Don't Be Absent for Transgender 101

In last night's two-hour ABC interview, Bruce Jenner, no stranger to media attention, explained to Diane Sawyer and nearly 17 million viewers, his internal struggles with being transgender, a part of himself he has kept hidden for decades. 

“For all intents and purposes, I’m a woman."

Though he identifies as a woman, for the time being, Bruce still uses masculine pronouns for himself, so I will do the same in this post, though in the interview, he also referred to himself as "Bruce" and "her".  Bruce has not yet revealed to the public the female name he has chosen but jokingly insisted that it does not start with a "K" and that "she is definitely a Jenner" in regards to his famous reality TV  family so many, like myself, Keep Up With. 

“My brain is much more female than it is male. It’s hard for people to understand that, but that’s what my soul is.”

The reason this is so hard for people to understand is because we live in a heteronormative society, which entirely neglects and alienates groups of people. As is the problem with a white-centric, cis-centric feminism, which intersectional feminism hopes to address, so, too must we recognize that we need to start changing the way we talk about gender and sexuality in order to stop marginalizing groups.

Bruce Jenner has become "the unlikely center of a national dialogue around gender." Sawyer's questions and clarifications, paired with Jenner's genuine honesty and patient explanations, hopefully will establish once and for all that sexual desire and gender are too separate things. When Sawyer asked Bruce if, since he identified as a woman, but was attracted to women, if that made him a lesbian or how that worked, he cautioned her:

"You're going back to the sex thing and it's apples and oranges."

While it can be tricky to understand the difference when the words "gender" and "sex" and "sexuality" so often are interchanged indiscriminately, those who have the privilege of ignorance by identifying with what is considered the norm, need to consider that not everyone fits into this false mold and binary.  

The Trans Student Educational Resources website posted this extremely helpful graphic to clarify confusion about the distinction between gender and sex assigned at birth. The definitions below the graphic, also from the website, provide further insight. I love the Gender Unicorn because before I was introduced to it at a WYSE (Women and Youth Supporting Each Other) reflection,  I didn't have a clear understanding of the distinction between sex and gender; I had never even considered the difference between romantic and sexual attraction. 

Definitions:
Gender Identity: Gender Identity: One's internal sense of being male, female, neither of these, both, or another gender. Everyone has a gender identity, including you. For transgender people, their sex assigned at birth and their own internal sense of gender identity are not the same. Female, woman, and girl and male, man, and boy are also NOT necessarily linked to each other but are just six common gender identities.
Gender Expression/Presentation: The physical manifestation of one's gender identity through clothing, hairstyle, voice, body shape, etc. Most transgender people seek to make their gender expression (how they look) match their gender identity (who they are), rather than their sex assigned at birth.
Sex Assigned at Birth: The assignment and classification of people as male, female, intersex, or another gender based on a combination of anatomy, hormones, chromosomes. It is important we don't simply use "sex" because of the vagueness of the definition of sex and its place in transphobia. Chromosomes are frequently used to determine sex from prenatal karyotyping (although not as often as genitalia). Chromosomes do not determine genitalia.
Sexually Attracted To: Sexual Orientation. It is important to note that sexual and romantic/emotional attraction can be from a variety of factors including but not limited to gender identity, gender expression/presentation, and sex assigned at birth.
Romantically/Emotionally Attracted To: Romantic/emotional orientation. It is important to note that sexual and romantic/emotional attraction can be from a variety of factors including but not limited to gender identity, gender expression/presentation, and sex assigned at birth.

Not only is Jenner bringing awareness to the less talked about identities, he also puts a face, a famous one, to the issues so many transgender people have had to face, largely in silence. To those who question his motives, absurdly suggesting he has decided to transition to become a woman for publicity purposes, Jenner refutes:

We’re going to make a difference in the world with what we’re doing, and if the whole Kardashian show gave me a foothold into that world, to be able to go out there and do something good, I got not problem with that. 

Also in the interview, in a very relatable way, Jenner explains how hard it was to tell the people he loved, especially his children, for fear of how it might affect them. Drian Juarez, who has faced harassment and violence as a transgender woman, related to the kind of fear Jenner described about coming out to his family. Jenner did not want to disappoint his children in particular and Juarez feared losing her support system and loved ones. Though she and other members of the transgender community were apprehensive about what ABC's coverage would entail, Juarez was very impressed: 

“It almost feels like Transgender 101...

People of Bruce Jenner’s generation had a lot of misinformation on what being transgender is, and I hope they will be able to have some dialogue about this...I really feel like this is a turning point in terms of the awareness of trans identity...things are changing, and I hope this is a sign of how things can change for the better.”

Jenner and Sawyer did not shy away from the hard truths about what transgender people face every single day, as we've seen in the news with high rates of violence against them and disproportional poverty rates. A 2011 study by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 41% of transgender and gender nonconforming people (of the 6,450 surveyed) had attempted suicide.

Just last December, the tragic suicide of Leelah Alcorn started a conversation about society's treatment of transgender people, when the suicide note she posted to Tumblr revealed what sparked her sense of hopelessness was her parents' refusal to accept her for who she was.

Leelah's note read, in regards to when she first learned what it meant to be transgender:

"...After 10 years of confusion I finally understood who I was. I immediately told my mom, and she reacted extremely negatively, telling me that it was a phase, that I would never truly be a girl, that God doesn't make mistakes, that I am wrong. If you are reading this, parents, please don't tell this to your kids."

Jenner's family, on the other hand, is setting an example for the rest of the world, showing their dad well-deserved respect and unconditional love.

Brandon Jenner described how proud he was, as a kid, when people recognized him by his last name as Bruce's son, the son of an Olympic gold medalist and American hero. Brandon's sentiments about his father now when people recognize him as his son are just as positive. He told his father during the interview:

I saw a sense of bravery that is, for all your previous accomplishments, I think far exceeds all of them, I’m just honored and more proud than ever to be a part of the family.

The rest of Jenner's family also voiced their support on social media. Bruce describes Kim's support, which stemmed from Kanye's wise take on the situation. He explained to her, in one of the biggest moments of the interview that no matter what you have in life, a beautiful wife or beautiful baby:

"I’m nothing if I can’t be me.”

Bruce's poignant interview, ABC's well-informed and tasteful coverage, and the great example his family is setting has inspired members of the transgender community and allies everywhere that this very well could be one of the biggest turning points of our time. Bruce has accepted who he truly is and it's time the rest of us do the same, both for ourselves and for everyone around us.

Life is hard enough without having to feel like you can't be true to yourself. Or that your family cannot accept you.

Bruce's interview is an excellent starting point towards changing this.

 

Intersectionality

I wrote a few weeks back about Patricia Arquette's Oscar speech on the wage gap. Her remarks when accepting the award took a bold stance on the gender-based inequalities in pay that need to be addressed, but when interviewed afterward, her message was not so clear or positive. Though she later clarified via Twitter her backstage comments, they completely undermined her intended message:

“So the truth is, even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America, right under the surface there are huge issues that are applied that really do affect women. It’s time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”

Her comments sparked outrage, of course, as they imply that people of color and the queer community, are fighting for entirely separate causes and that feminism inherently is an issue for straight, white women. Though Arquette did later clarify her intentions, this quote demonstrates what is perhaps the biggest flaw with the feminist movement, it excludes people by omission.

Intersectional feminism is the goal, but we have a long way to go before we get there, especially when celebrities like Arquette receive the most media attention and therefore define what feminism is in pop culture. To change these white-centric, cis-centric biases, we first need to change the discourses about feminism; inclusion, sensitivity, and awareness are essential.

On April 8, UCB comedian and Fusion writer Akilah Hughes, took changing the discourses surrounding feminism into her own hands, by posting a YouTube video explaining intersectionality in terms which we can all understand- fast food:

"While it's great and delightful to have such broad discussions about sexism and feminism on the Internet, it's pretty clear that the majority of the issues deemed worthy of discussion seem to only highlight the plight of White women."

The video comes with a handy key in the description, detailing the metaphors Hughes uses.

**KEY**:
Burgers = Men
Pizza = Women
Cheese Pizza = White Women
Deluxe Pizza = any combination of gay, bi, trans, POC etc., women

She explains, in her own clever way, how it is hard to be a pizza in a burger world, but it is even harder to be a deluxe pizza when cheese pizzas are the only pizza ever addressed in the discussion surrounding pizza rights.

Intersectional feminism is not difficult to understand, but it will take some serious conscious-shifting to be successful.

Hughes sums it up best in her video, 

As great as it is to uplift cheese pizzas, the world could use a lot more flavor.

Bringing Sex Ed Back

The longstanding debate regarding sex education is misguided and cyclical; in fact, the biggest problem with sex education is that we haven’t figured out the problem with sex education. A recent study found that millennials are highly in favor of sex education in schools, yet nearly four of ten, ironically enough, found their own sex education experiences had little to no applicability in their real lives.  While this may seem self-contradictory, these millennials are, in fact, right on both accounts.

Many adolescents are or will be sexually active and, without access to medically accurate, complete, and unbiased information, they will never become informed enough to navigate real world sexual encounters and relationships. Sex education should be taught in schools, though fewer than half of U.S. states require it to be taught at all, but the curriculum needs a makeover.

What we need is an intelligent sex education that addresses the real life situations of young people, who come into the classroom with background knowledge and assumptions, often from the Internet or their peers. As a mentor for Women and Youth Supporting Each Other, I have first-hand experience augmenting misconceptions that our mentees, 7^th and 8^th grade girls, carried with them. Several students shared the false belief that using a tampon would “take your virginity”, something we had never considered addressing in our curriculum. Others believed that you could not get sexually transmitted infections from oral sex, which we were able to correct after a student asked about this anonymously using our Question Box. It is likely that the millennials surveyed found that the information they received, though most found it to be medically accurate, was not applicable to real life because their school-based sex educators failed to recognize and address the diversity of beliefs and values in the surrounding community of the school.

Sex education is about more than preventing pregnancy in young people, thought that is often a way of measuring its success. In my experiences as a mentor/sex educator, we devote several sessions to the topics of pregnancy and childbirth, always with the awareness that in the area where we teach, teen pregnancy is very common and often acceptable, but knowledge of contraception is minimal. An abstinence-only sex education program in a community like this one or an outside educator warning against teen pregnancy, when many of their mothers or siblings had children young, would likely do more harm than good.

Our method, and a good one for all sexual education programs, is SOY: Some do, Others don’t, You decide. But the SOY acronym is not effective unless the students have complete information to make an informed decision. Many critics of sex education programs in general insist that it is the parents’ responsibility to teach their children this information according to their beliefs and values. However, family members, religious, and community groups might not have the knowledge, skill, or comfort, to present all of the facts in an unbiased way allowing adolescents to form make their own choices, as they will in adulthood and throughout the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, if young people’s only sexual education comes from their parents, who may in fact be in a dysfunctional relationship themselves, how will they ever learn what a healthy relationship entails- something only 45% of millennials were taught in their sex ed classes? Furthermore, in less accepting communities, how will queer adolescents learn safe sexual practices? In the same study, only 12% surveyed discussed same-sex relationships in their class. A third, and increasingly important issue missing from most sex education courses is consent, which is problematic with sexual assault instances arising as early as middle school.

We need to build off the successful programs already in place and implement them in schools across the nation, but not fall into the trap of maintaining a rigid structure or formulaic approach as cultural considerations and awareness of students’ existing beliefs are essential to adapting for the needs of each classroom.  Interested parents should have the option of being trained on how to teach the material to their children, but they should not be the only source of sex education; a thorough and unbiased curriculum, with open discussions and a safe environment for questions, is the only way to prepare young people for real world experiences.

Yes, abstinence should be taught as an option, as it is the only guaranteed way of avoiding unplanned pregnancy or STIS, but not the only option. And yes, the biological processes should be taught so students have a greater understanding of their bodies, but that is not the only understanding of sex they should have. If students know the scientific process of how to make a baby, but don’t know the resources available at the Planned Parenthood down the street, or what does or does not constitute consent, or if the relationship they are in is a healthy one, or how having a baby at their age would affect them in the long-term, or what other sexual identities there are when all they know is what their heteronormative community has taught them is "normal", then sex education will have failed once again. 

Whenever You Remember

I saw this on my Facebook today and it got me thinking about how we remember famous women. In Hepburn's case, I think this graphic minimizes her film successes (Breakfast at Tiffany's, anyone?) but does so in order to prove a valid point. I did not know Hepburn was a Goodwill Ambassador or about her Presidential Medal of Freedom and I think most people would agree that one of the first things that comes to mind when someone mentions Audrey Hepburn is her beauty.

This one-dimensional focus on a single facet of who Hepburn was is problematic, of course, but there are worse things than being remembered by history for your attractive appearance.

Just ask Monica Lewinsky.

Until her Ted Talk a few weeks ago, her name probably did not trigger connections to essayist, Masters, or social activist. She was merely 24 years old when her personal life became the focus of not only a federal investigation, but also the entire nation, including the relentless media, late night hosts, and scandal-crazed public. Her parents even worried she would quite literally be humiliated to death.

In the talk, Lewinsky describes "The Price of Shame" and advocates for a more compassionate social media environment, as one of the first to experience the "culture of humiliation".  She is now using her voice to take a stance against cyber-bullying.

In a NPR Interview, New York Times contributor, Jessica Bennett describes the changing media landscape:

I think that over time there's been some public reckoning. And it's been interesting to talk to media folks about this who covered it at the time and now even look back on their stories and think, huh, that wasn't quite fair. I think that a lot of the language that was used back then - you know, she was called a tart, a tramp, basically everything but slut, publicly - it would never fly today. 

While the apparent success Monica has had rebranding since the Ted Talk is encouraging, the idea that this bright woman will probably still be forever remembered by many for her personal life at age 24 is upsetting to say the least. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has had arguably more influence and success after his presidency and is not only known internationally, but respected. When you think of Bill Clinton, his foundation or work abroad might come to mind first, and his infidelity much, much later if at all.

So if Hepburn, an actress and humanitarian, is remembered as "pretty", Lewinsky, with a Masters in Social Psychology and a successful activist campaign after her Ted Talk, is remembered, if I'm being generous, as "a joke",  and Bill Clinton is remembered as "a leader" with little to no attention paid to his transgressions, is it really possible to deny a gender bias?

Who is controlling how these famous figures are portrayed and eventually immortalized? The media certainly plays a role and perhaps is now understanding the sensitivity and decency that should accompany that responsibility. There needs to be a change in not just the content that is created but in who is creating it. We need female content creators and we need feminist media consumers to demand this and until then, read everything with an awareness of a clear bias favoring males.

Changing a Mob Mentality

On March 21, Farkuhunda, a 27 year old Afghan woman was attacked and murdered in the street by a mob of men for allegedly burning a Quran. She was killed mercilessly, her body run over by a car, lit on a fire, and thrown over a bridge. No evidence has been found of burnt Quran pages, what her murderers used as justification for their despicable actions, and her family insists she was a devout Muslim, even a Religious Studies major.

What is most problematic to me is the focus on whether or not she burned the pages, which all sources point to that she did not, and not the fact that regardless, what happened to Farkuhunda is a horrible tragedy. How in this day and age is it possible for a person to be murdered by a mob in a street? The excuses, conflicting reports, and misplaced focus on what she may have done before she was attacked, demonstrate the root of the persistent problem - women are not valued as equals, not just in Afghanistan, but in most of the world, today.

Fereshta Kazemi, an Afghan-American activist, elaborates:

“Here was this woman who was smart, and pious and very dedicated to Islam. She was exactly what even conservatives there were pushing for women to be like, and yet here she is dead.”

#JusticeForFarkhunda is trending on Twitter and this mob killing has sparked a global movement. Tonight (Thursday) there will be vigils in New York City, Toronto, and around the world.

The protests in Afganistan have seen unprecedented participation. A justice and rights advocate in Kabul, Ramin Anwari, helped arrange a rally on Tuesday: 

"I saw young boys and girls coming with their parents. In the past, women marching in public was limited to extreme activists, but this time I saw families and mothers and housewives."

Anwari further explained that these protests aim to change the dangerous mentality in Afghanistan. Social media has already played an important role in starting this conversation and raising awareness.


Thousands of people attended Farkunda's funeral on Sunday. Though it is customary for only men to be pallbearers, her coffin was carried only by women.

It is deeply disheartening that focus on issues female empowerment most often comes after tremendous injustice. Farkunda should not have had to die so tragically for the world to feel something regarding the inequality of women in Afghanistan. 

Farkunda will not have the bright future she could have, but if the momentum of these protests persists, hopefully this global dialogue will create a positive mob mentality, spreading the idea that women are people, women are equals, and that there is no place for violence against women ever, especially not in these modern times.

India's Daughters and Sons

            According to a very recent United Nations analysis, violence against women and girls worldwide persists at alarmingly high levels (Sengupta). While this generation has seen unprecedented gains for women in areas of education, health, and political power, more than one in three women worldwide experience physical violence in their lifetime (Sengupta). Not even written laws are enough to stop this persistent problem when enforcement remains unreliable and gender-biased social norms that have existed for centuries remain deeply ingrained in cultures across the globe. India proves a timely case study for these gender biases, as national movements call for change of its treatment of women, especially after mobilizing in December 2012 after the horrific rape of an Indian student in Delhi. It is important to note that the way to change the gender inequalities in India is not forcing western ideologies upon them, but rather to work within the culture, especially with the strong, successful movements already in place. Creating more laws and policies is not enough to implement lasting cultural change. To change norms and develop a society which values women and girls as citizens and equals, enforcement of existing laws must be dramatically improved and women in India must have access to economic independence through opportunities in the workplace. Additionally, indigenous methods of accountability should be expanded upon as they create a space for women to come together in solidarity and conscious-raising education of gender equality and mutual respect should be implemented early and persistently in schools to male and female students. Such a multidimensional approach is the only way to begin to address the complexities of gender biases in India, which is by no means alone in its inequality of women.

            India is a rapidly developing, democratic country with a host of laws targeting gender-inequality. The Indian Constitution, in Article 14, confers equal rights to women, and yet this is not in practice by any means (“Delhi Rapist”). It is easy to condemn the men who physically and sexually abuse women for their despicable behavior but “these men are not the disease, they are the symptoms” (“Delhi Rapist”). Merely making laws cannot change the deeply ingrained practices that devalue women in Indian society; solely emphasizing the role of the state has proven ineffective time and time again. It is illegal to give a dowry and yet the custom is widespread (“Delhi Rapist”). Similarly, in 1994, the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act made a nationwide ban on the use of prenatal techniques to determine the sex of a fetus; this has been so poorly enforced that female feticide has led to a noticeable gap in the male to female sex ratio (Dasgupta).  One Indian woman summarized, “Law was made for justice…but, for us, the law means nothing. We’ve seen the law, when it is implemented, doesn’t work for us. It actually works against us” (Magar). Active enforcement and evaluation of the efficacy of these laws is merely a start to lessening and eventually eliminating the gender bias, but it is a start that has yet to happen.

            The lesser value as citizens assigned to females is evident in the prevalence of physical and sexual violence against them. In certain parts of south India the devdasi system, which literally means “female servant of the gods”, has created such a dehumanizing mindset regarding these prepubescent girls that when they are raped it is not even reported as “rape” (Deshpande). These tolerant and even encouraging attitudes towards rape and victim-blaming discourses are now being protested nationwide in India, but their existence lingers. The attackers involved in 2012 bus rape in Delhi not only did not show remorse in the subsequent documentary, but also were bewildered at what all the subsequent protests. Mukesh Singh, the bus driver, even stated in an interview, “A decent girl won’t roam around at nine o’clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy” (“Delhi Rapist”). Equally chilling, statistics show six out of ten men in India have acted violently against heir wives or partners at some point in time (Britto). This creates a cycle of domestic violence because when a child sees or experiences violence they are much more likely to perpetuate it (Britto). While protesting such disheartening victim-blaming beliefs has started an important dialogue, it is not enough to alter entirely a culture where these persist and women are abused more often than not. Especially given the knowledge that these attitudes towards violence and women form at such a young age, the solution must start with children, a new generation of change-makers.

            The patriarchal practice of controlling a woman’s sexuality is by no means unique to India, yet it is crucial to understanding existing cultural attitudes. A girl’s premarital sexual activities, not a boy’s, are seen as responsible for a family’s loss of status and honor in India (Magar). Constraints on women are an essential part of a rise in caste hierarchy, and women, especially upper caste women, are deeply restricted by a number of taboos (Desphande). They are the “custodians of purity of the house and its members” and often must remain secluded (Desphande). The defense attorney of the rapists in the Delhi 2012 case said in a televised interview, and later stood by this statement, “If my daughter or sister engaged in pre-marital activities and allowed herself to lose face and character by doing such things, I would most certainly take [her] to my farmhouse, and in front of my entire family, I would put petrol on her and set her alight” (“Delhi Rapist”). The belief that a woman’s only value is tied to her sexuality, abstinence before marriage and as a child bearer, specifically of male children, immediately after marriage, is also widespread. Changing the discourse to one that recognizes women as citizens, as equals, once again must start at a young age and be taught to male and female children alike.

            When females in India are not viewed in light of their sexual value, they are often viewed as a burden to their family, especially in terms of finances. Most women do not work outside the home and will become destitute without their husband’s income (Magar). Such dependence further perpetuates the male-dominated attitude in Indian society. Even as children, girls are seen as a drain on their family’s resources. Ceremonies, such as the ear-piercing ceremony and coming-of-age ceremony, are costly and the aforementioned widely popular, though technically illicit, dowry requirements are expensive, as well (Hedge). Males are socialized through dominant cultural norms that it is their responsibility to provide for the powerless, vulnerable women who are socialized to live as life-long dependents (Segran).

            The clearest solution, which also would afford India significant economic gains, is to expand the workforce to include women. But first, the stigma associated with working outside the home, deemed a low-status pursuit, must be eliminated, again through persistent and early education. The labor force participation rate, or the percent of females above fifteen who labor outside the home, is merely 29%, whereas comparatively it is 60% in China (“The Ugly Realities”). This figure demonstrates the widespread notion that Indian women are not engaged in productive work and is confirmed when they self-report as well (Deshpande).  Not surprisingly, when women do work outside the home, they receive poor earnings and lack control over their dismal work conditions, which comes back to the issue of enforcement of equal rights laws. Though gender gaps in elementary and secondary education in India are nearly closed, the lack of women in the workplace demonstrates a problematic dependence on males, reinforcing the current hierarchy, as well as widespread dismissing of the contributions women could be making outside the home. Popularizing the idea of women in the workplace could also give new value to women and girls, but must be implemented in Indian schools by Indian teachers to male and female students for greatest impact.

            The value, or rather lack thereof, assigned to women is best summarized in the Kallar saying proclaiming, “Raising a daughter is like watering a neighbor’s plant” (Hedge). The aforementioned illegal fetal sex determination test is so popular because of the widespread preference for sons, which has led to the male-biased population ratio. While women in the workplace would also eventually invalidate the belief that daughters are simply a financial drain, currently, Indian parents value sons also for the upward mobility they represent. Sons are the only rightful heirs and only sons can perform death rites and light funeral pyres for their parents (Hedge).

            All of the offences against women in India can be traced to when girls are not as welcome as boys from the moment they are born: “If a girl is accorded no value, if a girl is worth less than a boy, then it stands to reason there will be men who believe they can do what they like with them” (“Delhi Rapist”).  Son preference, or the mindset that sons are more valuable than daughters, is still so pervasive that studies have indicated gender gaps in nutrition of children (Dasgupta). When brothers notice from an early age that they receive more food than their sisters and other privileges, it is no wonder that patriarchal mindsets and male entitlement persist. The daughters, socialized as nothing more than drains on their family’s resources, are well aware of their narrow escape with female infanticide.  The constant reminder of their second-class citizenship, full knowledge of their unwantedness, and overall lack of freedom, much like growing up in a culture of domestic violence, often leads many of these women to decide against daughters when the time comes for their own families. “We (women) kill her because we do not want her to suffer like we do” (Srinivasan).

            The girls studied who were raised around female infanticide all dreaded growing up, knowing societal requirements would most likely override their own future plans and dreams (Srinivasan). Unmarried girls are compared to “an inferno in the stomach” and therefore marriage is prioritized over higher education or a career (Srinivasan). This non-negotiability of a timely marriage severely limits the potential these girls see for their own futures. And if they remain hesitant to set goals for themselves, it is even less likely that the males in their lives will grant them this agency.

            These problems of rape, victim-blaming, son preference, domestic violence, and sexual control and repression of females are certainly not unique to India, but the solutions to change these social norms that have evolved and persisted for centuries need to be. In this age of globalization, the preferred solution for a number of international problems is often prescribed from a western perspective. This lack of cultural awareness is rarely helpful and often does more damage than good; it is a fallacy to equate Indian traditions with patriarchy and oppression and idealize Western exposure as the key to progress (Desphande). An excellent example of this is the resistance foreign social workers in India have met in their efforts to stop female infanticide. Their admirable intentions are undermined by the simple fact that they are viewed as outsiders and interferences, therefore losing any credibility (Hedge).

            The change of India must come from India and progress has already been made. For weeks after the Delhi rape in 2012, unprecedented masses of protestors, men and women, took to the streets in many major cities in India (“Delhi Rapist”).  Though India is by no means thought to be a model for gender equality, these protests served as an example to the rest of the world and served as what the producer of India’s Daughter called, “the cusp of change” (“Delhi Rapist”). These new thinkers who participated in the protests are indeed future leaders, but protests and antiestablishment rhetoric do not create lasting change, they are merely a starting point.

The long-term empowerment of women must occur to reduce and eventually eliminate this gender bias. One such successful indigenous approach, which combats problems of enforcement of Indian laws against domestic violence, is the creating of mahila panchayats (Magar). These all-women courts are inter-caste, self-appointed, and unofficial, yet respected enough to serve as an efficient and effective means of justice outside the official system of governance (Magar). The mahila panchayats schedule hearings, which both the abused woman and her husband attend, and help the couples come to an acceptable decision on how to proceed with their marriage. The tremendous success of these courts in empowering and protecting women demonstrates how solidarity and creating a public space for women is enough to challenge traditional expectations.

            An Indian NGO, Action India, started working with girls in schools to begin conscious-raising on a massive scale (Magar). Education is indeed crucial to the long-term empowerment of women, but it must extend to males, as well. “Women have to be considered as equal participants in shaping the future of society in India” (Segran). Though the gender gap in elementary and secondary education is all but closed, the separation of girls and boys in schools perpetuates the prevailing ideas that they are not equals. Boys cannot be expected to respect girls if they cannot perceive any common ground just like they cannot be expected to view girls as intellectuals and equals if they do not learn and grow together. In the existing system, the most common interaction between young boys and girls is “eve-teasing” in which boys shout at girls when they walk to and from school or around their homes (Srinivasan). This systematic separation of girls and boys, combined with the preferential treatment of sons and domestic violence in many of these young children’s homes, is an obvious factor in the perpetuation of gender discrimination in India. The best way to implement lasting change is creating a third space in schools where young children are taught to respect both genders in a discourse that includes and celebrates women.  To work, this must be persistent and implemented at the earliest age possible.

The assumption that Indian women have been complacent in their mistreatment is a falsehood. They have a long tradition of resistance and struggle both through organized movements and in their daily lives (Deshpande). The general consensus among the various women’s groups in India is that affirmative action in the political arena is crucial (Deshpande). Indeed, if women in India had agency of their own, surely the equal rights laws would be better enforced and daughters might be valued instead of resented or cast aside as “Kuzhipapas”, babies of the burial pit. But political power is not enough. Economic independence and the worth associated with productive work outside the home would further change these social norms, as well as leading to significant economic growth for India as a whole (“The Ugly Realities”). 

To remove stigmas with women working outside the home, early education discourses directed at young boys and girls should focus on the benefits this would have for all involved. Additionally, the success of the mahila panchayats should be expanded upon. Indian women currently in the workplace, though the minority, could experience similar success through solidarity and critical consciousness, and serve as role models to the young girls in the education system. The power of collective influence should not be dismissed and may be one of the most effective tools in changing social norms and sexist practices.

Condemning India for the prevailing sexism is neither fair nor productive. Prescribing western solutions and interference has, predictably, been met with resistance. While clearly the sexual and physical violence against women must not be tolerated, the social attitudes and norms that perpetuate these sickening behaviors cannot be changed rapidly. The large-scale protests after the horrific Delhi rape of 2012 and the recent media attention after the release of India’s Daughter have done well to start a dialogue of change as well as to gather these new thinkers under a common purpose. But with equal status laws for women already in place, there is only so much protesting the system and the state can do. Greater representation of women in Indian government could lead to greater enforcement of these laws and a cultural shift in the value of women, in general. But the most important and lasting means of conscious-raising is the changing way in which Indian children are socialized to view gender. If boys and girls can be taught mutual respect for one another, in a discourse that values females for more than their sexual purity or son-producing capabilities, a rape culture and victim-blaming society could be altered entirely. Additionally, creating a space for women and girls to come together, outside of the home, like in the case of the all-female courts would promote solidarity and give women the agency to demand just treatment whenever the legal enforcement of equal rights laws is lacking. Lastly, opening the workplace to women and removing the stigma with work outside the home, would shift the idea of women and daughters as mere dependents on their families and force their family members and colleagues to recognize their value. The change in India will come from within India, starting with the youth.

"Legal Justice League" Legos

Mala Weinstock created the Lego version of the women of the Supreme Court in honor of International Women's Day:

“For International Women's Day, I decided to focus on the first four women who've reached the highest level of our judiciary system. All of these women are trailblazers who should be celebrated — not only by adults but by kids just learning about civics and government.”

Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are definitely excellent role models for all kids and the Lego versions have already gone viral. Unfortunately the LEGO company steers clear of anything political but the idea and message behind the project is certainly commendable. 

Cosmo With a Grain of Salt

By now most people have heard about the problematic portrayals of women in the media. The disproportionate objectification and sexualization of females on television, on film, and in magazines is finally being noted and hopefully will soon be addressed.

When I peruse through magazines, I know to take their content with a grain of salt. The flawless models and celebrities are most likely photoshopped and not a realistic standard to compare myself to. This, too, is relatively common knowledge.

But an issue I never really thought about as a media consumer was brought to my attention recently through this video. Two talented poets, Desiree Dallagiacomo and Kaycee Filson, call out the mainstream media, specifically magazines, for not just showing women as objects through photos but for instructing women to view themselves this way, specifically in the advice sections.

Whenever my friends and I have read Cosmopolitan or anything similar it never occurRed to any of us that the sex tips focused exclusively on the male's personal experience. Often times the suggestions are elaborate and absurd, as the spoken word artists  demonstrated, but always from this very one-sided perspective and focus.

How can magazines written for women dole out tips as unusual as "sprinkle pepper under his nose" and other intricate novelties yet neglect entirely to mention any tips on asking for what you like or how to make sex more enjoyable for the vast majority of the readership- women themselves?

It alarms me that I never noticed this because I usually am pretty perceptive to injustices against females (hence the blog). My obliviousness shows how pervasive this male-pleasure-centric view of sex is in our culture.  It is one thing to be selfless but it is another thing entirely to disregard your own needs, possibly losing any sense of self in the process.

Women should not be cultured to view their worth as entirely dependent on their ability to please their male counterparts. And while we're on the subject of objectifying women, they close with the profoundly logical, "I am not 'asking for it' unless I am actually asking for it."

Show Me the Money

Last weekend, Patricia Arquette accepted her Academy Award  for Best Supporting Actress in Boyhood and used the opportunity to make a statement about gender equality. 

“To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”

Her speech itself was well-received, as captured by Meryl Streep's and Jennifer Lopez's reactions, shared widely on Vine and in memes. However, her follow-up remarks backstage led to a lot of backlash, especially from the Twitter world and from famous feminists. Arquette continued: 

It’s time for women. Equal means equal. The truth is the older women get, the less money they make. The highest percentage of children living in poverty are in female-headed households. It’s inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries and we don’t...it’s time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.

Many found these comments exclusive and offensive, as they seem to imply that feminism is a white woman's issue, which writer Amanda Marcotte condemns:

Where to begin? Perhaps with pointing out that “gay people” and “people of color” are both categories that include women. Indeed, when it comes to wage inequality, race is as much a factor as gender...similarly, being gay or transgender often means taking a hit in income.

Feminism has often come under fire for being a movement for white women’s rights when obviously the intent is for the rights of all women. Though I am sure this was by no means Arquette's intention, especially after she sent several clarifying tweets, her diction could easily be offensive to queer women and women of color. Who would want to support a movement that undervalues their support or neglects their roles entirely? Furthermore, it is obviously problematic that she implies these fights for equality are mutually exclusive. 

There are also those who have denounced Arquette's speech because they deny the existence of a wage gap. In this sense, it was obviously impactful for generating hopefully productive dialogues. To all the naysayers, the White House has confirmed that the gender gap she speaks of exists:

Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires that men and women in the same work place be given equal pay for equal work, the "gender gap" in pay persists. Full-time women workers’ earnings are only about 77 percent of their male counterparts’ earnings. The pay gap is even greater for African-American and Latina women, with African-American women earning 64 cents and Latina women earning 56 cents for every dollar earned by a Caucasian man.

Decades of research shows that no matter how you evaluate the data, there remains a pay gap — even after factoring in the kind of work people do, or qualifications such as education and experience — and there is good evidence that discrimination contributes to the persistent pay disparity between men and women.

These statistics demonstrate even more-so just how important it is to recognize that feminism is a movement for all women, especially women of color, who are in fact at the greatest disadvantage according to gender gap statistics. 

But tearing apart and criticizing a brave feminist voice for not clearly articulating her points is not inclusive feminism, either. Celebrities are often the best mediums for spreading feminist viewpoints to a wider audience. 

Eliana Dockterman is correct in cautioning harsh critics when she writes in an article defending Patricia Arquette for her well-intentioned speech:

But when women begin to tear down their best, most popular advocates, we hurt our own cause. As Sally Kohn wrote at The New Republic after the Dunham incident: “The minute feminism becomes hypercritical and humorless, it becomes too easy for the mainstream to dismiss our more valid complaints.”

Arquette's speech was not perfect; but once again it got people talking. In summary, feminism needs to be more inclusive and the gender gap needs to be closed.