This is How You Keep Her

I dont usually post random things on here, but this really struck a chord. I love Junot Diaz and I love this book he wrote. I loved him writing Oscar Wao into life and I loved him writing Brooklyn shorts and gritty family heartbreaks that kept me company on the dirty underground through NY nights.

I love his understanding of self, of relationships and the inexplicable bonds that keep us coming back. I love him for knowing how to put the vapidness of words to something so undefinable as love in a way that is at once telling of its intensity and violence, but also of its soft harmony and enveloping melodies.

We forget all too often about selflessness. It's almost out of our control: our world demands this individualism. But this is my definition of love. To put someone else first. We are so centred on the self that we forget about another. I'm not saying I want to lose myself in you in any way other than the romantic poetry of the notion, but I do want to place you above anything else in my life, because you are worth that.

So here. Maybe you'll like this one.

This is how you lose her. 

You lose her when you forget to remember the little things that mean the world to her: 

the sincerity in a stranger’s voice during a trip to the grocery, 

the delight of finding something lost or forgotten like a sticker from when she was five, 

the selflessness of a child giving a part of his meal to another, 

the scent of new books in the store, 

the surprise short but honest notes she tucks in her journal and others you could only see if you look closely.

You must remember when she forgets. 

You lose her when you don’t notice that she notices everything about you: your use of the proper punctuation that tells her continuation rather than finality, your silence when you’re about to ask a question but you think anything you’re about to say to her would be silly, your mindless humming when it is too quiet, your handwriting when you sign your name in blank sheets of paper, your muted laughter when you are trying to be polite, and more and more of what you are, which you don’t even know about yourself, because she pays attention.

She remembers when you forget. 

You lose her for every second you make her feel less and less of the  beauty that she is. 

When you make her feel that she is replaceable. She wants to feel cherished. 

When you make her feel that you are fleeting.She wants you to stay. 

When you make her feel inadequate. She wants to know that she is enough and she does not need to change for you, nor for anyone else because she is she and she is beautiful, kind and good.

You must learn her. 

You must know the reason why she is silent. You must trace her weakest spots. You must write to her. You must remind her that you are there. You must know how long it takes for her to give up. You must be there to hold her when she is about to. 

You must love her because many have tried and failed. And she wants to know that she is worthy to be loved, that she is worthy to be kept.

And, this is how you keep her.

I Wish Feminism Would Stop Telling Me What To Do

Every time I read another article written by another prominent woman telling me to lean in, lean out, stay at home, find a man at Princeton and consider plastic surgery, I think to myself:

"She's so on point!!"

Then I get exhausted. I get exhausted because I don't know which voice to follow. I haven't completely leaned in - not in a way that Sheryl Sandberg would push for. I'm not fully committed to fast-tracking my career because I just refused a three month contract where half would be overseas because my brother is sick.

I haven't leaned back because I don't have a husband at 28 and I'm not married and kids are not on the way but I want all of the above, so clearly I'm not doing something right - at least according to my older generation who believe that I should have accomplished all of this by the ripe old age of 25.

At 25 I was living in New York working for Unicef and Harvard and having the time of my life. Husband?

Please.

Not leaning in those heels.

In fact, I'm at a strange juncture in my life: I've sidestepped to take care of a brother I hardly know, and I'm still living at my mother's. I haven't lived at home since I was 17. It's an adjustment. I am working and I am advancing both of my careers (training and women's rights), but sometimes even the slightest bump in the road can seem like a massive failure.

Here's the thing I wish. I wish older generations would stop telling the younger women what to do because there is no right answer that fits every mould. 

When I went into my office to speak with my would-be new boss about how I didn't know if I could take the new contract, she told me immediately not to think of it as a step back. Then she said: "This is the right decision for you. That is all that matters. Someone else might make a completely different decision and that would be right for them."

Young women already feel pulled in a million directions every single time they open their eyes out of bed. We contend with our families, our various roles within our social settings, our relationships and our biological pulls. And because feminism has become all at once every woman's raison d'être  and every woman's curse word, it feels that these older and supposedly wiser women are simply reinforcing one of the fundamental absurdities of second wave feminism: that somehow women are all the same and they all want the same things. 

I thought we had moved past that in the 90's. 

Apparently I was wrong. 

It's exhausting, and I'm already exhausted. Please stop telling me what to do simply because it worked or did not work for you. Women have enough choices and information available to them that they can bustle along their own paths, forging them in their own ways and with their own ideas. Yes, some might make some of the same mistakes the older generations have. Some might not. Yes, young women will confront problems all along the way.

But it is how we solve those problems that defines our success. Although others might be readily able to tell us what to do, they are not able to solve those problems for us. As someone close said, it is difficult to imagine a future where things we take for granted will no longer be present. But we all value different things in different ways. So if all men don't do double-takes at me on the street when I'm 55, I hope that everything I have gone through from the present until then makes me not care as much as I might now.

But another woman might be scared of this, but not of giving up her career for twins. Different people, different values.

I think thats called life.

So the next time someone tells you what to do, remember - stop letting others make the big decisions in your life. They've lived.

You need to live yours, and its all in how you going about doing it.

Love,
C. 

Here's What I Know About Having It All (and about cancer)

Let me begin by saying that I know I am not unique. But, by now, you know that I know this because I've told you many times not to think that about yourself. So really, I'm just writing that line for myself. To make myself feel better for the stuff I'm about to write next.

But we need reminders like that because we tend to isolate ourselves within our problems, because we are not linked to every other person on the planet, no matter what religion or mother nature or spirituality tells us. We don't know the trials and tribulations of the people beside us on the bus, and when we walk down the street, we barely look at each other. So inevitably we feel alone and powerless, and we close in instead of reaching out.

We are not unique in our problems. But one thing I have noticed, at least for writers, is that when we can't face our lives, we stop writing. We stop writing because our writing is so intricately linked to what is taking place in our minds, and writer's block can sometimes point to an inability to understand these events. Writing should help figure these out, but it doesn't always - especially if some of the writing concentrates on describing relatable issues in this life.

I try and do that here. I try to describe situations you will find interesting or scary and that you can relate to somehow. So here we go.

About two months ago my brother was a healthy human being, traveling the world. Now he is someone with Stage 4 colon cancer that has spread to his liver to whom the doctors have given 6 months to live - if he doesn't do anything (he'll begin chemo, so we'll hope on that). And even more in the now, he must have surgery to remove one of the tumors because it's completely blocking his colon and he can't eat anything - so he keeps throwing up.

You probably already know that I took care of my father when he was dying. So this is nothing new, but it's certainly nothing to look forward to. Its more like, brace yourself, because this is going to hurt like hell.

But if anything, as my best friend says, these kinds of events force you to look at your life with very sharp glasses. What is important? Who is important? What actions must you take or must you leave out?

These days, we're obsessed with the question of having it all. It might be the most detrimental and ridiculous question of our generation - especially to women (what man ever asks himself that, please - someone enlighten me). Inevitably the quest to 'have it all' leads to bitter disappointment and acute resentment. Women get to those child bearing years and suddenly the move to reconstruct their lives and scale back their careers is a rude and harsh awakening to a dream that pushed them into the CEO path without taking care of all the other socially gendered responsibilities (find a man! have kids! raise a great family! be a perfect housewife, sexual partner, friend, carer and career woman!). Ugh.

Events like deaths and illnesses force you to re-examine all these hurried and heavy 'necessities' of life.

Here are a few things I think I know:

1. Maybe women should lean in, but so should men. 
Sheryl Sandberg's book: Lean In is on point, but it forgets an essential truth: lives are more fulfilled by relationships and not by work, so telling people that they need to work harder and longer is detrimental to their relationships, and thus to their happiness. I'm not saying women need to stop aiming for the top or planning ways to navigate the still very gendered workplace. However, if women should lean in then so must men - they must take care of their relationships and value those sources of happiness so that they can be good to each other as a unit. We must accept the differences between the sexes and understand that women must not necessarily be more like men, because men have not always been doing everything right - and they keep paying the price for it (biggest regrets are always too much work, not enough time spent with family/partner).

Don't believe me? Maybe the Harvard Business Review will convince you more, but I also think this economic downturn will prove me right: we will be forced to restructure our value system to recognize that our definition of growth has not meant happiness and often leads to misery, anger and regret.

2. Having it all seems like a lot of work, so work from home instead
And it appears women are simply better in tune at recognizing it. Blame it on societal pressures or the laws of the jungle, but while men kill themselves to get to the top, perhaps women want to change the way we define 'all' - look, it would seem that women are now choosing to remove themselves from the workplace (at least, those who can). Combined with poor workplace structures for the reintegration of women after pregnancies and impossibly rigid definitions of 'work' and 'office times', women are also noticing that there is more value and reward to child rearing, occupations that are stimulating and different and working from home seems to be the solution to it all. Melissa Meyers from Yahoo didn't just annoy the guys who sit around in pyjamas all day when she insisted everyone work in the office, she demonstrated her complete obliviousness to women's realities and needs.

3. Having it all mostly means having nothing for yourself
My best friend has three children, a big house, a car and her own business. But she also wants the house to be super clean, the meals to be super delicious, the business to be super growing and the kids to be super cared for. But because she also lives in the real world, theres no super bank account for 8 nannies, so she had a breakdown because there was no time left for taking care of herself. And, inevitably, if you don't take care of yourself, everything else suffers. Better is understanding that you can't do everything by yourself and have everything the way you want it to be. Don't burden yourself with those expectations and resist others who wish to place these archaic (misogynist) ideals on your shoulders.

Look - I can keep quiet about what is going on in my life and carry it heroically on my shoulders like a martyr. And for about 28 years I've done just that. But that's ridiculous, and who am I trying to impress with my martyrdom anyway? Anyone impressed by that is not worth my time, because they don't have to live with the weight of my reality. But its something I always have done and then downplayed. Call it the social contract, or call it looking out for even your closest friends. But, not this time.

So get a therapist. (No, really. You spend all that time at the gym, but you won't take care of your mental health? Ridiculous! Remember, you have to live in your head as much as in your body.)

And then, reach out.

Trust me, it's amazing - when you stop wanting to have and do it all yourself, and you stop thinking you are alone in your problems, all of a sudden there are people that come out of the woodwork with support and kindness, empathy and compassion. If darkness could turn to light, this is the action it would bring with it.

Sometimes you just have to ask.

Love,
C.

Power and Sex: Presumed Consent is Killing Equality

IN Swaziland, teenage girls are taught about sexually transmitted diseases, condoms and HIV testing information handed out at will as they learn that sex is dangerous and mostly for men. 

In India, The Justice Verma Committee’s recommendation on recognizing marital rape as an offence under criminal law was hastily swept aside by the Standing Committee on Home, on the basis that ‘marriage presumes consent.‘

And a few weeks ago, in the HBO series Girls, Adam raped his girlfriend Natalia onscreen.

Or did he? It was, according to Slate, at the very least, “uncomfortable.”  Or maybe it was a violation and “something she didn’t like?“

All three of these situations highlight an unspoken topic in the fight against rape and sexual abuse: the presumed notion of consent.

We know all too well the meaning of no. We write about it, we repeat it, and men learn very early that: ‘no means no’ – and then quickly learn the accompanying jokes and ways to refute it.

As women, we’re told to say no when we feel uncomfortable. No, when we don’t want to be touched. No, when the lines are clearly drawn. That’s the way we like to read about rape too. We like clear-cut, open and shut cases of rape. We want a victim and a criminal. We want the victim to be decisive in her statements, preferably with no sexual promiscuity, and who clearly resisted the abuse, tooth and nail.

We certainly did not like the Steubenville rape case. We didn’t want to report on it for a long time. When it finally went to trial, just take a look at how the media fumbled their way through being rape apologists over a drunken girl and high school football stars.

What we especially don’t like are the situations like the ones described in India, Swaziland and on Girls, where pleasure, consent and that uncomfortable middle ground of sex arise and we don’t quite know how to feel about it – or what to do.

Let me preface the rest of this column by how I feel about what happened on Girls: it was rape. Was Natalia raped the way we like to read about it? No. Not at all.

But that doesn’t make the rape any less real.

The problem I think, is twofold. First, gender power imbalances remain present, whether in India or in New York, and accompany us right into our bedrooms. Second, we don’t stress the importance of consent, because it suggests a reformulation of traditional gender roles. We are so concentrated on the ‘no’ that if it’s not heard, then it doesn’t matter. The sex can go on.

Presumed consent removes all agency from the woman, and subjects her to complete control by her companion. It is a selfish, degrading and potentially harmful way to conduct a sexual relationship, one that makes the female body a thing to be taken at will, with no importance placed on her wants or wishes. It presumes that the man is the likely perpetrator of sexual abuse – that there is a defined giver and a taker. And that the taker will always win. These are, unfortunately, the very definitions of traditional gender roles when it comes to sex.

This brings us to Swaziland. Sex without pleasure seems pointless, but in many places and in many relationships, it occurs all the time and is a predominantly male-dominated act: he takes the lead, he take the pleasure, he always orgasms. I’m not sure this is something to be proud of, unless your companion is doing the same. Taking pleasure is not the same as having pleasure, and a whole other world to givingpleasure. Again, presumed consent looks at the notion of pleasure selfishly: a woman is there to give pleasure, willingly or not, while a man is there to take it.

I like that Girls showed this awful and disconcerting rape scene (wait, is there any other kind?). We often think of girls being subjugated and without voice in other countries, and think that sex must be a horrible activity for them. The scene between Natalia and Adam brings it back home, to a place where we mistakenly assume that women and men have an equal voice in an act where both are supposed willing participants, back to the unequal power relations between men and women that exist everywhere.

Congratulations if you haven’t been there – but I doubt it. As a woman, I’m willing to bet there has been at least one sexual episode that left you feeling uncomfortable, like you should have said no, you should have gotten up to leave, you should have done something, anything, but you didn’t and now its over, and you feel you can’t.

Even here, the pressure is on us.

I certainly have been in these situations. And I’m a pretty outspoken woman. But there’s something about the bedroom and the imbalances in power relations between men and women that have placed me in very uncomfortable situations. Plural. I’m betting this has happened to you too – but we’ve never talked about it. We don’t talk about our consent, our pleasure and how we feel. The sex is over, he’s had his orgasm, can’t you just move on?

Maybe it comes down to women not being taught to ask for their pleasure, or ever to take it, the way men do. Maybe its men not being taught to respect a woman’s body and value her pleasure in the sexual experience. Maybe it comes down to the closed lines of communication where a man’s ego suffers so greatly if his sexual acts are questioned and a woman’s expected role is to give and give without refusal. Yes, people have bad, awkward and angry sex for many different reasons. But unequal power relations in the bedroom that aren’t explicitly consensual can lead to very harmful situations.

The main criticism of John Locke’s theory of consent is that without the power to refuse consent, we cannot give true consent. While we may look to other cultures as places where that lack of power to refuse can be clearly identified, we know all too well that imbalances in gendered power dynamics can come to haunt our sexual activities – but because we’re supposed to be free, outspoken and ‘born equal‘ – we don’t talk about this thing we still know is very much alive, in our heads as well as in our actions.

What if we based sex on the radical concept of consent instead? Not presumed, one-sided understood or “I thought…” consent. There’s a big difference between not saying no and enthusiastically saying yes. Of course I don’t think people should verbally communicate their consent at every second of the act (although a little enthusiastic and positive dirty talk is always welcome). But wouldn’t you want to be in an experience that is mutually wanted instead of reluctantly accepted? Aren’t you paying enough attention to your partner to read their non-verbal cues? And if you put the entire onus on your partner to tell you ‘no’ – what does that mean about your own skewed version of power and sex?

All around the world we teach young girls and women about sexual health and encourage abstinence, the use of birth control and protection. What we don’t talk about enough is the pleasure component. We don’t teach enough about the importance of valuing your partner, respecting their boundaries and wanting them to be pleasured as well. We don’t teach women and men to love their bodies and love each other. We don’t knock down harmful stereotypes about 
who does and gives or takes what in the bedroom and that ‘good girls’ don’t ask for things, while whores deserve anything. We don’t redefine gender roles that bring about these stereotypes, and we continue to view rape through a very gendered lens, one that places the onus solely on the victim, as if power imbalances do not influence her actions.

Consent. This little notion that somehow works to rebalance the inequalities present between partners in the bedroom should be an integral part of our lives. We must claim it, require it and be respected because of it. Our partners should learn it, ask for it and make sure it’s present. To continue to presume its existent would be harmful for the delicate power 

balances we are fighting to correct.

Here's to hoping for a balance of power, and the empowerment that comes with it. 

Love, 

C. 

My Father, The Feminist : Happy International Women's Day

My father would never have called himself a feminist. The women in his life would have decried him as an ardent misogynist, women-hater/lover, abuser and a rampant cheat. Unfortunately, they would not have been wrong.

But to me, my father is definitely, if not defiantly, a feminist.

On this International Women's Day, it's difficult not to reflect on the people that have helped me along my journey in becoming the woman I am today. Those voices that I've carried with me, urging me to uncover truths, ask questions, stand up for myself, to further myself, always keep learning and striving for change,  surmount obstacles and never let my sex or expectations associated with my gender stand in the way of achieving my goals.

That voice belongs predominantly to my father. He said so many times: he knew exactly 'what men were like' and so I had to be 'better than all of them' so that I would never fall 'into their hands'.

He was speaking about men much like himself.

Today, if my father were still around, I would tell him that there are different kinds of men in this world. Sure, there are those that will be part of the structural patriarchy and will see women as only sex objects, that will play into cultural and traditional norms by valuing a woman according to her moral righteousness and that will fight to 'protect' women by restricting their rights and closing off their voices. There are men that will invoke God, Allah and the dollar bill as reasons for their actions, but it will inevitably fall on their own shoulders to take responsibility for seeking to abuse and silence half of the world's population.

But, as far as I can tell, there are other kinds of men out there. Different men that don't fit the damaging stereotypes of 'what a real man should be.' Men that fight against their female friends being taunted, abused and raped at school or in their communities. Men that want their sisters to have access to the same education they do AND be able to fully benefit from it. Men who don't abuse their wives but give them full participation in household decision-making. Men who listen to women and value their opinion. Men who understand that a woman's body is her own and he cannot make her choices for her. Men who help women to help themselves. Men who love women. Men who care for and support women in their quest for equality and gender justice around the world.

I've been pretty lucky so far. My father was my number one cheerleading feminist. My brother is also a feminist, and with his many years living around the world, he always tells me that in most contexts he sees that women are usually right, and that when he looks back, sometimes his youth and pride stood in the way of valuing that. I get the sense, thinking back on my father's later years, that he felt the very same way.

I've been lucky enough to have dated a few feminists. Ones that supported my work and my ideas, helped to ground me when I was overseas, always had my back when I was caught off guard and never belittled the ideas I put forth simply because they couldn't see it my way. Men that weren't afraid of me and didn't feel threatened by me. Men who were publicly proud of my accomplishments and weren't ashamed to stand next to me and to other women in support of our beliefs. I feel blessed to have known them and know that even now, both our views on the opposite sex have been positively altered because of those experiences.

Of course, I've dated the other kind too. The kind that wanted to 'break my character' and wanted to tell me what to wear, who to see, when to speak and how to act. I've dated violent men who punched walls by my head, held me captive in their rooms and cheated on me and stalked me. I've dated insecure men who couldn't stand that I had more money than them and more opportunity, and I've dated prideful men who were more interested in being right than in being happy, who were more interested in themselves than in the relationship.

Those men ended up alone.

My father once told me, only a few weeks before he died, that he hoped the man I would be with would love me more than life itself, and if not, that he would burn in hell.

My father had never spoken to me about 'who I would end up with' - I was to go to school and become the best of the best - not end up with anyone...

But now I know what he meant. And I want to thank him, and thank all the men out there who also want the women in their lives to be well loved. Those who participate in that supporting, in that caring and in that loving. Because as much as International Women's Day is about female solidarity, we need men to join in the conversation.

We can't do it without you.

We can't do it, without you.

All my love,
C. 

How To Ask For A Raise (and good sex, maybe)

Women are not good at asking for things. I tried thinking of one thing we are definitely good at asking for, and I couldn't find one specific, even female-centric totally gendered thing.

The whole ordeal that led me to these thoughts began when I submitted my request for a Bénin visa to their embassy in Ottawa. I phoned several times to ask them to expedite my request, apologizing profusely because I had sent in the documents too late. It wasn't really my fault. And why was I apologizing? But it didn't matter, because the man hung up on me after I asked too many questions.

Then, pushing time, I had to go to Ottawa to get this visa, because it's Thursday and my flight is supposedly on Saturday. My train leaves at the ungodly hour of 6h40am - and so I ask M. to stay at his place so I don't need to be up at 4 the next morning. I hate asking for this because I know that when Im there, no one sleeps well, and once I'm up at 5, he wont fall back asleep. And then he's a zombie and I'm a zombie and it's basically my fault.

But I do. I ask. And, yes, we both end up zombies. Fast forward and I'm in Ottawa and I need more things. I need him to buy me a ticket to return, I need him to print out documents for me, then I get bad news about my flights, they've been moved it up and elongated the travel time and I have 5 minutes to do a million things and I get upset and tired and headachy and so now, I need some comfort too.

Is there anything worse than feeling like a needy woman?

A nagging woman?

We're socialized to believe that we shouldn't be needy. We shouldn't put pressure. The last thing we want to do is annoy or burden the person we're with. Inconvenience people. In fact, if we can just put everyone else's troubles before our own, then we'd feel okay with our lives.

Don't tell me it's in our nature. It's in our nurture.

This is reflected in all areas of our lives. The politics of women asking for raises is so complex, entire courses should be taught on the ins and outs of trying to earn more than 78 cents on every man's dollar (and they are: here's a professional toolkit on the subject - and seminars on salary-negotiation for women). The social stigmas taught might include: how to appear modest but sure of yourself, how not to beg, but not ask too firmly, how not to come across as aggressive and certainly not think you deserve it - remember, it is still important that people like you! And because women often feel undeserving of accolades or financial rewards, thinking we should even ask for a raise is novel enough. We are often left waiting, waiting to be offered the raise, waiting to be offered anything.

Men, however, are socialized and raised to not only ask, but demand and take what they want. Men go forth, proud of their accomplishments and quite willing and able to brag about them. They are expected to ask for raises, and their star-like behaviour is encouraged and promoted. In the workplace, gender bias plays into men's favour (the Harvard study on this is a very interesting read), and they are rewarded for their brazen demands, none of which are held against them.

In relationships, men take control - they steer decision-making and order their companions about - the latter who are quite willing to let men 'be men' in this way. In heterosexual sex, men don't ask for their pleasure, they take it - every time. They force heads down, hands in, and women go along. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to redefine the infamous grey rape but I am saying that a man's pleasure gets far more importance and fulfillment than a woman's. And we are loathe to ask for ours in return.

I really do believe that if you don't ask, then you'll never know.  And I habitually tell this to my female friends. I wish it translated more into my actions, but unfortunately its stymied by socially learned behaviour, fear and generally thinking that people should know what I need, or at least offer. But here's what I know: In relationships, men aren't mind readers. At work, bosses are busy and generally notice women less. In both cases, if you don't bring things to their attention, they might never know.

Of course, I don't support crying out over every undigested whim. That's ludicrous and tenuous on even the hardiest of shoulders. Know your audience and shape your approach. Learn the difference between reactionary and reflective feedback and requests. But don't be afraid. Some times aren't always perfect. Everything is not always smooth. But if you are afraid of ruffling feathers, you will never get anywhere.

There's a Persian saying that goes:
"Those who are frightened, die". You should never let fear regulate your action (or inaction). 

Despite the social stigmas attached with being a woman, remember that at the end of the day, you have to take care of yourself. And the better you take care of yourself, the better your output to your relationship, your life and your job. And look, you might get what you ask for! The worst that can happen is someone says no. And then at least you've tried, you have better information, you can re-evaluate and choose a next move. All good things.

Yes, sometimes you need a rock.
And what's a rock if not to be leaned on?

Love,
C.

The Bitch About (Sexist) Language

We learn that language is gendered from a very young age. We learn words associated with boys (dominant, blue, strong, independent, leader, fearless) and those with girls (fun, pink, shopping, dancing, smiles, pretty). This gendered division of language extrapolates to a variety of fields that shape the interactions between the sexes. 

Religion – still a common part of our lives, despite even the Pope quitting it all – is predominantly neglectful of a written female presence. Even if we try to disassociate ourselves from the physical male stronghold over religious institutions – we cannot help but read that God’s maleness is the overarching source of divinity in most, if not all, global religious texts. Can a woman see herself in the divine if she has not been written in it? Where, in the holy books, has she been aptly portrayed? Is she worth anything more than her tightly constrained roles as either virgin or whore?

I love language (and by that I mean I can be verbose). I love its intricacies and how it binds intimately to our culture, to our sense of self and our perception of context. It is perhaps because I speak three languages that I understand its broad scope as well as its indelible limitations. I’m certainly familiar with situations where I’m unable to express myself in one language, but find a breadth of emotion available in the lexicon of another.

See? Verbose.

I am especially interested in the way gendered language can motivate our actions and alter our perceptions of self and of others. We take for granted that our social interactions, governed partly through common language, are the only way we can interact with each other, and we blindly use terms that cement negative gender roles and engender unequal distributions of power.

Sexual language is rife with rules on how women and men should behave. From the now socially acceptable punishing of women as ‘sluts’, ‘whores’ and ‘bitches’ to the very intimate way a man ‘deflowers’ a woman, ‘pops’ her cherry, and ‘bangs,’ ‘fucks’ and ‘destroys her’ during sex, sexual speak is laden with male-dominated violence. From the act of “hitting on a woman”, the comparisons of men’s penises to weaponry and the sexual act to a violent war (coined by Freud, who also said that women clearly have penis envy, because who doesn't want a gun?), to men ‘blowing their load’ during sex, a man is portrayed as a violent ‘taker’ and the woman, a submissive ‘giver’. She, in contrast, is chastised for opening her legs, blamed for rape, and called scarring names for any kind of libido outside of marriage. Aspects of female ‘dominance’ are relegated to deviance, with women written into norms of submissiveness, virginity and purity. Just pick up any fashion magazine. Any Cosmo magazine will give you all the information you will ever need on how to ‘please him 18 ways in 5 minutes’ (the spoof is so much better)and ‘be the perfect girlfriend in bed,' but I’m wary to find any men’s magazines with so much content on how to please a woman in bed – as if that were even a concern for men who innately know it all.

It’s a shock then, when women repurpose this language. When Madonna declared that her ‘love was a revolver,’ and that you’d ‘die happy’ if you used it, these weren’t words strung together – this was an appropriation of violent male terminology. Lady Gaga’s lyrics bemoan her wish to ‘rebuke her condition’ and that ‘she’s a strong female and doesn’t need permission.’ Both pop stars’ concerts are full of imagery of dominant women and submissive men. This seemingly brash repurposing of language is an anomaly. The result: We are uncomfortable with women in these roles, playing with violence, playing with men and assuming the roles associated with maleness. Strong women still need to navigate (read, hide) their strengths, and accommodate themselves to male specificities of beauty, femininity and the balance of power.  

Advertisement plays an intrinsic role in burdening women with violent gendered language that alters our perception of self worth and encourages our acceptance of the violent sexual speak, pushing us further into embodying the role of submissive and insecure woman. With ads constantly telling us that we are useless, worthless, dry, damaged, in need of repair, too old, not good looking, not smart, not too mention NEVER thin enough, that compare us to objects, sexualize our bodies and dismiss our minds, we cannot help but wonder if leaving the house with all our failings, flaws and shortcomings is even possible. The United States, as the number one consumer of beauty products (38 billion in 2007, 27.6 billion of that by women), might be hoping to make up for these inadequacies and yet still ranks 23^rd on the global ranking of contentment. The two countries that spend the least on beauty products, Netherlands and Sweden, have the best rankings in the Satisfaction of Life Index. 

If this weren’t enough – just look at the world of American politics. Recently, Washington Republicans circulated a white paper to their party members on how to speak about women and to women. This, is in reaction to their disastrous if not absolutely bewildering year of comparing women to farm animals (not one but oh, about seven different times), calling them sluts and whores and wondering aloud that if women couldn’t be blamed for rape then the least they could do would be to ‘shut the whole thing down.'

There is a quaint childhood saying that goes: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” We repeat it as a mantra but we know what a terrible lie it is. To imagine that such violent gendered language and the constant non-representation of women in important written texts is inconsequential, is to fail at grasping the way language, either read in a book or seen on an ad, molds us. Remember, we see about 5000 ads per day (that’s right, per day). Our news is replete with gendered speak (And Fox News, you definitely win the prize for this dubious accomplishment), with debates still calling into question the strength of women as politicians (can she govern if she has mood swings and a bad hair day?), if women can even qualify as comedians since they’re just not funny, or how rape is something the body "can shut down". These are common male-dominated perspectives in conversations that are violently damaging.

And what of that affected self-worth? How can I possibly enjoy sex if all I can think of is my jiggly ass, my dry skin, my un-cosmetically enhanced breasts, my wrinkles, my damaged hair, my fat stomach and my distinct lack of the inner thigh gap? Of course, this is all while trying to fulfill my main role: pleasing this man I’m with and making sure his experience is the best, while mine holds no consideration at all.

Outside of the bedroom (and I’ve argued before that equality really begins IN the bedroom), you cannot become what you cannot see. If women are going to be any equal part of society, it might help if she could see herself written into laws, policies and decision-making. If only on paper.

Listen, if there is no way of coming up with an ‘asexual' or 'gender neutral speak’ (which is not as ludicrous as it sounds, as some Nordic countries are figuring out), then perhaps we can find a way for speech not to cause harm to half the populace. Neutrality is tricky - indeed, it usually skews to white male. Speaking of a ‘God’ evokes the white man with a beard. ‘Leader’ and ‘politician’ are still heavily white and masculinized terms, and sex has so many male-dominated power relations reinforced through the media and porn that is seems impossible to have a language cut through these imbalances without images changing in concordance.

Perhaps what we need is a concerned male representation seeking to change this damaging language and imagery as well. We need a discussion that looks at how this gendered language is equally as damaging to men (more on that soon).  And maybe our institutions should have a responsibility towards the non-use of violent language. I’m sure there’s a policy we could set up on that. 

If only we could agree on the terms.

Love,

C.

(With edits by M, who's totally on his way to becoming a hardcore feminist. Sort of.)

Roe v. Wade At 40: The Struggle to Save a Woman's Right to Choose

There are some things that are only good on paper. Disastrous recipes. Bad dates with good resumes. Certain haircuts and photoshop.

One thing not so good only on paper is Roe v. Wade.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court declared that privacy as defined under the due process clause of 14th Amendment of the US Constitution extended to a woman's right over her own body and her decision whether or not to have an abortion. Basically, it disallowed many State and Federal actions against abortion, and tied the procedure to viability.

40 years on, despite being a constitutionally protected right, a woman's choice is still vehemently attacked by State law and physical violence that roams the scale from intimidation to murder. From South Dakota where a federal appeals court upheld a law requiring doctors to state that abortion cause a rise in suicide attempts (which John Hopkins has stated is absolutely bogus), to North Dakota where medication-indcued abortions have been banned despite medical testimony to their safety, to Kansas where Dr. Tiller was shot and the doctors who attempted to take over his practise where physically harassed into quitting, to Mississippi where the last abortion clinic is closing because hospitals won't grant obligatory admitting privileges to it's doctors, to Virginia where abortion clinics now have to abide by architectural zoning laws for their patient's safety (though no previous reports suggested the clinics were unsafe), and I could go on and on... abortion providers have been physically harassed into oblivion.

Too often, however, we forget the faces of the people most affected by the lack of abortion and sexual health care. Surprise! They are all women. Women of all ethnic backgrounds. Six in ten who've already had a child. 40% of whom come from households making less than $18500 a year. 7 in 10 of whom report being religious.

No, women do not use abortion as a method of contraception. No, they are not spoiled brats or whores as the Republican party has been so vocal in labelling them. No, they are not on the fringes of our society. In fact,  if these trends continue, it's presumed that 35% of women of reproductive age will have had an abortion by the time they are 35.

Although really just another medical procedure, abortion has divided the country along moral lines, and reasons for abortions are given particular weight within political discussion. These range from financial difficulties to an inability to provide care to none of your damn business. Reasons, in this case, don't matter. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right to privacy. As soon as reasons begin to matter, they take precedence over a woman's right to choose. And Roe v. Wade took care of that.

Supposedly.

Statistically, the country is pretty much divided along the same lines that it was in the 1970's - Gallup states that 52% of Americans think it should be legal under some cases, 25% want it legal all the time and 20% want it outlawed all the time.

All that seemed to take a significant turn, however, in the recent 2012 elections. Spurred by a rise in state sponsored laws, 130 bills aimed to reduce access to abortion since 2010, women at the polls significantly voted for politicians who were not engaged in the very real war on women. Republicans in Missouri (Hello, Todd Akin) and Indiana, largely expected to win, lost their seats to Democrats after making horrid comments about rape and women's bodies. Personhood amendments all over the country were scaled back as grass-roots movements rose to object against their ridiculous terms (a few cells endowed with the rights of a human being from the moment of conception? Whom are we kidding here?). Planned Parenthood, attacked on all sides by Republicans who insisted it not be federally funded (despite that funding going to everything from mammograms to pap smears to cervical cancer treatment and only 3% going to abortive measures) still managed to come out resilient and emboldened. The Komen debacle was a good example - when the Susan G. Komen For the Cure foundation pulled funding for Planned Parenthood under political pressure, the backlash was so harsh they reversed their decision in 72 hours.

But 2012 remained scary for the reasons so well reported almost daily throughout our media: the attacks on a woman's access to sexual healthcare and abortion were very real - and showed no signs of abating if we didn't do something about it.

So what do I think of the fact that 40 years on a woman still has to battle the world for the right to choose over her own body?

A few things.

First, as if we didn't quite get the Roe v Wade message, the Supreme Court also ruled, in 1992, that States could not place undue burden on women who seek to obtain abortions. It did, however, allow States to begin applying many different regulations (24 hour waiting period allowed, parental consent allowed) making abortion more of an illegal right than anything else. To me, this is a joke. As the plurality opinion (re)stated in Planned Parenthood v Casey:

"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

Either there is  right, or there isn't. A woman's body is not a territory to be divided along state lines or by moral fervor, often at the behest of old white men. Just as soon as reasons start mattering, as soon as a woman's right to choose is placed under scrutiny, she becomes a second-class citizen. A bread oven, if you will. And then the Handmaid's Tale is just around the corner.

I also find it strange that the very same people who want to prevent all abortions also want to prevent access to contraception (37 states mandate abstinence education! Clearly that's working! Ps. It's not.). You'd think it would be the opposite. Because it isn't (note the outcry at contraception and Obamacare - which was a ridiculous lie anyway), this would seem to reinforce the moral/religious reasons behind preventing women from accessing their rights: women should not be engaging in sex to begin with. Sex is for procreation first and foremost. If you do get pregnant, too bad. This is the punishment for your whorish actions. Which, again, is strange. If pro-lifers cared at all about children - why would they want these fetus-infants to be born to parents that didn't want them, couldn't afford them and can't take care of them properly?

Why does all their caring end in the delivery room?

40 years on, I guess you could say that on paper isn't working so well for Roe v Wade. Luckily women are tired of having Congress sit in their uterus so much, and they have taken to the polls to demand change and representation. The US currently has the largest number of women Senators (20). They've elected Barack Obama to a second term (I only say this because the alternative, Mitt Romney, had spoken about changing the composition of the Justices of the Supreme Court, making Roe v Wade vulnerable to being overturned). Grass-roots movements are mobilized. Young feminists care about their bodies. They care about their reproductive health and rights. A woman's right to contraceptive service and sexual health that includes abortion is her ticket to engaging in a society's economy. That was the huge success of The Pill. That is the continued success of the reproductive health today. In this economy it is more important than ever. In this economy more than any other time, the choice to have a child is one to be taken with extreme measures of caution and care.

So on this anniversary, it would be very nice to see a further legal move, if only on paper. Make a woman's right to choose constitutionally protected by disallowing any State action against it. Prosecute those who would intimidate and physically harass abortion providers and care workers to the fullest extent of the law.  Mandate access to sexual health care for women and men across state lines and protect those offices and clinics from harassment and ridiculous zoning regulations. Given that access is today's biggest problem for abortion, mandate increased access in the most vulnerable and hard to reach zones. And someone should ask that the Supreme Court stop being so wishy-washy every time it is presented with a case that challenges Roe v Wade.

It is important to remember one key thing: all the Supreme Court did in 1973 was recognize a right that already existed. It gave legality to this right and enshrined it under the Constitution. But this right should not be honored because of the benefits it brings. It should, instead, be protected on the basis of its principle of human rights, dignity, privacy and equality. The added benefits of giving access to the economy, to opportunities and to family planning are all fantastic wins, but they are all secondary. Roe v Wade must be protected because it is an innate right and not simply one that has been recognized.

And in 1973, the Supreme Court recognized this and gave women the rights of a first class citizen. 

Hopefully the United States will not want to move backwards on that. 

So Happy Anniversary Roe v Wade. May you live long and strong.

And maybe even stronger. 

Love, 

C.