disembodiedapparition

[disembodiedapparition]

Masterpiece

"Hello, everyone," Gerard Way began, his shifty hazel eyes darting through the crowd with nervousness, searching for a familiar face in the ocean of the inquisitive audience. "I'm here today to inaugurate this majestic gallery, which, admittedly, consists of a few of my own works" — a laugh reverberated like a ripple through the audience — "but also beautiful pieces from tons of other talented artists, like Kurt Cobain, Ray Toro, Bert McCracken..." he mindlessly listed off.

He had been coerced into "opening" for the gallery, the organizers clearly not caring about his tendency to stutter, or his crippling anxiety — "You're popular," they had reasoned. "Everyone will love you anyway."

So here he was, having around sixty simultaneous panic attacks, cheesily introducing their display of swirls and colors as the crowd scrutinized and judged his every move. As you can tell, Gerard was having the time of his life.

As he rambled on about the hard work and effort and time that everyone had put into the gallery — it's not like anyone really cared; it had become a mere formality at this point — his eyes stealthily raked over the crowd, scanning the variety of expressions on people's faces; boredom, interest, restlessness, a couple of eager relatives who were hoping their kin would be mentioned — you know, the average. Everyone at art galleries were just naturally boring, he reasoned. It was sort of a given that anyone who actually wanted to spend a good three hours just walking around and staring at brush strokes was.

His eyes suddenly landed on a young scruffy man standing apart from the crowd in total contrast; unlike the formally dressed men and women, who were clad in suits and dresses, he was wearing worn ripped jeans, muddy brown converse that had been defaced with black sharpie, and a tattered black hoodie — and Gerard wondered what someone like him was doing at some sort of fancy art convention like this.

He concluded his monotonous speech (which had surprisingly only gone on for ten minutes; really, it had felt like ages) and stepped down from the podium, as the crowd applauded, actually seeming like they'd enjoyed his half-hearted monologue; further confirmed by one of the managers patting him on the back and telling him that he'd done a great job. Gerard, however, was not focusing on the meaningless validation he was being showered with; instead choosing to occupy his thoughts with that of the young man who'd been staring at one of his comic book displays in the little corner in the back of the room.

Yeah, Gerard did comics too, and today was one of those rare events in which the managers had allowed him to put them up for display (after literally hours of persuasion, but whatever). They were in the back corner, where they wouldn't ruin the whole "abstract art" vibe they had going on, but still there, and that made him very happy — despite the fact that barely anyone ever spared a glance for the tiny superhero-themed stand in the dark shadows of the room.

He pushed his way through the chaotic swarms of art critics and interviewers, all flocking to congratulate one of the alternative scene's most popular artists — he wished he was liked solely for his artwork, but everyone knew his soft hazel eyes and fluffy black hair had a little to do with it as well; although he couldn't understand what was really attractive about him, as such. All he really did before leaving the house was brush his long fingers through his loose hair, pull on an Iron Maiden shirt or something, and yank on a (probably unwashed) pair of unfashionably faded denims — yet everyone claimed that he was an artist, he was only expressing himself.

He was making a statement.

Really, the press overanalyzed the hell out of everything he did — he could blink, and the press would conjure something up about how he closed his eyes to avoid the harsh reality of the dying earth, but opened them again to show bravery, or some bullshit like that.

Gerard finally got through the ocean of scrambling reporters and fans when one of his equally well-known peers caught the media's eyes, and they all rushed over to the latter; Gerard shot him a look of pity before wrapping his suit tighter around his chest, furtively scrambling to get near the enigmatic stranger. Which was quite funny, considering it was usually the other way round — with fans and paparazzi rushing for a photo with him, or an autograph, or a quote they could slap on the cover of their magazine.

"Hey, dude," he awkwardly started, causing the stranger to lightly choke on his coffee and whip around, his eyes settling in relief and mild irritation at the sight of the harmless looking artist who'd been on stage merely minutes ago.

"Oh my god, man, you scared me," he laughed, breathing deeply. His voice sounded playful, and his eyes were a cocoa brown, with tinges of eyeliner coating his thick lashes — Gerard immediately liked him.

"Sorry!" Gerard replied with a giggle, before pausing, rocking back and forth on his toes. "So, um, how do you feel about these..." he gesticulated erratically at the graphic novels lain open on the plastic table.

"The comics?" the tattooed man asked, scratching the back of his neck. "Dude, they were rad! I totally need to find this, uh—" he stole a glance at the cover of one of the issues. "Gerard Way guy."

Which totally made Gerard smile; he never really got any feedback on his books, apart from semi-interested kids, who'd been dragged along by their parents, flipping through the pages. An actual person who thought his comics were half-decent would be an angel in his eyes, to tell the truth — yeah, he was that thirsty for validation.

"Here he is," he laughed, as the guest's eyes widened and a light blush erupted on his freckled cheeks.

"Oh damn — that sounded stupid."

Gerard immediately shook the suggestion off, a wide grin overtaking his features.

"No really — it's fine. I'm so glad you like them, usually no one really bothers with this little stand in the first place." The stranger hummed, smiling at the illustrations on one of the pages.

"I usually don't bother with art galleries in general," the man admitted. "I mean, they're mostly filled with pretentious people trying to sell some blue blob in the midst of black smudged paint under the pretext of "deep thoughts", and a bunch of gullible, mainstream, rich people too focused on staying with everyone else that they can't understand that they're literally paying thousands for shit their kindergartener could do."

And Gerard couldn't help but choke as he realized that that was actually a perfect description of more than a few of the "abstract" paintings hung up in this place.

The man took a breath, looking at the snorting black haired man in front of him with a grin.

"Never seen comics at one though. I'll have to check out more of these places."

"Dude, are you not seeing how my managers attempted to completely hide the very existence of these things at a place as respectable as this?" Gerard chuckled. "Literally — they're actually so embarrassed that I insisted on keeping them here, a bunch of lowly comic books at their high and mighty art gallery — they probably wouldn't even be here if it weren't for the fact that I'm kind of the only reason half these people showed up."

Gerard realized his last few words sounded mildly egoistic, relieved when he noted that his new companion didn't seem to mind much, in contrast actually nodding along with him.

"Yeah, I bet at least half the girls are here because of you," he winked, causing Gerard's lips to round into a surprised O, shaking his head before a throaty laugh escaped his throat.

"Wha- no! They're not — they don't—"

The stranger burst out into peals of laughter at Gerard's flustered state, as Gerard slowly realized he didn't even know the dude's name.

"What's your name anyway?" he questioned, a grin tugging on his lips.

"Frank," he replied, while Gerard just laughed again at the contrast — the guy had such a childlike personality, yet he was called one of the most serious names in history, Frank — honestly, he was beginning to think someone had spiked one of the drinks he'd had tonight. Since when did he laugh so much?

Maybe it's because you're not hanging out with some boring wannabe Da Vinci for once, his subconscious told him, and Gerard proceeded to ignore that suggestion, and stick with his spiked drink theory.

[disembodiedapparition]

Limerence

Frank groaned in frustration; he needed a cigarette, like right now, but after a quick glance around the pigsty which he affectionately called his room, Frank reckoned he wouldn't be getting one anytime soon. Not that he was addicted or anything — of course not.

He just... wanted one, yeah.

I mean, Frank could totally quit anytime he wanted, it's just that he didn't want to, not yet at least. He was painfully aware of the consequences of his, um, habit, but he didn't really care. If he lived, he lived. If he died, he died. He'd probably kill himself before the drug betrayed his lungs like that anyway, if we're being honest. The ephemeral bliss was worth it.

Finding anything in his room lately had become nothing less than searching for a needle in a haystack, maybe even harder, Frank thought as he agitatedly glared at the offending piles of dirty laundry and cigarette butts (among others) that littered his bedroom floor.

Despite the mess, Frank set out on mission impossible, desperate for his daily fix of nicotine, his head throbbing as the craving intensified. Goddamn it, why were minors banned from buying their own cigarettes? Frank was finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the limited supply of one pack a week that his friend Bob provided him with in return for Bob's completed English homework sheets - especially considering the fact that Frank pretty much lost everything that wasn't physically attached to him on a keyring, or something.

He huffed, glaring at the vermillion and black artwork he'd pinned up on his wall — not by him, of course. He could barely surpass a 5-year-old's art skills — but by his extremely talented boyfriend, Gerard Way; a college dropout/artist/Frank's number one smoking buddy. Frank's mom didn't really approve of Gee's "negative influence" over her only son, but hey, Frank was almost 18 and technically he could do whatever he wanted.

Right? Frank wasn't stupid, he knew what he was doing.

Speaking of the devil; a distinct thud resonated through his room, a sound he'd come to associate with Gerard - seriously, the kid was incapable of using a doorbell or something, he was always flinging rocks at Frank's poor bedroom window. But then again, Gerard usually showed up at Frank's around two in the morning, and he was sure his mother wouldn't be all that pleased when she blearily opened their honeywood front door to find some punk kid smoking a cigarette waiting for her at that ungodly hour.

Another thud echoed through his room, causing Frank to roll his eyes, and mutter an incomprehensible 'I'm coming!' under his breath. He cracked the rusty window open a notch, to see his favorite 22-year-old, clad in black from head to toe (Frank wasn't even surprised anymore) and his messy black head of hair sprawled across his forehead like he'd just ran a marathon through the jungle or some shit.

"Gerard?" he called, though he could clearly see his face thanks to the dim streetlights stationed at regular points on the street. I mean, what else was he supposed to say?

"Yeah, Frank, it's me. Let me in, it's fucking cold out here," Gerard replied, theatrically shivering as if he'd been standing in the middle of the Antarctic, when in reality Frank was certain the temperature was just around basic autumn weather, but whatever.

"It's two in the fucking morning," he said, but opened his window anyway. Gerard climbed the conveniently placed apple tree in the Ieros' backyard, and rolled his grimy body into Frank's room. He smelled of coffee and... well, freshness, if that made sense, at least in comparison to Frank's stuffy bedroom air (the windows were shut because, though it was fall, it still was pretty chilly). Petrichor was the word, if Frank remembered correctly - Gerard had told him once that it meant the scent of the earth just after it rained, that was the same thing, wasn't it?

Gerard dusted himself off, and tiny flakes of fallen autumn leaves crackled off his lint covered sweatshirt and onto the carpet — great, that would be hell to clean up later - but Frank didn't mind much, because at least Gerard was here, right? The newcomer grinned at Frank, as a breath of smoke from a cigarette that Frank hadn't even noticed puffed out from Gerard's pink lips. Which didn't really help with Frank's attempts to survive without one, considering the fact that his inhalation of the substance subsided his migraine significantly, as if his body were physically encouraging him to just fucking smoke already.

"Gee, please tell me you'll let me have a smoke, I haven't had one all day and I'm just — ugh."

Gerard giggled at Frank's flustered request, and pulled out a pack of Marlboro Red and an edgy looking Nirvana lighter before handing it to Frank, who just breathed out in relief.

"Thank you, I love you, fuck," he exclaimed, desperately igniting one of the poison sticks and bringing it to his lips, and sighing as he let the caliginous vapor flow from his mouth.

"You look beatific," Gerard mellifluously laughed, and Frank laughed too, though he didn't know what the fuck Gerard meant by that — perks of dating a guy who majored in English for 3 years, I guess.

He gazed into Gerard's pelagic eyes, appearing lagoon green in the dim light; another thing he loved about Gerard was how his irises seemed to magically change colors depending on the amount of light flashing into them. I mean, totally rad! Added to the whole vampire-esque vibe Gerard gave off, what with his incredibly pale skin tone and blood-red lips, and even changing eye colors - Frank was dating a superhuman, I swear.

Frank's eyes were just a plain dull brown, unfortunately. He honestly didn't know what Gerard saw in him. Not that he was complaining, it's just that Gerard could literally get any homosexual guy in the tiny town of Edison to go out with him, and why he chose Frank of all people puzzled him. He really was nothing special, anyway.

Gerard smiled at the seventeen-year-old, his tiny teeth visible as he made the facial gesture.

"So, Frankie, what do you want to do today?" he energetically asked, making Frank snort - Gerard was literally an owl, personified, because like, it was two in the morning! And he was acting like it was the start of a brand new sunny day, and that they were a couple of adventurers ready to explore the wilderness or something (or maybe the nicotine was just getting to him, yeah, that was probably it).

"I don't know, I'm just hungry," Frank admitted, and Gerard's face lit up.

"The boardwalk! Frank, tonight's even the firework display — it'll be great," Gerard exclaimed, ebullience literally radiating from him, and the idea filled Frank with delirium; he'd never really been to the boardwalk of New Jersey before, his mom had told him it was dangerous and therefore out of bounds. The thought of going anyway was exhilarating, to be honest, so he nodded vigorously, thrilled to be going out on an actual date with his boyfriend.

Gerard cracked his boyfriend's abused window open, cringing as it slowly creaked into the atmosphere, before quietly sneaking out the same way he'd gotten in, so stealthily that Frank was certain that any passerbys would've mistaken him for some kind of petty burglar trying to steal from some teenage kid who lived in the attic of his house.

Frank tried his best to mimic his furtiveness, not that it was plausible that anyone would try to stop them as such, but just because it felt fucking cool. Yeah, they were that extra.

The raven-haired boy shuffled to his black Cadillac (which was all patched up, nearly falling apart to tell the truth) and strung his seatbelt across his chest as it chafed with the fabric of his black Iron Maiden t-shirt. Frank got in next to him, and holy shit, he loved every scent relating to Gerard ever, and his car was no exception - especially considering it radiated a smell you'd associate with buttered toast, or pancakes, and it was the safest smell honestly. Frank felt at home with him, and so happy, nothing even compared to the enthrallment he felt with his boyfriend. Which was kind of pathetic, I suppose, if you consider those self-help speakers who always tell you to 'never let your happiness be dependent on others!', but who cared?

Ah, the art of self-destruction.

He could literally see the exhausted car quivering as Gerard tried to null it into starting up, which may or may not have involved kicking and a few depreciating syllables, but the secondhand vehicle eventually succumbed to Gerard's harassment and the roar of a badly maintained engine resonated through the air, accompanied by a 'fucking finally!' from its driver.

��——————————————————————

Frank immediately knew they had arrived at the carnivalesque seashore area, though his eyes were shut tight from the harsh blows of the cold wind; the redolent aromas of popcorn stands, caramel apples, and pizza engulfed his senses, and the chatter of the hundred or so individuals who'd been reckless enough to show up at this hour met his ears. A soft rhapsody floated through the air in uneven waves through a pair of worn speakers, David Bowie, Frank figured. He'd been around Gerard Way for far too long to be unable to recognize one of the singer's songs even from a mile away.

"We're here!" Gerard stated the obvious, smiling like a child. Frank could definitely see how much Gee loved the boardwalk; he'd even dropped his "cool dude" facade and replaced it with the air of a little kid in a toy store, and Frank would definitely be lying if he said it wasn't like, the most adorable thing ever.

They got out of the ancient ebony car, Gerard not even bothering to lock it; if anyone tried to steal it, they'd cause such a ruckus and take so much time to even get the engine running that they'd barely get out of the parking spot before Gerard would show up, yelling obscenities. Penumbras shadowed Gee's features almost surreptitiously, thanks to the shifty luminance of the electric lamps diffusing into the night sky.

They wandered around the various food stalls, stopping at a liquor store, selling interestingly named margaritas and shots, obviously intriguing Gerard.

"Oh my god, Frank, look, they have a kiwi margarita!" the older boy commented, pointing at a neon green brew of alcohol with effervescence bubbling out of it in a teenager's hand. Frank scrunched his nose.

"That looks radioactive," he remarked, widening his eyes, and the latter just rolled his eyes.

"You are so uncultured," he declared, sticking his nose up slightly in the air. "I'll let you know that that beverage is actually forty dollars, definitely a top-notch drink."

"And unaffordable," Frank retorted, empowered with the knowledge that Gee would probably have enough cash to down like, two shots of that, at the very most, and then he'd meet with a very uncomfortable financial situation. He giggled as his boyfriend flipped him off in response.

An iridescent glowing sign flashed the words 'Pencey's Ice Cream' in big, bold, capital letters, immediately attracting the attention of the younger of the duo. Gerard followed the platinum streaked boy's gaze to the sign, rolling his eyes.

"Ice cream?" he sarcastically proposed, and Frank retaliated by punching him in the arm; not that it hurt, Frank was too tiny to cause much damage to the older boy, but just for the sake of it.

Together they strolled into the parlor, which totally gave off a 90's vibe, which Gerard seemed to like — judging by the way he glanced around in fascination at the vermillion and pearl striped borders, and the mint green and cotton candy pink machinery propped against the walls.

A smiling teen greeted them as the door chime jingled, and Frank noted that her name was Jenna, from her rather smudged name tag.

"Hi, what would you guys like today?" she greeted, as the dark-haired boy smiled at Frank.

"What would you like, princess?" Gerard pressed, evoking a fierce blush.

"Uhmmm, coffee walnut," he stated. "No, cookie dough! And um, chocolate sprinkles, and, uhhh... caramel syrup," he concluded, Gerard trying to contain his laughter.

"You're gonna get fat!" he groaned, however Frank just shrugged and watched eagerly as Jenna compiled his rather complicated ice cream order.

"Fat and happy." he retaliated, sticking his tongue out, while Gerard amusedly snorted at his kindergartener-like behavior. Jenna smiled at them, and let them know that they were undoubtedly the cutest couple she'd ever seen, which definitely did not make Frank blush. No way.

Gerard ordered some kind of fancy-sounding cherry jubilee thing, since Gerard was the most extra guy he'd ever met — classy or go home, right? That was probably Gerard's motto in life, considering the theatrics Frank had to put up with every day. Not that he really minded, though.

They held their ineffably good desserts in hand as they made their way to the wooden planks that loosely hung over the ocean water, sitting down. Their dangling legs were centimeters away from getting drenched in the cold icy seawater, and their faces were constantly being sprayed with splashes of salty, burning droplets of the ocean — yet Frank was okay with it. Honestly, Frank was up for anything as long as he had Gerard next to him; they could fucking skydive into the depths of hell, for all he cared. Or maybe that was too dramatic, he thought, before realizing that if it had been humanly possible Gerard would've done it ages ago.

The fiery pits of hell seemed edgy enough for Gerard's taste.

Gerard turned to Frank, a hesitant smile on his face. His lips opened to say something, before he was interrupted by a heart-stopping explosion that filled the air, startling Frank and causing him to jerk his head up in the direction the explosion seemed to come from.

Sparks of envious greens and deep blues flew through the charcoal sky, leaving smoky gray trails as they cascaded into the ocean. Glowing splinters of reds, oranges, purples and yellows followed next, patterning themselves into symmetrical patterns of light. Their iridescent colors illuminated Gerard's face, Frank noticed as he watched a firework explode in the reflection in his boyfriend's fascinated orbs.

Gerard must have been able to feel Frank's gaze, because moments later, he turned to the tattooed boy, his lips giving way to a smile, painted rather endearingly in the pulsating lights.

"They aren't nearly as resplendent as you are," he whispered, and Frank rolled his eyes, internally of course. Gerard loved using words Frank had never heard before in his life, but for now he decided to assume it meant something nice and ignore it.

He connected his cold lips with Gee's warm, welcoming ones, his heartbeat quickening when the latter's arm wrapped around his small waist, pulling him closer. He still tasted like nicotine and alcohol of some kind, he could feel the bitter taste engulfing his mouth, but it evaporated — everything evaporated — when Gee broke contact and whispered breathily in Frank's left ear.

"I'm in love with you."

[disembodiedapparition]

Migraines

California's scorching sun had set hours ago, replaced by a glowing full moon, its shimmering reflection dancing on the cold ocean. Alexa sat alone under a palm tree of some sort, thinking, as usual. She could feel the all-familiar voices in her head battling, screaming, and scratching violently for dominance, their infighting pushing painfully on the insides of her skull. She hated migraines with a passion, and although she ought to be used to them by now, it seemed as if the pain only got worse with every new episode. 

It felt horrible — like angry knives carving hateful words into her mind. Useless, pointless, unwanted, reject.

Stop, stop, stop.

Her thoughts churned unpleasantly in a toxic brew, slowly eating her soul apart. She’d been feeling completely lost lately, she didn’t know what she was doing with her life. There really was no value in her existence. Wasn't her only purpose playing bass in a band?

It's okay, Alexa, the taunting, yet comforting voices assured her. You can let go. They can replace a bassist. It's the singer that matters.

Oh, the singer. The angelic, heavenly goddess she'd been lucky enough to come across. Way too good for a self destructive mess like Alexa, but that didn't stop her from loving her.

A rippling surge of pain surged through her body again, and she cringed, upset that she was pulled back to reality so harshly. Of course Dakota could never love her back. All she had were the constant screams in her head; they'd never leave, which was why she trusted them so much. They wouldn't disappear like everyone else, they'd be with her from beginning to end.

She massaged her temples desperately, but in vain. Hot tears escaped her eyes, dripping down from her abnormally long eyelashes onto her freckled cheeks.

It’d never hurt this bad before.

A rustle in the vegetation behind her caught her attention, and she warily glanced back, seeing no one.

"Who is it?" she whispered, not even caring anymore. They could kill her if they wanted, at least she'd be put out of her interminable misery.

"It's Dakota," a hesitant voice informed her. Normally, the mention of her name sent a wave of panic through her brain; but the fierce pounding in her skull drowned it out. Her attention was too focused on trying to relieve the pain. Her surroundings were blurry.

"Hi," Alexa lamely offered, trying to control her breathing and sound less like a maniac. Her bandmate gently sat down on the cool sand next to her so that the glimmering moonlight illuminated Alexa’s face, effectively exposing the tears on the younger girl’s flushed cheeks.

Dakota could almost feel a twang in her chest, as if one of her heartstrings just snapped.

"Alexa...?" she trailed off, not knowing what to tell her. "What's wrong? Did something happen?"

Alexa’s tears were clouding her vision, her throbbing head clouding her judgement. She sputtered out desultory syllables, crying too hard to coherently form words.

"My head hurts," she finally managed. "Oh my g-god, Kota, it hurts—"

The older girl quickly reacted, racing into the hotel's emergency center and grabbing a bottle of Advil.

"Here, baby," she murmured, offering her a pill. "Will this work?"

Despite herself, Alexa chuckled — she was so naive, it couldn’t be fair to be that cute.

"Advil doesn't work on me anymore," she explained. "I guess I've gotten too used to it."

Dakota flushed, feeling a little stupid. Little did she know that her presence did wonders for Alexa — her intense migraine had ceased slightly, and Alexa considered it a miracle.

Dakota watched as her bandmate’s eyelids fluttered in pain. She crawled over the cool sand, tentatively wrapping her arms around her friend's head and twirling her long, bejeweled fingers through her soft hair. She began whispering a calming tune under her breath, in that raspy voice she knew Alexa loved so much.

You will never know, what's behind my skull

So won't you say goodnight, so I can say goodbye?

You will never know, what's under my hair

So won't you say goodnight, so I can say goodbye?

You will never know, what's under my skin

So won't you say goodnight, so I can say goodbye?

You will never know, what is in my veins

So won't you say goodnight, so I can say goodbye?

Won't you go to someone else's dreams?

Won't you go to someone else's head?

Haven't you taken enough from me?

Won't you torture someone else's sleep?

A comfortable silence filled the air, while the two blissfully sat on the cool shore, watching the waves move in an interminable pattern — back and forth, back and forth.

Alexa felt happy inside, her excruciating headache nearly nonexistent now. She propped himself up on her elbows, lazily looking her bandmate in the eye with a small smile. She noticed the soft hazel color surrounding her iris, and the occasional specks of blues and greens that were scattered on her orbs.

She noticed the faint freckles that dotted her cheeks, and the lovely way her mouth twisted into a smile identical to her own.

She brought her lips to Dakota’s, taking her by surprise. But honestly? Alexa didn’t care if Kota liked her back or not, all that mattered was the fact that she kissed back.

A numbing happiness engulfed the both of them as their lips moved together in a synchronized wave, just like the sea; back and forth.

Maybe those voices weren't Alexa’s only friends.

[disembodiedapparition]

Insomnia

As usual, Alexa couldn't sleep.

Her mind kept wandering, unable to rest, until it knew the truth. Why was Harvey distancing himself lately? What happened to him? She concentrated on the little things around her; the soft ticking of the ebony wall clock, the gentle patter of rain hitting the roof, the shadows cast by the street lamps outside of the foggy glass window.

Her eyes closed, but her thoughts didn't. Alexa could try all she wanted, but she could never fall into a comfortable relaxing sleep. She laid in her stiff bed, eyes shut, brain awake.

Fuck insomnia.

She was jolted from her so called "sleep" by a distinct cough that she'd know anywhere. Jumping out of bed, she left her stuffy hotel room and paced through the dimly lit hallway. The fresh air calmed her down and a sudden wave of relaxation coursed through her veins. Deep breaths.

A shadowy silhouette crouched down on the porch caught her eye. Alexa frowned and cautiously opened the sliding glass door, stepping through. The figure, whom she had now identified as Harvey, didn't react; he sat sullenly with his knees to this chest, as quiet sniffles erupted from him every few seconds. As Alexa watched her law partner’s shoulders unevenly heave up and down, she felt an uncomfortable ache in her heart. Did she love Harvey? No, they were best friends, right?

...right.

Unsure of whether the lawyer was even aware of her presence, she tentatively sat down beside him, her legs folded together.

"Hey," she whispered, leaning towards Harvey, whose face was buried in his jean-clad knees. A comfortable silence filled the air, the only audible noise being the constant patter of the raindrops upon the atmosphere, accompanied by a few dozen crickets chirping.

Harvey lifted his head, to reveal tear stained cheeks and puffy eyes, taking Alexa aback.

"Harvey— " she began, but was interrupted by the latter bursting into a choked sob and wrapping his arms around Alexa’s chest. Not that Alexa was complaining.

They stayed like that for what seemed like eternity - no matter how cheesy it sounded. The prospect of her best friend crying alone in the rain pulled harshly on her admittedly sensitive heartstrings — she could only wonder how many nights since the onslaught of litigation against their firm started that he'd been in this position. And how she could have possibly remained oblivious to it. On second thought, her best friend was infamous for trying to come off as some sort of aloof, apathetic jerk. Of course she hadn’t known.

Harvey hesitantly pulled away, and she almost burst into tears herself at how upset he appeared. His usually gelled-back hair seemed floofy, as if molded into a permanent bedhead, while his torso was draped in an uncharacteristic The Strokes hoodie dated 2008. Harvey’s usual carefree eyes were clouded with tears and vulnerability, and Alexa was embarrassed at how touched she was that Harvey wasn't pushing her away. Emotional vulnerability was hardly his forte; she hardly recognized the man in front of her as the smug, confidant litigator she knew him as.

"Harvey, what's wrong?" she coaxed, refusing to remove her arm from around the latter's shoulders. Harvey hesitated, clearly in doubt whether to confide in Alexa or not (which made Alexa cry a little inside - weren't they best friends?)

"Ah, um, nothing important," Harvey dismissed, although Alexa didn't miss the crack in his shaky voice. "Unrequited feelings, you know how it is."

A dull ache immediately made its way through Alexa’s heart. The raging jealousy and heartbreak she was feeling didn't really make sense, she knew that, just like it had never made sense when it hit her whenever Harvey talked to her about his romantic conquests. But this time, Alexa couldn’t have cared less. So what if Alexa sort of liked him? Harvey didn't need to know, she could keep it to herself.

"Well, don’t take it personally. You're amazing,” she spoke quietly. “Anyone would be lucky to call you theirs."

Harvey looked up at her with a soft smile illuminating his features, a smile that only intensified the gnawing in Alexa’s pounding heart. 

Harvey looked into Alexa’s hazel, freckled eyes with a small smile. Alexa caught his gaze and her heart nearly leapt out of her chest.

"I’ve loved her for years, but I could never figure out if she felt the same way," Harvey spoke, inching closer to Alexa’s reddening face. She was pretty sure Harvey could hear her heart thumping wildly in her chest.

“H-have you told her how you felt?” she stumbled out. Harvey furrowed his eyebrows, a low laugh escaping his lips.

“No, actually. Do you think I should?”

“That... that would probably help your cause—” she started, before she was rudely interrupted.

Harvey’s lips were suddenly on her own, twisting together in a synchronized wave. She could feel his soft lips brushing against her own, she could taste the lingering alcohol in his mouth, she could feel the electricity coursing through her body with the touch of his hand on her waist. Forget about sparks, she could feel literal fireworks imploding inside her.

They pulled apart, gasping for breath. Harvey glanced at Alexa, to see her eyes still shut, watching as they fluttered open moments later. He draped his arm around her as they sat on the porch together, watching the sun rise despite the rain, creating flashing streaks of purples and blues across the sky.

[disembodiedapparition]

The Gender Gap in Indian Politics

Indira Gandhi’s historic win to the office of the Prime Minister of India was a huge step forward in the inclusion of women in the political hierarchy. In 1988, her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi, went on to become the President of the Indian National Congress, serving for 17 years. However, according to WEF, a Geneva-based organization, achieving gender parity in Indian politics is still about 95 years away – meaning it won’t be happening in any of our lifetimes.

Bridging the gender gap is an ongoing battle in India. Whether it be in schools, STEM industries, or even in the general population (2019’s census report revealed that the male to female ratio was 48:52) – women are underrepresented, especially in positions of power. Arguably, women’s presence in the political sphere is one of our country’s most pressing concerns: politicians define the policies, approaches, and perspectives that reflect into our legislature, and making sure the interests of India’s women are represented proportionately is essential to a democracy. Without representation, improving the condition of women in India will become harder than it already is.

Why exactly do we need representation? Shouldn’t public offices be awarded on the basis of merit?

The gender gap in politics comes with a well-established gap in political views: women are more likely to support liberal policies, especially those related to the welfare of women and children. Studies have also shown that women are more likely to use their income and assets on education, health, nutrition, and other public welfare expenditures than their male counterparts. In a country like India, where health, nutrition, and education are huge issues plaguing our economically weaker classes, the inclusion of women in our policy-making process is invaluable.

Women have been pushed down in society for eons. India is a highly religious country, and many religious texts define a woman’s position as merely subservient to her husband and the other men in her life. They aren’t allowed to assert themselves, have their own visions or goals, or enjoy the same liberties (in terms of recreation and employment) as men are. Despite the fact that the situation today is definitely an improvement from hundreds of years ago, years of oppression and propaganda have an effect on people. Women are still stereotyped in the workplace, not encouraged to educate themselves, and are held to more restrictive social standards than men are.

As a nation that values equality, it’s our responsibility to make sure we work to eliminate these biases and create the egalitarian society that India deserves. This means that we actively need to seek women’s involvement in things like education, employment, and leadership, and remove obstacles in blocking their paths. We can’t do this effectively without having women, who have experienced these issues first-hand, in the room while we discuss these problems and brainstorm solutions.

Are women represented in politics?

India is still trying to warm itself up to the idea of female leadership. The Lok Sabha saw a record-high number of women in 2019, but even then – they only occupied 78 out of 545 available ones, comprising 14%. India has made attempts to bridge this gender gap, most notably by introducing reservations. The most radical bill so far proposes a 33% reservation for women in both the upper and lower houses and all state legislative assemblies. The bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha in 2010, but is still pending in the Lok Sabha, more than 12 years later.

The introduction of the bill in 2008 spurred nationwide chaos, threatening to uproot the coalition that the Congress had built. The bill, which was an early step in the process of amending the Constitution, brought pandemonium to Parliament. Groups of regional caste-based parties put their best efforts into blocking it, arguing that it would diminish their influence. These parties were allies of the Congress, and by threatening to revoke support, they put the party’s stability in question. The controversy over the bill illustrates the influence of wealth, religion, caste, and gender over who benefits most from the laws created, and further emphasizes how important representation is to prioritizing women’s issues.

Many opponents to the bill claim that the bill favors wealthy upper-caste women at the expense of the strata of society that truly need the representation. Daughters, sisters, and wives from powerful political families might stand in for their male relatives and push the same policies, therefore eliciting no change. Women from less privileged backgrounds might not have the educational qualifications, campaign funds, or connections to be taken seriously on a national or state level.

What’s standing in the way?

Women are often perceived and characterized as caregivers; people who are great at supporting others and maintaining a healthy work atmosphere. However, they’re thought to be bad at taking charge and leading groups. Though studies have shown that this is untrue, working women still report feeling stereotyped and underestimated despite producing work that matches up to that of their male coworkers. These perceptions are likely formed due to the vastly different standards men and women are held to during childhood: boys must like cars and football and aspire to be CEOs, while girls play with dolls, enjoy cooking, and look forward to being homemakers. These gender roles are in the process of being broken, but their effects are still prominent in many parts of the country.

Gender roles are still prominent in rural parts of India, and it’s possible that they play a part in why women are much less likely to be elected into office. However, the bigger issue is that less women run for office than men. In 2019’s election, only 724 women ran, as opposed to the 7215 male candidates. It’s impossible for women to be represented if they don’t contest in the first place.

The reasons behind the lack of participation in running for office ties back to cultural norms and expectations for women. Politics is a demanding job – most women choose to raise children and keep their households afloat, and may not want to opt for a job like that. Alternatively, women may feel that even if they ran for office, they’d never be elected.

What about political participation, like voting or campaigning?

In regions like India, where strong economic divisions of labour exist, it is not uncommon for members of the same family to be divided over budget priorities and public policy. For example, a woman might be tasked with cooking for her family, while a man might be tasked with gathering timber for a local forestry company. When it comes down to voting for a candidate, women might choose to support candidates that promote making LPG less expensive, while her husband may prioritize lifting certain industrial restrictions in place. This system, ideally, works out fine – everyone’s concerns are addressed and noted. However, women are often absent from political spaces, even when issues that directly affect them are on the table. Politics and voting end up being categorized as one of the male-assigned tasks, and women are stripped of their voice in the democracy. Women are more likely to prioritize their husbands’ preferences, especially in areas where expectations of submission and compliance thrive.

Furthermore, education level plays a significant role in the ability to understand and analyze the social and political conditions you’re living in. 78.8% of Indian males are literate, compared to a 59.3% of women. Without an education, individuals are left in the dark about what’s going on in their government offices.

Conclusion:

Although we might not see equal participation and opportunity for men and women in this lifetime, the work we put in today paves the way for the leaders of tomorrow. The road to gender parity might be bumpy and take more time that we’d expected, but every milestone we reach deserves to be celebrated.

[disembodiedapparition]

The Link Between Gender Equality and Sustainable Development

Exactly 100 years ago, women in the United States were given the right to vote in their elections. In 1983, Columbia University first began accepting women into their programs. In 1994, marital rape was finally criminalized. And in 1995, the Beijing Platform for Action, one of the most progressive blueprints for advancing women’s rights, was produced. The fight for gender equality has come a long way, but on the Beijing Platform for Action’s 25th anniversary, experts still acknowledge that “progress has not been fast or deep enough, that in some areas progress has been uneven, that major gaps remain and that obstacles, including structural barriers, discriminatory practices and the feminization of poverty, persist.”

What is sustainable development and why do we need it?

Our production, consumption, and distribution habits are heading in deeply unsustainable directions. Today, we are seeing over-exploitation of natural resources, loss of key habitats and biodiversity, and pollution of land, seas and the atmosphere – actions that are so large in magnitude that they are able to influence some of the Earth’s most powerful natural phenomena. Human interactions with the environment are already producing unprecedented shocks and stresses – felt in floods, droughts and devastated urban and rural landscapes and livelihoods – while many people and places are going through severe food, energy, environmental and financial crises. These unsustainable practices amplify poverty and inequality, especially for people that directly depend on natural resources for their livelihoods and well-being. Furthermore, the destruction of our natural ecosystems and processes pose a concerning threat to our future generations, and even generations alive today.

What does gender equality have to do with sustainable development?

Gender quality was outlined by the United Nations as one of the 17 crucial Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. The issues created by gender inequality and unsustainable development are inextricably linked – the achievement of the peaceful, just, and inclusive world that the SDGs aim to create is dependent on addressing gender discrimination and actively working towards equality.

Gender equality is not just a women’s issue – it is a concern for all of us. No society can develop – economically, politically, or socially – if half its population is marginalized and undermined. Sustainable development will take much longer to achieve if we continue to ignore half of an equally competent workforce. Research from 2015 estimated that equality in the labor force would add USD $28 trillion to the global economy by 2025.

Similarly, climate action is essential to improving the situation for women in the world. Women are among those most vulnerable to the impacts of unsustainable practices and climate change because they often are homemakers. With no independent incomes or land rights, they are solely responsible for the provision of food and water for their families. As the effects of unsustainable and toxic industry practices eat away at our planet, these resources become harder and harder to come by, requiring women to invest much more time working to provide for their families. They are forced to make difficult decisions, like choosing to pull their (usually female) children out of school or stepping back from political or social causes they may have been involved in.

Since women are usually at the forefront of the provision of food, water, and energy for their households, they have firsthand knowledge of the challenges and potential solutions in their respective areas. Researchers who have travelled to underprivileged areas have stated that while they usually travel to hear about the challenges these women face, they also often find ideas which have a lot of potential to be successful and facilitate change. Women are the best advocates for solutions that they need, so they need to be leading the decision-making process surrounding sustainable development.

Now that women have attained equal rights in most countries, what else is holding them back?

More women are educated today than ever before, and yet they still face discrimination in the workplace. Almost half of men and women believe that men make better political leaders, and women consist of less than 15% of STEM graduates in most countries across the world. It’s much harder for women to advance in the workplace because of the deeply entrenched societal notion that they alone are responsible for their children. Women must “juggle” their responsibilities, while men are able to focus on one task.

But although there are more women than ever in the labor market, there are still large inequalities in some regions, where women are systematically denied the same work opportunities and wages as men. Sexual violence and exploitation, discrimination in public offices, and the unequal division of unpaid care and domestic work all remain huge barriers. Climate change and disasters continue to have a disproportionate effect on women and children, as do conflict and migration. In order to begin bridging these gaps, it is essential to give women access to equal land and property rights, sexual and reproductive health, and technology and the internet.

What work must be done to achieve Goal #5 by 2030?

Gender equality is one of the most rapidly advancing social movements of the 21st century. Billions and billions of dollars have been devoted to the cause, and many governments and organizations claim to be working hard on addressing the issue. Despite this, there are approximately 1.4 billion women and girls that face discrimination, sexism, and violence every day. Without gender equality, all of the Sustainable Development Goals are put in jeopardy. At the rate we’re going, it will take 257 years for women to achieve the same economic opportunities as men.

Tackling gender inequality will not happen on its own. It requires direct action and purposeful efforts. Both the private sector and governmental organizations need to take steps to work towards women’s empowerment. Six types of intervention are necessary to bridge the gender gap: financial incentives and support; technology and infrastructure; the creation of economic opportunity; capability building; advocacy and shaping attitudes; and laws, policies, and regulations.

Conclusion

Women make up half of our working-age population, and are essential to our growth as a society. Most importantly, they deserve the same opportunities to create lives for themselves as men do. Making sure women have a voice in our conversations about sustainable development and climate action is key to achieving real progress.

[disembodiedapparition]

India’s Most Powerful Politician

India’s most popular politician made headlines in late September for making it onto Time’s 100 Most Influential People list for 2020, but not for the best reasons. While the majority of the list is filled with change-makers, visionaries, and pioneers, the reasons that Prime Minister Modi is considered influential are not flattering. Karl Vick, his nominator, writes, “though almost all of India’s Prime Ministers have come from the nearly 80% of the population that is Hindu, only Modi has governed as if no one else matters.”

Who is Modi, and how did he rise to power?

Narendra Modi grew up in a small village in Gujarat. At age 8, he joined the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), a Hindu nationalist organization that has advocated for the rebuilding of India as directed by Hindu culture and the establishment of a strong unified state. He famously grew up as a child of tea stall owners, and eventually paved his way into politics via his association with the RSS. In 2001, M0di was appointed as Gujarat’s Chief Minister, and was soon after elected to the legislative assembly. In Gujarat, Modi was widely praised for the state’s economic growth – however, his administration was criticized and even considered complicit in the devastating 2002 Gujarat riots, a three day long period of communal chaos which cost 1,044 people their lives, a large majority of them Muslim. After the riots, Narendra Modi was formally accused of initiating and condoning violence, though he was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing in 2012 by the Supreme Court of India.

In September 2013, the Bharatiya Janata Party named Narendra Modi as their candidate for the office of Prime Minister ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha election. Modi’s personal attributes and ability to resonate with the citizens of India proved to be incredibly useful during this election campaign, with a sizable percentage of voters admitting that they only voted for BJP because Modi was their candidate. During his speeches, he spoke at lengths about the deep ridden corruption that his predecessors, the Indian National Congress, had been infamous for, thus triggering what many political analysts viewed as a protest vote against corruption. However, analysts also unanimously agreed that the main reason for Modi’s landslide 2014 victory had nothing to do with his party’s politics, and had everything to do with him.

Until his run for Prime Minister, India’s lasting impression of Modi had been the haunting visuals and stories from the chaos in 2002. However, his expensive campaign (which spent over 700 million USD) successfully switched gears and rebranded him as the savior of India’s economy and the oracle of India’s tilt away from socialism and towards neoliberalism. His campaign especially resonated with India’s youth and the middle class.

Modi’s dubious history with secularism:

Modi’s complicated history with Hindu nationalism has plagued his career for decades. After the 2002 riots, the sitting Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, began distancing himself after Modi ignored his pleas for tolerance. Even internationally, Modi’s reputation resulted in him becoming the only person to be barred from legally entering the United States, in accordance with recommendations from the Commission on International Religious Freedom. Similarly, the UK and the European Union also refused him entry on the basis of what they viewed as his role in the 2002 riots. These bans stayed in place until October 2012 and March 2013 respectively, as his popularity in India began to skyrocket. Modi wasn’t allowed back into the United States until after he’d won his 2014 election bid.

As Prime Minister, one of Modi’s first moves was to initiate a nationwide ban on beef. Though justified as a move against animal cruelty, his administration made no move to curb the production of seafood, chicken, pork, or mutton; nor did they acknowledge that the vast majority of cattle being slaughtered for food were nearing the end of their productive lives anyway. Cows are sacred animals in Hindu culture, and this directive (which was later repealed) cemented his image as a Hindu nationalist and his desire to promote Hindutva throughout the nation.

What is Hindutva, and what does it mean for India?

Hindutva is an ideology that characterizes India as the homeland of the Hindus. According to its followers, non-Hindus only get to live in the country due to the mercy of Hindus. Though this may be true for India, with a population of 1.36 billion people of which 80% are Hindu, this outlook goes against the principles the Constitution was founded on.

Mahatma Gandhi, though deeply religious, was one of the nation’s strongest supporters of Muslim-Hindu unity. The British’s attempts to divide the Indian people on the basis of religion were suddenly coming to light, and he was determined to put an end to it. Despite his best efforts though, Muslim-Hindu animosity only grew - especially following the creation of the Al-India Muslim League that demanded a separate state for Muslims. As Muslims began ganging up, so did the nation’s fiercest Hindus, prompting the creation of several Hindu nationalist groups who deeply opposed Mahatma Gandhi’s repeated calls for secularism and cooperation. Eventually, his beliefs led to his death; he was shot and killed by Nathuram Godse, a member of the RSS.

Though largely unpopular in during the first few decades of Indian independence, it began attracting a sizable voter base in the early 1990s. Triggered especially by the willingness of certain secular administrations to pander to the Muslim minority, Hindu nationalists quickly began cultivating a solid base, which peaked in 2014 with Modi’s historic victory. Many political analysts mark Modi’s victory as a watershed moment marking the turn away from secularism towards a populist, Hindu orientated future.

Conclusion:

Modi’s command over the Indian people doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. To most, Modi is the best politician India has ever had – he’s a strong leader who has solidified the nation’s trust in the government that had been broken by the past corruption ridden party. A 2017 report by the CSDS showed that respondents who supported democracy in India had dropped from 70% to 63% between 2005 and 2017. A Pew report in 2017 found that 55% of respondents backed a "governing system in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts". Modi has invigorated a large coalition of voters from all over the country, a feat that not many politicians have been able to accomplish. Under Modi, the BJP commands an overwhelming majority in parliament as the first party, and there are no equals. Political scientist Suhas Palshikar believes India could be moving towards a one-party dominant state, just like how the Congress ruled back in the day. Regardless of whether the BJP remains in power, it’s clear that Modi’s influence and impact on Indian politics won’t be fading away anytime soon.

[disembodiedapparition]

Breaking The Pro-Life Argument Down:

I think it’s hilarious how right wing “facts don’t care about your feelings” activists are almost always pro-life. The argument against abortion as an accessible form of birth control is 100% an emotional appeal, and here’s why:

1. “You have no right to kill your fetus. It’s not your body, the baby is an individual and has the right to life.”:

Of course, all embryos are human individuals, separate from their mothers. They have their own unique DNA composition, and are definitely alive. But do they deserve the right to life, which would make abortion equivalent to murder?

Pro-lifers are largely okay with IVF, an industry that throws away and destroys millions of fertilized embryos every day. In-vitro fertilization is an uncertain science, so couples are advised to fertilize multiple eggs in the labs in case the first few don’t work out. If a couple succeeds and have extra embryos left, they have the option to continue paying to store them in the lab, donate them to medical research, or destroy them.

Anti-abortion bills always have exceptions for IVF clinics. Republican, pro-life lawmakers have literally had children via IVF. If a pro-lifer ever tells you that life begins at conception and that every embryo has the right to life, know that it’s bullshit. They don’t care about an industry that kills more embryos in a day than Planned Parenthood does in a year.

2. There are two possible responses to this.

A) “Fine, let’s ban IVF.” Out of all the conservative groups in America, only one major group explicitly stands against IVF – the Catholic Church. The same organization that condemns sex before marriage, homosexuality, divorce, masturbation/porn, the use of condoms, getting drunk or high, and tattoos. At this point, I’m assuming you understand that the Church’s ideas of morality are regressive, illogical, primitive, and… make life extremely boring. IVF is a wonderful science that brings children to parents who want them all over the world and is in no way a bad thing.

B) “Fine. Maybe not at conception, but at [x] months, it’s a baby.” This is the point where most conservatives start arguing about the point up till you should be allowed to have an abortion. Two weeks? Six weeks? Three months? Unfortunately, there is no scientific way to determine when an embryo is no longer just a clump of cells and now a human being with rights.

Since pro-lifers are okay with IVF, we can assume they don’t believe in the right to life at conception. How about the heartbeat theory? At six weeks, the fetus develops a heartbeat, and proponents argue that it is the point at which the fetus is no longer simply a fetus, but a human being. However, having a heartbeat doesn’t necessarily mean you have the right to life.

Legally, if you are brain dead, you’re… dead. You no longer have the right to life, which is why organ donation is possible. All this while having a heartbeat, so that’s clearly not a viable hallmark of an individual that inherently has the right to life. So while it’s true that at six weeks a baby develops (what is flimsily termed as) a heartbeat, that doesn’t somehow give it rights to life that it did not have before. So far, I haven’t come across any other sensible theories as to “when” an embryo deserves the right to life. It’s a lousy concept to begin with, as blurry as the legal definition of adulthood – not all 18+ year olds are mature and nothing fundamentally changes in a person once the clock strikes midnight. Similarly, embryo development is a process. There’s really no point at which you can logically claim it’s transformed into a human being with rights.

3. Evidently, there are two extremes — life begins at conception, vs life doesn’t begin until birth.

There’s no “scientific backing” for a point in between, but you’ll never find a pro-choice advocate arguing in favor of the latter, because it’s called an extreme for a reason. The best way to deal with the abortion issue at this point is to leave the science and technicalities alone, and think about the people who are actually getting abortions.

4. “Use protection and you won’t get pregnant”:

Protection is never 100% reliable. Plus: if two people are irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex, what makes you think they’re responsible enough to have and raise children? The number of children growing up with unqualified, immature, abusive, or neglectful parents automatically disproves the theory that parenthood beings about a sense of personal responsibility. Being raised by bad parents inflicts often irreparable damage on children. Treating babies as some sort of “divine punishment” for irresponsible sex, instead of human beings who deserve a stable upbringing, is harmful on both an individual and collective scale. The data on irresponsible, neglectful, or abusive childhoods/single parent childhoods speaks for itself. In the quest to punish irresponsible parents, most of the damage is inflicted on their children, which in turn impacts the generation that will lead us forward into the future. It is in our best interests to raise as many mature, healthy, and productive young adults as possible, and while not every child born into these circumstances live lives of mental health/psychological/intimacy issues and criminal behavior, a large majority do. Growing up with bad parents is simply not ideal for an impressionable child’s wellbeing. Quality of life > quantity of life.

5. “Don’t have sex if you don’t want to have children.”:

Unhelpful, unrealistic, and telling of no real desire to solve the problem at hand. People will have sex. What are we going to do to make sure the sex doesn’t lead to unplanned pregnancies?

6. “Okay but what about xyz who had an abortion and has regretted it ever since?”:

Abortion is a result of unplanned and unfortunate circumstances. Whether it’s because the doctor tells you your baby will be stillborn or born with a fatal illness, or if you were raped, or if you had sex with your boyfriend during your first year of college and found yourself pregnant: these are bad situations, and no matter what you do, there’s always a chance you’ll look back and wish you’d done things differently. Kept the baby? Well, maybe you’ll find that the baby brought newfound purpose to your life. But maybe the baby added an additional financial strain to your life and forced you to quit your job, leaving you destitute and homeless with no way to feed it. Alternatively, if you got an abortion, maybe you end up being able to finish college and fulfil all your goals… or maybe you regret that decision for the rest of your life. There’s no way to guarantee that you’re making the right decision, but being informed about your options, and having options available, makes it more likely that you do. That’s why we are advocating for informed choice. Whether they eventually choose to keep the baby or have an abortion, give women the time and resources to truly evaluate their options and do what’s best for them in their own circumstances.

7. “Why kill the baby? Put it up for adoption.”:

The adoption system is known for being isolating, exploitative, and unhealthy for children growing up in it. Being adopted into a great family can create healthy, happy young adults. But far too many kids don’t get that opportunity, and pay the price for it. In 2019, 122,216 children in the US adoption system were waiting to be adopted. Young people who age-out of the foster care system without being adopted are over-represented in rates of incarceration, suicide and substance abuse.

Granted, for some kids it’s a better alternative to the families they would have grew up in, but again: it’s an unideal situation. An unideal situation that can very easily be avoided with abortion. Why would a person choose 9 months of labor, plus all the emotional labor of having to give your child away to a system that more likely than not will eat them alive, knowing they will grow up asking themselves why they weren’t good enough for their birth parents, when the person could… simply not have that baby and not invite all that pain?

To summarize:

It is definitively not in anyone’s best interests to force unwilling and unprepared parents to have an unwanted child. It’s also not a good idea to get too deep into the technicalities of when an embryo is a fetus or when you’re allowed or not allowed to abort it. We need to focus on the women who are actually getting abortions. Having a baby is a huge life adjustment. Keep it, and you’re taking on an 18-year responsibility. You are responsible for another person’s wellbeing, and your life will never be the same.

In three months (about 12 weeks), a potential mother can: find out that they’re pregnant (missing periods is extremely common. A lot of women only find out they’re pregnant at two months, or 8 weeks), think about their financial, professional, social, romantic, or whatever situation and figure out what would be the best course of action, and then actually get the abortion if she chooses to. 12 weeks is enough, 12 weeks is reasonable, 12 weeks is humane. Nobody wants third-trimester abortions unless there are serious, life threatening complications.

The pro-life argument is reduced down to: well, abortion is bad! That’s a little innocent baby. It didn’t hurt anyone. Well, we agree: abortion is bad. It’s not a good thing, it’s not something people want to have to do. Nobody looks forward to giving or receiving an abortion, it’s physically painful and often heart-breaking. But is it as bad as forcing a woman to go through nine months of excruciating, potentially life-threatening labor for a child she doesn’t even want to have? Is it as bad as enforcing serious health, financial, emotional, social, and professional risks on a woman who knows she is in no way ready to give a baby the life it deserves? Is it worse than having to wake up every day with a heavy pit in your stomach because you can’t feed your little girl since you had to drop out of high school to take care of her? Worse than having to give your baby away to an adoption center, where they’re likely to join the hundreds of thousands of unadopted children? There are evils, and then there are greater evils. Abortion may not be ideal, but for some people, it’s the best option out there. When broken down, the pro-life argument is nothing but sad, provocative videos & descriptions of surgical abortions intended to pull at your heartstrings. But they’re sometimes the best option for the mother and her unborn baby. Nobody is pro-abortion — we’re pro-choice.

[disembodiedapparition]

Diversity in STEM: beyond the color of your skin

The word “diversity” gets thrown around in conversations about career and education very often, but what exactly do we mean by it? Diversity isn’t limited to the color of your skin or your gender. Innovation-driven fields like STEM demand diversity of thought and experience – although the two often overlap.

Despite the common misconception that STEM kids are all studious, math-loving nerds, the truth is that STEM benefits most when we acquire a blend of thinkers – analysts, creatives, conformists, individualists, realists, and idealists. Diversity of thought enables us to create and combine multiple solutions that address the same problem in vastly different ways.

Diversity of experience means that we include people from all walks of life – different gender identities, sexual orientations, races, ethnicities, economic strata, or geographic areas. Education tends to uplift communities as a whole, so making sure that we're making STEM education accessible to all sorts of people is essential to a level playing field. People with personal connections to problems they’ve faced first-hand have unique insight and drive to solve them. For example, a low income student may work on the development of economically produced medicine, after growing up watching their siblings’ health conditions deteriorate because the heavily inflated medications were unaffordable. Meanwhile, a student with a disability might come up with technology that helps differently-abled individuals to find employment.

The benefits of diversity are undeniable. Without a range of perspectives, we limit our ability to understand the needs of the people we’re innovating for. Top STEM companies have acknowledged these benefits, and have even discovered that diversity in the innovation room saves them billions of dollars that would otherwise go towards revamps and improvements. So what’s standing in the way? There are the obvious hurdles, like the lack of educational resources and tools for people coming from certain economic backgrounds or locations, or the micro-aggressions and personal biases minorities are subject to. Even women, who are biologically not minorities, have trouble with career advancement because so many of their superiors are men. My mother works in financial technology, and she’s noticed that the 50:50 male to female ratio that she sees in the entry-level workforce exponentially shrinks as you move up the career ladder. In order to get promoted, you need to connect with and impress your superiors. This is much harder to do when most of them belong to a demographic you aren’t a part of.

Additionally, there are hidden problems in our education systems that hinder diversity. For example, our education system that only rewards certain types of thinkers. There may be scores of amazing innovators who are bad at memorization, which is essential to getting good grades. Despite the potential they might have, their GPA and test scores keep them out of STEM. Diversity of thinking style is essential in our field, and the academic filtering system leaves us lacking. Without an education system that all types of learners can thrive in, we’re gatekeeping an industry that thrives on open-mindedness.

[disembodiedapparition]

The Political and Religious Nexus in India

In 1976, the Forty-second Amendment of India’s Constitution rendered it a secular nation. Although the most commonly accepted definition of “secular” is the separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, India’s version of it is a little different – here, the constitution has explicitly allowed for state interference in religious affairs and vice versa.

India’s version of secularism:

So what does India’s definition of secularism mean? With a country as religiously, culturally, and linguistically diverse as India, religion is a huge part of many constituents’ identities. Like most developed nations, India has no official state religion, and all government educational institutions are prohibited from imparting religious instruction. However, what sets it apart is the fact that many of India’s laws vary depending on an individual’s religion. This means that the laws pertaining to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and alimony could literally be different, depending on whether a person follows Hinduism or Islam. Although this may sound bizarre, it’s important to remember that separate laws on the basis of religion have been accepted in India for centuries – even the British Raj, in an attempt to honor their non-interference policy with respect to religion, permitted Muslims and Hindus to govern themselves differently for certain matters. After independence, the Muslim community in particular insisted that India keep the policy intact as it was significant to their Muslim identity and religion. Historic precedent won over.

The impacts of religious influence in legislation:

This system creates a myriad of problems – first, the country does not have a uniform civil code. Under this system, equality before the law does not exist because individuals are held to different standards depending on the religion they follow. Second, for citizens who don’t follow the same religion as their families, it’s unclear which set of laws they will be held to. Forcing people to prove that they follow a particular faith is a slippery slope, because even within a religion, everyone practices differently and there’s no real way to test faith. The entire process of having to prove religious belief inherently infringes on the right to religion.

However, proponents of the system in place argue that since Hinduism is by far the most dominant religion in the country, by enacting one set of laws for everyone, it’s likely that non-Hindus will have Hindu sensibilities and ideals imposed onto them. There are many differences between India’s religions, which makes legislation difficult.

How has religion bled into legislation?

For example, while Hindus, Christians, and most other religions view marriage as both a legal and civil contract between two individuals, Muslim marriage is seen as a purely civil contract. Under their laws, if a man wants to annul his marriage, all he has to do is say the word “talaq” three times, while if a woman wants to divorce her husband, she must go to the court and prove that he’s violated one or more of the marital duties outlined in the Quran. The triple-talaq system was outlawed in 2019, intended to improve circumstances for Muslim women who would suffer as a result of these meager divorce proceedings. However, the Muslim community viewed it as another attack on their beliefs.

Hinduism, too, is capable of extremism. The Bharatiya Janata Party, a Hindu-majority party currently holding office in India, made one of their first moves in power implementing an all India ban on beef. Beef is a rich source of protein that’s widely consumed by Muslims and Christians, especially in the South, so the ban was obviously met with a lot of resistance and protest. Although the official reasoning behind the ban was to prevent animal cruelty, most cattle given up for slaughter are old and have reached the end of their productive lives. By selling old cows, farmers are able to recover a crucial part of the value of their cattle – a study from India’s National Dairy Development Board reported that 47% of dairy farmers’ profits come from selling old cows. Cows are considered sacred in Hindu culture, so it’s likely the law was only intended to further Hindu ideals in the country, as called for by the Hindu nationalist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, of which Prime Minister Modi was once a member.

What’s the solution?

This perspective poses a new question – what place do religious morals have in legislation? Since Hindus and Muslims believe in different values, the idea that a uniform civil code would impose on Muslims is conceivable, considering the fact that Hindus make up about 80% of the population. But the concept of having separate laws based on (loosely-defined) religions is unethical too. The honest answer is that India’s definition of secularism doesn’t work. We need a uniform civil code, but we also need to hold it to certain standards and keep it free of religious influence. The right to religion already protects the interests of each group in India as long as nobody is imposing their religious views on anyone else. In the case of the beef ban, there’s no reason to ban cattle slaughter when the slaughter of chickens and fish is still legal, and just because the cow is holy to Hindus, doesn’t mean everyone needs to refrain from eating beef. Similarly, when you look at Islam’s marriage, property, and alimony laws, it’s evident that they are discriminatory towards women. Practices like child marriage, unequal inheritance rights, and unequal divorce rights constitute gender discrimination, which is unconstitutional. They could never be passed under a uniform civil code. Although a Muslim parent may choose to abide by Islam law and award their son twice of what they award their daughter anyway, this doesn’t necessarily need to be enforced via the law. Similarly, if a Muslim husband wants to get a divorce, he can always just go to the courts and get it done legally.

Religious conflict has been prevalent in India for centuries. It serves to be the greatest divider even in the most educated of societies, and one of the first steps towards eliminating religious conflict is by ensuring equal treatment for everybody in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, political parties still try to ignite these tensions in attempts to win elections (M.K. Stalin controversially criticized the BJP in an open letter for using the brute majority to pass laws). The only way to even begin the process of restoring peace is to redefine secularism in India. When you allow religious laws to supersede state laws, you set the stage for conflict and inequality.

[disembodiedapparition]

Is The Right To Freedom of Speech Under Siege?

In the days following the riots in the U.S. Capitol, legions of large social media companies moved to either permanently or temporarily ban President Trump from their platforms, citing rampant misinformation and incitement of violence. President Trump had been spreading unevidenced claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 elections for months, escalating his rhetoric after his Democratic opponent, President Biden, was declared the winner. In the days leading up to January 6th, the day that President Biden’s electoral victory was to be legally confirmed, President Trump delivered speeches and tweets claiming that “if [his supporters] don't fight like hell [they’re] not going to have a country anymore”, and instructed them to go to the Capitol. Though he clarified that he was in favor of a “peaceful protest”, his armed supporters wound up storming the Capitol, participating in an attack that culminated in the deaths of five people, including one police officer. 

The bans, intended to block President Trump’s main avenue of spreading alternative facts, seemed to lessen the amount of false information being shared on the internet. However, many were concerned that, no matter how noble its intentions, it constituted an attack on Mr. Trump’s freedom of expression. 

Was Trump’s Twitter ban a violation of his Freedom of Expression? 

The answer is no. The freedom of expression protects individuals from censorship or restriction of speech by the government, subject to certain limitations depending on the laws on hate speech, defamation, and other protectionary speech regulations. The key word in this equation is “government”. Twitter, an independent and private corporation, can legally censor and remove anyone who violates their own set of terms and conditions. Since the platform is theirs, they can decide who gets to join it and what they’re allowed spread on it, as long as their practices are not discriminatory on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. It’s much like how a restaurant owner can kick customers out for being drunk, or not following a certain dress code. 

Was the ban effective? Was the ban right? 

While it’s true that technically Twitter reserves the right to ban whoever they want, some claim that, given the sheer number of social media users and the amount of regular life that has been transferred online, it’s unfair to permanently ban someone from an online platform. Despite the fact that it is not a direct attack on your freedom of speech (you can always join a new platform or walk out into the streets and make the same statements), it limits your ability to communicate with a wider audience. The internet is a far more powerful communication platform than any stage in the world due to its ability to reach millions of more people at the same time. The fact that a capitalistic, unregulated corporation can control what is being said, seen, consumed, and promoted on the internet is dangerous — the corporation has the power to control which narratives are heard, and even mold them to serve their best interests. There’s too much power in the hands of companies that cannot be trusted to act in favor of the greater good, since their sole purpose is to create more profit. 

The simplest solution to this is to break these companies’ power down with government regulation. Although companies would still have full control over their platforms, they would have to adopt a set of clear, consistent guidelines on what can and can’t be said, and what consequences any violators would have to face. Misinformation spreads six to seven times more than facts due to their intentionally provocative nature. Given the damage we’ve seen that misinformation is capable of, it’s clear that the relationship between governments and tech giants must be taken more seriously. 

The idea of government regulated social media has been met with a lot of criticism. While some governments can be trusted to uphold the basic tenets of freedom of expression, there are plenty of non-democratic governments that have been known to suppress dissent and protest against their regimes. Not all governments can be trusted to fairly determine what can and cannot be said. 

The future of free speech on the internet: 

A growing phenomenon online, and increasingly in real-world situations, is “cancel culture”. A movement which started out as a collective mini-boycott of individuals or organizations supporting or doing questionable things, has escalated into something that could cost a person their job and reputation for disagreeing with the general consensus on a topic. Often correlated with “political correctness”, people are increasingly being persecuted for their words and actions: not only online, but in workplaces and higher education institutes as well. 

It is often claimed that while we have the freedom of expression, we do not particularly have the freedom from consequences or reactions to that expression. This may be true, but the growing restrictions on personal beliefs and opinions are creating echo chambers at a time when we need as many new ideas about the issues plaguing our world than ever. While exposure to opposing beliefs may trigger our innate fight or flight responses, it’s important to engage with these opinions in order to understand and address them. 

Cancel culture severely undermines the value of dissent, and if continued, could be disastrous. People are afraid to express opinions that they haven’t already seen “approved” on the internet already, watching people who do so getting their addresses and places of employment leaked online. In a crime called “doxxing”, an internet user’s personal information is posted online for other users to use to harass. Not only does this cause real harm to real people for exercising the right to an opinion, it effectively shuts down any productive discourse, instead creating online echo chambers where new ideas are not encouraged, and existing opinions are not questioned. 

Bringing back the concept of government regulation: despite its misgivings, regulation would protect internet users from the dangers of social media, such as doxxing, cyberbullying, and fraud. It would also fight against users aiming to spread baseless or harmful misinformation online. 

Conclusion: 

With the integration of the internet into our everyday worlds, we need an effective way to regulate what goes on there just as much as we do in real life. Government regulation isn’t a perfect solution, but evidently there must be a fair set of guidelines restricting hate speech, doxxing, violence, misinformation, and other crimes online; while simultaneously protecting the rights of those who have dissenting opinions. Our freedom of expression, so far, is safe. But we need to stop shutting out opinions that we don’t agree with.

[disembodiedapparition]

The American Political System: explained

The results of the United States’ high-stakes 2020 election have immeasurable impacts on the rest of the globe, thereby thrusting itself onto the world’s growing list of anxieties. The next president would determine the foreign policy, priorities, and values that the world’s most powerful country would hold for the next four years, and regardless of the victor, the results will undoubtedly deepen the divide between the supporters of America’s two largest political parties.

The United States is the third largest country in the world, home to a population of about 330 million people. The population of the United States is incredibly diverse in terms of ethnicity, culture, age groups, education levels, incomes, genders, and backgrounds, and these factors usually play a large part in affecting the way certain demographics vote. The political system in America is called a representative democracy, which means that each of the 330 million US citizens have a role in electing officials who represent their interests and views to positions in all three levels of government: local, state, and federal.

America’s election process is hazy, especially when it comes to voting for a president, one of the most influential governmental positions. In the American system, each state is assigned a number of electoral votes depending on its population size. In its entirety, the United States has 538 electoral votes up for grabs, and whoever manages to get the largest majority of them wins. When ballots are being counted, they’re separated by state. Once they determine the candidate with the most votes in that particular state, all of its electoral votes are assigned to that candidate (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska). For example, considering Florida with its 29 electoral votes: if the vote was split 47.4% to 48.6%, all 29 of its votes would go to the leading candidate.

This system’s relevance and efficacy has been the subject to vigorous debate ever since Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Electoral College loss. Though she won the popular vote by over 3 million, she didn’t win enough states to be awarded the presidency. A common concern with the Electoral College is that it invalidates the key promise of democracy – every vote counts. The situation in Florida (which is what happened in 2016’s race) showed that 47.4% of the population’s vote was technically ignored. Evidently, it’s possible for a candidate to win the majority of the country’s votes and still lose the presidency.

Although America isn’t officially a two-party democracy, its Electoral College inherently prohibits the entry of a third. Given the strong pull of partisanship and the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College, it’s extremely unlikely for a third party to garner much support. Americans are heavily divided over several core issues, like the economy, reproductive rights, sustainability, immigration, and racial justice. Political parties consistently take advantage of this divide by demonizing each other and aligning themselves with either liberal or conservative takes, thus ensuring a solid voting base that they can count on regardless of who their candidate is or how unsuitable they might be for office.

This system seems to have worked out for politicians so far. Over the years, voters’ belief that the victory of the opposition would mean utter devastation has only strengthened, encouraging Americans to forget about third parties and vote either blue or red. The media has been increasingly emphasizing the importance of each successive election cycle over the years: “This election could break America”; “This is the most important election of our lives”; “This is the test to determine who we really are as a nation”. It’s only gotten more apocalyptic over the years, and this narrative only serves to keep America in the throes of the two-party system.

Many Americans believe that voting for a third party, no matter how good their policies are, is a lost cause and would only increase the risk of the other party winning. Citizens whose political beliefs overlap more with a third party candidate often choose to vote for either a Democratic or Republican candidate to ensure their votes are used on a candidate who actually has a chance of winning. A good example of this mindset is the mayhem following the announcement of Kanye’s 2020 presidential run. The minute he declared it, millions of Democrats all over the country began warning against voting for him: “It’s an attempt to divide the Democratic base”, “He’s colluding with Trump”, “Whatever you do, please don’t vote Kanye West.” Despite not knowing what he stood for, his chances were immediately blown because it was “the most important election of their lives” and they couldn’t afford to “waste their votes” on a third-party candidate. Instead of voting for the greater good, US elections have become a battle to determine the lesser evil; and choosing candidates has become less about who has better policies and more about who has a better chance of winning the vote of the majority of the country.

George Washington, America’s first president, warned the nation of the ills of hyper-partisanship in his 1796 farewell address: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” Similarly, John Adams, one of America’s founding fathers and Washington’s successor, worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties… is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” Although America’s two-party system does ensure that whoever wins must cultivate support from a wide majority of the country, it demands cooperation post victory. The two-party system may have worked centuries ago, but America today faces a new series of challenges. Back then, the two parties contained enough overlapping beliefs within them that the sort of bargaining and coalition-building natural to multiparty democracy could work inside the two-party system. Today, the two parties are so far apart that the government has been rendered ineffective; if the House has a democratic majority and the Senate is Republican led, it’s likely that they’ll be incapable of working together to pass new legislation or bills even when their interests align.

The American multiparty democracy may not be perfect, but it’s the most efficient form of government when partisanship doesn’t take over. The answers to the problems of America’s political system don’t lie in abolishment of all political institutions or even doing our best to keep the ones we have up and running. America needs to build a new set of establishments that take the views and interests of the broadly diverse set of people in America into account, and work on bridging the gap between the left and the right so our government can rebuild the coalition that multiparty democracy stands on.

[disembodiedapparition]

Neoliberalism: explained

Neoliberalism is a concept that has largely shaped the world we live in today. First popularized in the 1980s by world leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, it was the successor to the Keynesian economic system that most developed nations had adopted post World War 2. However, for a system as influential as it is, there’s still a great deal of confusion about what it really stands for and whether it’s ideal for a strong economy or not.

Neoliberalism is a school of thought that believes that every human interaction is driven by greed. In other words, people’s actions, relationships, and choices are all motivated by what that person might gain economically from them. Neoliberalism argues that self-interest is the driving force for any economy and for human progress as a whole, and that it should be encouraged rather than treated as a vice. It also posits that the competition an individual may face while propelling their self-interests would only encourage them to work harder and produce a product or service that meets a much higher standard. Without adequate competition, people are less motivated to do the very best they can – their consumers simply have no alternative to buy from.

Although this particular school of thought is often referred to as “capitalism”, it’s important to remember that by definition, a capitalist system is simply a system that aims to acquire capital, or profit. Neoliberalism, the system that many developed countries still incorporate into their economic systems today, is a type of capitalism – it promotes economic gain by increasing market competition and advocating for more privatized industries over public (government owned) ones.

The term “neoliberalism” in today’s context can be a little confusing, especially since the word “liberal” is commonly associated with civil rights and social equality advocacy (the ideals that these movements revolve around actually support government run industries and propose a tilt of the current economic model towards socialism). However, the “liberalism” that the term originated from referred to economic liberation – that is, a transfer of economic power from the government to individuals. It was popularized in the 19th  century, and has dominated the global economy ever since.

After the Cold War, the people were largely turned off by capitalism. The economic crises and recessions of the 1920-30s were fresh in mind, and it was clear that a new system, that would prevent the economy from crashing periodically, had to be drawn up. Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom concluded that “both socialism and capitalism [were] dead”, and the Keynesian economic system subsequently adopted a blend of the two – it recognized the importance of market competition and individual economic liberty, while also implementing policy interventions aimed to curb the inherent flaws in capitalism that so often resulted in financial breakdowns, depressions, or mass unemployment epidemics. This system soon began rising in popularity in previously neoliberal nations, and for good reason. Their economies were booming, and growing at consistent rates.

However, in the early 1970s, the Keynesian system started to see another recession coming its way. The reasons for this recession were external and had little to do with the economic model being followed, but the economic elites who previously profited off capitalism began panicking, worried that their wealth may be in danger. The elites understood that a compromise was necessary following the devastating impacts of the war, and they were willing to share their wealth with the masses. However, once they felt that this wealth was in danger, they began advocating reverting to the old capitalist system – marketed to the people as a new one called neoliberalism.

The idea posited by Keynesian economists that government regulation was necessary to keep big industries in check, avoid future economic breakdowns, and protect the interests of the environment, the society, and every individual was rebranded as an overextension of power and an attack on individual liberties. It’s also important to note that during this time, the anti- Vietnam war crowd was also resentful of the restrictions that were placed on behavior and thought, and the way that government mandated controls were being implemented all over the country. This greatly contributed to the rhetoric that government intervention was bad and needed to be shut down.

All of this was only talk, however, until neoliberal leaders like Thatcher and Reagan were elected into office. They each began reforming their respective governments – loosening regulations on industries, de-centralizing certain industries (like telecommunication or energy production), and cutting down taxes on the people, mainly the economic elites. By the time Reagan was out of office, the highest tax that an individual in the U.S could pay dropped from 70% to 28%. The rationale was that the wealthiest people in society, when taxed less by the government, would use their wealth to make larger investments that would, in turn, lead to astronomical economic growth which would benefit everyone. This proposed chain of events is often called the trickle- down economic theory, and is still referenced today (U.S. President Donald Trump used it to justify his tax cuts on the wealthy).

However, as Owen Zidar has recently shown in a research study published in the Journal of Political Economy, the assumption that the wealthy would use saved tax dollars to create jobs, foster economic growth, or bridge the gap between the rich and poor is a fallacy. Instead, he found that they are actually more likely to simply hoard their wealth. The U.S, which currently taxes its billionaires at a rate of 23% (while the average tax rate for the public is 28%), is one of the best examples of the massive wealth inequalities triggered by relying on trickle-down economics – as of 2013, the top 10% possessed 76% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 50% only possessed 1%. Back when the ultra-rich were taxed heavily, the government implemented welfare programs which sought to stabilize this gap, but neoliberal economic policies provided a way for the wealthy to keep national wealth all to themselves – which doesn’t promote economic growth at all.

Today, neoliberalism’s biggest advocates are right wing or conservative parties, although the term itself might indicate otherwise. However, not many openly identify with the label, as it’s gained a bad reputation because of leaders like Pinochet, the former President of Chile. Although Chile’s economy did much better than her Latin American counterparts and she experienced a sharp decrease in poverty levels, the rampant inequality that neoliberalism inevitably triggered led to a divide between the business/political elite and the people of Chile, sparking nationwide protests and a call for more public provisions and greater taxes on the wealthy. However, the ideas of unregulated industries, privatized businesses, and minimal government interference are still hugely popular. Countries like the U.S, which were founded on individualist over monarchial government systems, often claim that the free market capitalism that neoliberalism champions is one of the core values of the nation, and cannot be compromised on.

Not only has neoliberalism led to an increase in wealth and income inequality, but it has also stripped power away from governments and given it to powerful and wealthy multinational companies. For example, the way that governments were forced to immediately fold and bail the banks out in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, and the inability of governments to prevent social media platforms from infringing on the integrity of their own elections - or even force them to attempt to do so. Governments are becoming increasingly powerless in comparison to the ultra-rich. Ironically, even though neoliberal ideals acknowledge that the government still plays a small role in the economy, the nature of the system enables large corporations to accumulate enough wealth and power to influence the few decisions that the government actually gets to make. For example, a corporation that is essentially a pillar of the economy – providing millions of jobs and paying a large percent of the tax the government receives from its people – could threaten to relocate to a different country if they don’t comply with their demands.

Neoliberalism is a very unique system of organizing society. It’s played a massive role in shaping the world we live in today, and even though the label has been defamed, the ideas that propelled the revolution are still highly popular today. Today, political parties remain conflicted over whether Keynesian or Neoliberal economics are the best way to minimize adversity and maximize economic growth. David Harvey has classified neoliberalism as “a project to achieve the restoration of class power”, and unfortunately, this holds true. Decades of neoliberal reforms have stacked the odds increasingly in favor of the ultra-rich and the billionaires, and have dug the economic lower and middle classes further into poverty and debt. In addition, the idea has changed the way we think about the world, and invited us to view society as a market, where every interaction is made out of self-interest, and where economic gain is the only kind of gain you could ever hope to make in your lifetime.

“Neoliberalism is the flood that raises those who can afford ships and drowns those who cannot.”