued or enacted during the past two years. This attitude is unsurprising. What is surprising to me however, is the degree to which these assaults reveal the Republican abandonment, when it comes to women, of three core beliefs of their own party, namely:

• Our country was founded on the fundamental principle that individuals have rights and freedoms
• Government intervention into the lives of private citizens should be limited
• Traditional values and freedoms of the American Republic should be reaffirmed

Either they are betraying their belief in, for example, individual rights and limited government or they are demonstrating that they don't believe women are genuinely included in the definition of individual citizens with full rights and privileges. Time and again, women and their rights are made marginal and secondary to almost everything else and debated away as a matter of expedience.

You should march because this is unacceptable.

It is evident that conservatives do not believe women can be trusted to think for themselves and make their own decisions... about when to become parents, money, faith.. nothing. Instead, in almost every sphere of life, their agenda is designed to keep women dependent on the good graces of men and competing for the resources that men have traditionally provided and keep them vulnerable in the process. That belief seems largely derived from Complementarianism, a worldview of gender roles as different but complementary, in which there are requirements made of men (as heads of households and public life) and restrictions placed on women, who are essentially limited to childrearing. It is one thing for people to chose this model privately, but it should not be enshrined in law, imposed on everyone and enforced judicially and legislatively to undermine equality and freedom. Yet, like a slow moving train wreck, that's what is happening.

As I said, it isn't about individual men and their relative goodness. It's about systematized bias, gender hierarchies and how power, responsibilities and rights are distributed. And, also for the record, before anti-feminist trolls come out of the commenting woodwork, I believe women should fight in combat in military wars. And, yes, I know, these systems are supported by both men and women. That's how Complementarianism works. It's a primary vector for ambivalent and paternalistic sexism's cultural sanction and enforcement by women.

Writer Erin Solaro put it this way in a commentary on women and war and freedom:
"At the core of citizenship is the idea that the citizen's body is hers and hers alone, regardless of sexual history, marital status or childbearing... The full citizenship of women is not just about the right to hold credit cards, buy real estate in our own names, have access to abortion and birth control and lead openly lesbian lives in which marriages and adoptions are legally recognized. These things are important in themselves -- terribly so, to the point of sometimes being matters of life and death -- but what they represent is vastly more important. They are part of a woman's citizenship and freedom, the right of a woman to fully inhabit her own life and participate fully in the life of the polity (in this case the American Republic) as a public and private equal."
You should march because women have yet to be recognized as full citizens, with agency in both the private and public spheres.
Follow Soraya Chemaly on Twitter:

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Stop the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from using pro-choice donations to support anti-choice candidates.

Take action!
Clicking here will automatically add your name to this petition to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:
"It is hypocritical for the DCCC to fundraise off of anti-choice assaults on women's health like H.R. 358 when three of your fifteen featured 'Frontline Candidates' voted for HR 358, the 'Let Women Die' bill. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women's health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who want to let women die."
Automatically add your name:
Take action now!

Learn more about this campaign

CREDO Action | more than a network, a movement.

Stop the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from using pro-choice donations to support anti-choice candidates.

Dear Friend,

The House of Representatives voted to let women die by passing a bill that would make it legal for hospitals to refuse to perform a life-saving abortion on a woman as an emergency procedure.

In response to that vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to donate to help protect the health of women.

But three out of fifteen of the DCCC's top candidates who would receive that money voted to let women die.1

Tell the DCCC: You can't have it both ways. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women's health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who vote to let women die. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

It is shameful that the DCCC is using these horrible attacks on women's lives as a chance to fill their own coffers with the money of supporters who are genuinely angry about the war extremists in Congress are waging against women.

Not only is it hypocritical for the DCCC not to mention that the money raised for their women's health fund will be going directly to three anti-choice candidates, but it is simply wrong that they are funding candidates who are so anti-choice that they voted for a bill that would let women die in a hospital without any intervention.

The DCCC's two-faced messaging must stop. If they care about protecting women's health, then they need to stop funding extreme anti-choice candidates — and if they want to fund those anti-woman candidates, then they need to stop running fundraising campaigns that use attacks on women's health to solicit contributions from pro-choice activists.

Tell the DCCC: You can't have it both ways. Either stop fundraising off attacks on women's health or stop fundraising for anti-choice Democrats who want to let women die. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

Thank you for speaking out against hypocrisy at the DCCC and working to defend women's rights.

Ali Rozell, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

1. The three DCCC frontline candidates who voted for the 'let women die' bill are: Reps. Mark S. Critz, Mike McIntyre, and Jim Matheson. You can see a list of all Democrats who voted for H.R. 358 here.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Facebook pages that shouldn't exist

Facebook says that hate speech and incitements to violence are banned and will be removed from their site. So why are they maintaining a page called "Riding Your Girlfriend Softly Cause You Don't Want to Wake Her Up"? And another page about "throwing bricks at sluts" that includes a photo gallery of portraits asking "Bang or Brick"?

There has even been an organized effort to use Facebook’s own reporting system to flag these and other pages that encourage rape and violence against women so they’ll be taken down. But Facebook hasn’t done a thing.

Now, member John Raines is going straight to the top. He started a petition on telling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to take down these pages and take a stronger stand against violence against women.

Will you sign John’s petition to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg? Sign on, and tell Facebook to remove pages promoting rape and violence against women now.

When 1 in 3 American women will be sexually abused and/or assaulted in her lifetime, pages like these -- and the reactions they elicit -- are downright scary. Tens of thousands of people have "liked" these pages. Some people even use them as platforms to share rape fantasies and receive explicit tactics for how to carry them out.

John has seen the devastating impact of sexual violence and rape firsthand, on his own family. That's why he created this petition on to get Facebook to enforce its existing policies and to make it clear that content promoting rape and violence against women violates Facebook's Terms of Service and won't be tolerated.

Please sign John's petition. Tell Facebook to stop providing a platform to promote rape and violence against women.

Thanks for being a change-maker,

- Shelby and the team

Stop JC Penney and Forever 21 from putting more sexist clothing on their shelves.

Girls are Allergic to Algebra?
Take action!

Clicking here will automatically add your name to this petition to JC Penney and Forever 21:

"Clearly something is broken if your companies are marketing shirts to young girls that read "Allergic to Algebra" or "I'm too pretty to do homework." You pulled those two products from the shelves after outraged customers complained, but you need to go further and make a public commitment to improve your review process and ensure you never again stock clothing for girls featuring sexist and demeaning slogans."

Automatically add your name:
Take action now!

Learn more about this campaign

Dear Friend,

Just yesterday, retailer Forever 21 began offering for sale a shirt for girls emblazoned with the slogan "Allergic to Algebra." And a few weeks ago, JC Penney offered similar girls' shirts with the slogan "I'm too pretty to do homework, so my brother has to do it for me."

Sexist slogans like these play into and perpetuate the offensive stereotypes that women are innately bad at math or that being pretty is more important than being smart. By selling these shirts, the stores give their implicit support of these efforts to convince girls that, to be stylish and fit in, they must be bad at math or less interested than boys in academic achievement.

After backlash from outraged customers, the both shirts were pulled from the shelves and online stores.1 But how did the sexist shirts get there in the first place? Clearly, something is totally broken within the corporate culture of these retailers. There is no effective review process for the clothing sold at JC Penney and Forever 21 if offensive clothing like this that demeans young girls makes it to their shelves.

Tell the CEOs of JC Penney and Forever 21 that you will hold them accountable for the clothing that is sold in their stores. Demand they make a public commitment to keep sexist clothing for girls from making it to their shelves in the future. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

These retailers are clearly sensitive to public pressure, as evidenced by how quickly they pulled the shirts after a public backlash arose. But that's not good enough. We must pressure JC Penney and Forever 21 to make the changes necessary at corporate headquarters to ensure sexist shirts like these never even come close to making it to the shelves.

Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people at JC Penney and Forever 21 encountered these shirts before they were made available to the public. Why didn't employees of these retailers at some point say, "Hey, are we really going to sell shirts to young girls that say 'I'm too pretty for homework' or 'Allergic to Algebra'?"

It's obvious that these shirts perpetuate offensive and harmful stereotypes about the ability of women to achieve academically relative to men. Of course, many studies have confirmed that these stereotypes are baseless, and that women's minds are just as well suited to performing academically as men's.

But, because popular culture is so powerful, many women and girls will conform to negative stereotypes of what a woman is supposed to achieve if they are continually reinforced. Stores like JC Penney and Forever 21 help shape that culture through the clothing they sell.

It's clear that these stores listen to public pressure, but we must pressure JC Penney and Forever 21 to take concrete steps to ensure that clothing this sexist never even comes close to making it onto shelves again.

Tell the CEOs of JC Penney and Forever 21 that you will hold them accountable for the clothing that is sold in their stores. Demand they make a public commitment to keep sexist clothing for girls from making it to their shelves in the future. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

Thank you for standing up to sexism.

Ali Rozell, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

1. "J.C. Penney Shirt Teaches Girls That Being Smart & Pretty Are Mutually Exclusive," Ellie Krupnick, Huffington Post, 08-03-2011.
"Forever 21′s 'Allergic to Algebra' Shirt Draws Criticism," Christina Ng, ABC News, 09-12-2011.