f

Get in on this viral marvel and start spreading that buzz! Buzzy was made for all up and coming modern publishers & magazines!

Fb. In. Tw. Be.

Donate Now            Our Story           Our Team            Contact Us             Shop

Asma's life and work is the very definition of South Asian feminism and in many ways is also a blueprint for future human rights and feminist activism in Pakistan and beyond.

Fierce and fearless Pakistani human rights activist, feminist trailblazer, and democracy advocate Asma Jahangir died on Feb. 11, in her hometown of Lahore, but not without leaving behind a phenomenal legacy anyone would be hard-pressed to match. Even in death, Asma Jahangir continues to smash the patriarchy: While local custom does not permit women to attend public funerals, women turned out in droves to honor this iconic woman who did so much to further the rights of women, children, religious freedom, as well as democracy not just in Pakistan, but around the world. The presence of women at her funeral — breaking from so much patriarchal oppression and tradition — quietly echoes her attempt in 2005 to host a mixed-gender marathon in to promote awareness of violence against women. Thankfully Jahangir’s funeral did not result in the state-sponsored assaults against women protesters, including Jahangir herself, back in 2005. At home, Jahangir was the first woman president of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan. She was the co-founder of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in 1987, holding the role of Secretary General until 1993 when she was promoted to chairperson. With her sister Hina Jilani and a cohort of human rights lawyers/activists, Jahangir founded the first ever law firm started by women in the country. Through their law firm, Jahangir and Jilani established AGHS Legal Aid, Pakistan’s first ever free legal service that also ran a shelter for women. Jahangir defended women’s rights to choose who they would marry when the law required her male guardian’s consent. She fought for the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan, including Hindus and Christians who were being unfairly targeted by the Muslim-majority government. She worked to separate religion from government, and in particular spoke out against Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and warned in her 2017 Amartya Sen Lecture at London School of Economics, “One should be careful while bringing religion into legislation, because the law itself can become an instrument of persecution.” She was a member of the Lahore High Court and Pakistani Supreme Court, one of the few women to have been appointed. Jahangir was also placed under house arrest multiple times due to her work with the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy, a program aiming to dismantle the military regime of Zia-ul-Haq that was setting human rights back in Pakistan one decree at a time.
Related: 9 DESI FEMINIST ACTIVISTS YOU NEED TO KNOW

While tribal citizenry and membership are important they still aren't enough to make one Indigenous. 

By Jen Deerinwater When I first heard that Senator Elizabeth Warren was Tsalagi (Cherokee) I was beyond excited. What a blessing it was to finally have a Native senator and one from my tribal nation at that. However, after looking further into her claims I realized that she simply wasn't Tsalagi. She was merely another pretendian trying to spice up her white bread life through false claims to an experience she's never had. Sen. Warren's claims to the Cherokee and Delaware nations first came to light during her 2012 race for Senate seat in Massachusetts. It brewed a storm of controversy and anti-Native hate speech from then Sen. Scott Brown that still has not ceased. Since running for office, President Trump and his followers have repeatedly used racial slurs such as “squaw” and “Pocahontas” to disparage Warren for her lies. While Trump's comments are a slap in the face to all Indigenous women, so are Warren's false claims of Indigeniety. In 2010, Native People represented approximately 1.7% of the U.S. population. There are many non-Natives, particularly those of Oklahoma, who have been told stories of great-great-great-grandmas who were “Cherokee princesses.” My mom, who is white, has told me that we might have Native ancestry in her family, but thankfully she knows not to claim a nation and community that is not her own. My Tsalagi roots are through my father and I would never claim Indigeniety via my mom based off little more than family tales. David Cornsilk (United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians and Cherokee Nation) is a Cherokee genealogist and historian who has reviewed the research by Twila Barnes on Warren's family tree. According to Cornsilk, Warren is neither Cherokee nor Delaware. Between 1817 and 1909 there were 30 rolls taken of the Cherokee people by the federal, states, local, and tribal governments. “Cherokees are among the best documented people in the world, right up there with European royalty and Mormons.” If a genuinely Tsalagi person doesn't have ancestors on the Dawes Roll their direct and collateral ancestors will still be in one and often more of the rolls.
Related: MEET THE NATIVE WOMEN AT THE HEART OF THE DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PROTESTS

Society must be answerable to the lives of those lost to the ramifications of toxic masculinity, in both the moral and physical sense.

By Olivia Ahn [TW/CW: discussions about gun violence, murder, domestic violence and misogyny.] On Wednesday, at least 17 people were killed when 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz opened fire using a semiautomatic rifle at his former high school in Parkland, Florida. 14 other students were wounded, with five suffering from life-threatening injuries according to NBC news. The Boston Globe reported that Cruz had shown violent tendencies, was abusive to his ex-girlfriend, and his expulsions were related to a fight in regards to her new boyfriend. Since the shooting, authorities arrested Cruz in Coral Springs. He has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder. [caption id="attachment_49393" align="aligncenter" width="660"]Nikolas Cruz Nikolas Cruz[/caption] Since the beginning of 2018, there have been 1,827 gun-related deaths in the U.S.. In 2017, The Gun Violence Archive reported 15,590 gun-related homicide deaths, domestically and climbing. Approximately 20 of these deaths received widespread national-level media attention. Of the 20 nationally-covered gun-related homicides last year, 100% of the gunmen were male, with 40% of the motives classified as an extension or direct act of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and/or sexual assault or harassment.   The Violence Policy Center (VPC) reported from 2001-2012 that approximately 11,766 women were killed by their current or ex boyfriends or husbands. Over half of these women were killed using a gun. If we are to critically address the issue of gun violence in the U.S., we must confront toxic masculinity’s foundational role in influencing and perpetuating these outcomes, especially in regards to its explicit impacts on the behavioral and mental health of men that proportionately affect the survival of women. The data above was featured in the 2015 documentary “The Mask You Live In”, which focused on the effects of toxic masculinity on young and adult men in The U.S.. The term toxic masculinity has been attributed to the cumulative work of psychologists and sociologists since the early 1980’s, stemming out of the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement. These men commonly defined toxic masculinity as the harmful, detrimental, and even destructive effects of high, demanding, and narrow cultural expectations of masculinity in society. Examples include socially acceptable male traits, such as dominance, emotional repression, the devaluation and subjugation of women, homophobia, extreme self-reliance, and most importantly, violence.
Related: IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL, THE ROOTS ARE DEEPER.

Pay secrecy as an institutional weapon may be weakening but we still have a lot further to go. 

By Aditi Natasha Kini I recently asked my social media followers: Has any white male coworker divulged his salary to you? On Twitter—where the poll was open to men—64% of people said no white man had ever shared salary information, and only 15% voted “more than one.” On Facebook, where I polled only women and nonbinary people, this number dropped to 1%, with 81% voting “never.” This highly unscientific poll is nevertheless representative of an issue intertwined in conversations of allyship and organizing: Under present capitalistic structures, white men earn the most. If those white men presume to be in alignment with the baseline concept of equality and feminism, they need to share pay details with women and non-binary people in the office, and in their industry. To the white men reading this—hopefully, there are some—did that last sentence make you cringe a little? Did it make you feel awkward and apprehensive? The mechanism of that cringe is two-fold: One, pay secrecy is to your advantage as a demographic and as an individual, so giving away that information would hasten the rate with which you’re losing your edge in society, and two, pay secrecy is fostered and upheld by institutions to protect employer overlords. No capitalist wants his workers to know these details. Pay secrecy as an institutional weapon may be weakening. Now we can share spreadsheets and encourage others to talk salaries. The shame associated with talking about money may very well be morphing; before, salaries were something to discuss in hushed tones in whisper networks, if at all. Google famously retaliated against Erica Baker, an employee who started an internal spreadsheet in interest of radical salary transparency three years ago. In 2014, President Obama announced two executive actions to close the pay gap by increasing workplace transparency: he directed the Department of Labor to collect more salary information from their contractors, and prohibited federal contractors from retaliating against employees who share compensation details. These executive actions were seemingly unnecessary: after all, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 allows “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” While around half of workers have been discouraged or prohibited from sharing information, the roots of this crackdown are obvious: vicious anti-union tactics are becoming increasingly common in the American workforce. Management’s anti-union tactics have pushed down the unionization rate from 22% in the ’80s to 12.4% now, according to a 2009 study that found that employers fired union workers in 34% of organizing campaigns, threatened to close plants in 57%, and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47% of cases.
Related: THE REALITIES OF MONEY, POWER AND EGO IN THE FIGHT FOR BLACK LIBERATION

What’s becoming clear as crystal is people are realizing just how many men would be behind bars if sexual assault and coercion were treated as the serious crimes they are.

One of the most disturbing things that emerged from the debate around “Grace” and Aziz Ansari’s date was how normalized coercive sexual encounters have been, especially with regard to women’s pleasure and safety. After a year of Trump’s regime, my capacity for shock has been whittled down, but during the Ansari brouhaha I found myself at peak stunned by all the people—and women in particular—who have accepted men’s sexually predatory behavior as a matter of course. Worse, they go to great lengths to defend this misogynistic paradigm. You know you live in a patriarchy when feminism is akin to a swear word. The case is made further when a simple fact like “coercion is not consent” becomes a divisive and controversial statement to both men and women. Color me flabbergasted. That is, until I took a couple steps back to analyze everything that the Ansari situation brought up. For me personally, I had to come to terms with the fact that more than half of my limited sexual encounters had in fact been non-consensual due to coercion or lies. It’s a horrible feeling to look back and realize that things were not what I thought they were. At all. And that I had considered those terrible encounters "simple" bad sex when they were far worse and even criminal encounters. It felt like being violated all over again, and I spent more than a few days sitting with my pain, grieving and acknowledging it, and trying to figure out how to put it all into place. Lili Loofbourow recently wrote in “The female price of male pleasure”: Research shows that 30 percent of women report pain during vaginal sex, 72 percent report pain during anal sex, and 'large proportions' don't tell their partners when sex hurts. … The studies on this are few. A casual survey of forums where people discuss 'bad sex' suggests that men tend to use the term to describe a passive partner or a boring experience. ... But when most women talk about 'bad sex,' they tend to mean coercion, or emotional discomfort or, even more commonly, physical pain. Debby Herbenick, a professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health, and one of the forces behind the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, confirmed this. 'When it comes to 'good sex,'' she told me, 'women often mean without pain, men often mean they had orgasms.'” Loofbourow’s conclusions about how male sexual pleasure comes at the price of women’s pain would be chilling, except that every woman on this planet has been there at some point or another. Despite the frequency of these systemically entrenched behaviors and experiences, this isn’t something any of us openly talk about. At least until the Aziz Ansari situation.
Related: WHAT AZIZ ANSARI DID WAS COERCION, NOT CONSENT

You don't have permission to register