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 giving pleasure. 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.

photo credit: [ piXo ] via photopin cc

There are some things that are only good on paper. Disastrous recipes. Bad dates with good resumes. Certain haircuts and, generally, 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 tell patients that abortion causes a rise in suicide attempts (which John Hopkins has stated is absolutely bogus), to North Dakota where medication-induced abortions have been banned despite medical testimony to their safety (and apparent moral superiority to, you know, the other kind of abortion), to Kansas where Dr. Tiller was shot and the doctors who attempted to take over his practice where physically harassed into quitting, to Mississippi where the last abortion clinic is closing because hospitals won’t grant obligatory admitting privileges to its 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 and legally 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! Quite the opposite to those men restricting health care provisions, 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 labeling 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 has been 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 to 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 different regulations (24 hour waiting period allowed, parental consent allowed) making abortion more of an illegal right than a constitutionally protected one. 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.  It’s not working). 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) at any times of it’s history. 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 services 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 healthcare system today. In this economy it is more important than ever. In this economy, more than at 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 a 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.

Photo credit: Phil Roeder via photopin cc.

No one at work wanted to talk about the first presidential debate from last week.  If you’re a woman, you especially don’t want to talk about it, because you weren’t even a part of it, all your issues, all your concerns, all the rabid attacks on your rights over the past year were completely ignored. Romney didn’t want to go there, but Obama couldn’t seem to attack him on it nor defend the Democratic Party’s promotion of our rights. Does he think only old people watch television while young people scour Facebook and Twitter? He certainly mentioned seniors enough times…

And there were ample opportunities to bring up these issues. After all, by now we know that the economy has everything to do with women’s rights (and when Romney says abortion is not on the ticket, he’s lying), Obamacare is super-advantageous for women, and when Romney started touching oh-so-hesitantly on religious freedoms, what a fantastic time to bring up contraception, the right to choose and maybe even the incomprehensible role of women in Mormonism. It is his religion after all.

For the past several months, we’ve heard how women might be the defining vote in this election – how the ‘war on women’ by the Republican party is oh so real, how the financial gender gap is increasing (we pay more for… everything), and how access to contraception is ridiculously important for poor women, if they’re ever going to access education and the economy (and then we had that whole religious freedoms/contraception debate, which is becoming tenuously moot). We also recently had two conventions centered around women’s issues, with speeches by strong female leaders (Condi Rice, Ms. Ledbetter, Michelle Obama, Sandra Fluke) running amok with buzz words, even in the men’s performances. We’ve been inundated by Obama’s Strong Women messages and sickened by Ann Romney’s attempts to suggest that we shouldn’t even consider women’s issues in this election at all.

The thing about debating controversial topics is that if you’re afraid of raising the issues because of attacks that might ensue, no progress will be made. Opportunities for fundamental change will be missed. Now, it seems like all the fuss was simply pandering for my vote. Because when the debate happened, it was a return to two men debating ‘big’ and ‘serious’ issues, from which women were completely sidelined.

Just look at Canada. At the risk of getting my head bitten off by every feminist in the country, we recently missed a fantastic opportunity to open the debate on when life begins. Before you skewer me, let me pre-empt this by having you know that in Canada, we have no law on abortion. None. So if you wanted an abortion at 8 months, you might be hard pressed to find a doctor who’ll perform it, but it wouldn’t be illegal. On the flip side, if someone stabbed your unborn 8 month child, would that be considered murder? We’re still up in the air on that too (Section 223(1) of the Criminal Code says that a child becomes a human being when it has “completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.”)

Is it constitutional to not have a law on something as fundamental as the rights over our bodies and the rights to life? And should we not welcome such a debate as a reaffirmation of Canada’s belief in women’s rights, an evolving constitution and recognition of the complexities in this issue as yet undefined by Canadian law?

Here - a little bit of legal history surrounding abortion in Canada. Abortion was illegal until 1969 when Parliament allowed for the procedure in case the health of the mother was at risk. Pierre Trudeau then amended this part of the Criminal Code by stating that abortions could only be provided in hospitals by licenced physicians, again only when the health of the mother was at risk. Terms such as ‘health’ were never defined. (We all know how I feel about defining one’s terms)

In 1988, everything changed. The Supreme Court struck down this section of the Code in the Morgentaler ruling finding that it was not applied equally across the provinces, but failed to define abortion as a constitutionally protected right, and conversely, failed to define a fetus as having any rights at all. Only one justice, Justice Bertha William, wrote in support of a woman’s right to abortion, while all dissenting male Justices wrote what basically consisted of “a woman’s choice not being her own.” Basically. The following year, the Mulroney government tried to pass a bill restricting abortion with severe prison sentences for doctors who didn’t abide by the new law. The bill failed in the Senate.

Fast forward to 2006. Members of Parliament are suddenly concerned with whether injuring a fetus is a punishable crime. Alberta tries to pass a bill making it criminal, but fails on constitutional grounds as the bill does not provide for abortion. The province tries again in 2007 to amend the Criminal Code, but that too goes nowhere.  In the same year, Ontario tries to pass a bill making it a crime to perform an abortion after 20 weeks gestation, but the bill is tabled and gets no second reading in the House of Commons.

Until now, our MP’s have been mute on the subject. When Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth tried to re-open the debate a few months ago (supported, for all the wrong reasons, by the Minister for the Status of Women, Rona Ambrose), and when Conservative leader Stephen Harper firmly opposed (as all parties seem to) the motion, the opposition failed to recognize that the majority of Canadians do not support there being no law at all. In 2011, Gallup Polls found that 77% of Canadians think abortion should be illegal in the last 3 months. I’m all for freedom of choice, but I get uncomfortable when confronted with these precisions, mostly because I would tend to agree. Am I okay with abortions being performed when the fetus becomes fully viable? Am I okay with abortions allowed at 8 months? Do I not think criminals should not be punished for harming a viable fetus during an attack?

And if viability is a continuum, how do we enact a bill on this without some serious discussion?

Also, if we’re so against opening the debate, how come we stopped allowing for any of our G8 maternal health and child care money to be spent on abortion in developing nations? In 2010 we pledged $1.1billion, far more than in previous years. Suddenly we’re developing regressive morality overseas without a debate? If anything, this is the issue that should be on the table – why are we severing women’s rights overseas when we can’t even debate them at home?

But, and I feel this innately, we’re frightened. We’re frightened because we know that when questions about fetal rights are raised, all our rights and roles as women come up for judgement. We’ve seen this in the States over the last year, and we know, every day, that we are still fighting for our rights, we are still living in a patriarchal society, we still navigate skewed power relations with difficulty. We read of stories like that of Ina Drew, top investment banker at JPMorgan, and we marvel at her ascension. We admire Hilary, but wonder how the new CEO of Yahoo will be able to juggle her position and her new son. We tire at research pointing to women in power cementing the male status quo, and we long to access a media that does not consistently denigrate our appearance, hyper sexualize our bodies and remove our agency.

But this ideal is still so far away from our truths, so inaccessible, that we wonder when it will be the norm for women, and not amazing ideas to gawk at. And this is why every single hair follicle on our over waxed, rawly shaved and epilated bodies stands briskly on end at the thought that we could even speak about something that might take away the rights we have fought so hard for.

And that is a depressing thought, especially in Canada.

Maybe we’ll get a mention next time Obama and Romney take to the stand again. But so far, in Canada, we’ve quenched Motion 312. Maybe we’ll get to a place at some point that we’re not so scared of re-opening it.

We can only hope.

Love,
C.

Photo credit Official U.S. Navy Imagery via the Creative Commons License.

Expressing support for the legalization of pre-marital sex in Morocco can get you killed. That’s what the editor of Morocco’s Al-Ahdath Al-Maghribia daily newspaper discovered when he expressed this support during a televised debate. Article 490 of Morocco’s penal code, based on Islamic law, criminalizes sex outside of marriage, with a man and women recently being jailed for six weeks for having sexual relations.

Under a new constitution unveiled last year, it has become clear that pre-marital sex is still considered an affront on Islamic law and the decency of the person. As stated by the Justice Minister: “Legalizing sex outside of marriage is an initiative to promote debauchery.” A prominent Imam in the capital Casablanca added, “If the code is removed, we will become wild savages. Our society will become a disaster.”

Religious fundamentalism often creates a moral code for women, limiting their actions, rights and sexual behaviors, and restricting them to the confines of traditional ‘female’ roles: that of mother, wife, caregiver. In this way, a woman’s cultural and social identity becomes linked to her religion. This can be predominant in Islamic nations where Shari’a law is subject to interpretation by a patriarchal political system. Moral ills are resolved through adherence to a radically interpreted religious code, and family men and male authorities ‘protect’ women in the roles assigned to them. Think of the Moroccan judge who ordered a 16-yr old girl, Amina Filali, to marry her rapist in order to preserve her family’s honor (also enshrined as Article 475 of the Criminal Code). She later committed suicide after being horribly beaten by her husband. Pre-marital sexual relations are a part of these ills: they represent a  supposed desecration not only of the traditional ‘nuclear’ family, not only of a woman’s ‘purity’ but also of a society’s entire identity: a woman’s moral baseness is a reflection on society as a whole.

This fundamentalist approach is increasingly seen as a reaction to Western influence, where the preservation of tradition and culture seek to also safeguard the unequal male-dominant power relations. Because of a woman’s supposed dual burden of being at once sexually weak (and in need of protection) and a representation of temptation (while men’s bodies are normalized, a woman’s is sexualized), she must act as dictated by religious law, and only in her performed inferiority to men can she ‘properly’ exist in both the public and private spheres thereby also inculcating men with an additional superiority and power. By allowing a woman to engage in pre-marital sex, she is given a choice over her sexuality, over her body and a way to engage with a man on a (supposedly) equal playing field (although it is not always so). She is also given a way in which to challenge her inferior sexual portrayal in society: suddenly she might be able to command her own pleasure, she might be able to have sex for reasons other than procreation.

Can you think of a bigger sin? What about adding contraception to that mix?

Religion has always concerned itself with the preservation of sex until marriage. But when it occurs in countries like Morocco, we in the West take solace in these examples of ’horrifying’ foreign cultural religious interpretations. We comfort ourselves through our progressive behavior in contrast to this ‘other’. However, with the numerous legal assaults brought by religious politicians in the US on women’s sexual activity, her body and her reproductive system, it is clear that religious fundamentalism polices a woman’s sexuality in a multitude of contexts. Somehow, in the US, it is justified – morality and God, preservation of family mores, tradition and chasteness, all take precendence over a woman’s health and rights, and are somehow more justified than the same decrees in other countries. These ‘third world women’ are seen as constant ‘victims’, while here, women who want to control the rights over their bodies are labeled as whores. Sluts.

It’s like we can’t decide. Are women victims? Or are they temptresses? Do we need to protect them from sex? Or protect ourselves from their sexuality? I can’t figure it out.

But what I do know is that this has very little to do with God or religion, but rather the systemic control that powerful men seek to exert over women’s bodies, and thus also over their actions, opportunities and abilities to progress within society. But the religious interpretations are now actually really hurting women all over the States. Contraception was the miracle pill that finally gave woman some measure of control over her reproductive system – enabling her to become more than a mother, and giving her choice and agency over the children she did wish to have. We see continuously in developing nations that women with access and use of contraception have fewer children and that not only are these children are healthier but the family has greater savings and more economic weight in their communities. Abortions are the extension of this right over our bodies, and our right to make our own choices. We do not need another round of politicians invoking morals and religion in order to take this away.

Unfortunately this is happening again. The Republicans have just adopted a new conservative party platform which puts contraception at jeopardy, pushes for abstinence-only sex education plans, and allows for sweeping bans on abortion. Both Republicans and their female representatives do not want to discuss these issues, stating that the economy and job creation is far more important. But for women, contraception and legal abortions are ALL about their access to that economy.

Women are obtaining university degrees at a higer rate than men (in some disciplines) and now represent 50% of the workforce. But 3 in 10 who do not work say its because of family duties and a full third cite family as the key reason for not breaking through the glass ceiling. So with all that education, access to the workforce is still hampered by the cost and time of raising a child (which is why a lot of educated women are having their first child later in life, or not at all) – as having children is extremely costly. For families (and often, single mothers) that cost extends into the decreased opportunities and time that the children will then receive from their parents, as stay at home moms have markedly lower incomes than working mothers do. Now, in this economy, more than ever before, women are becoming the bread winners of their families and are rising to the financial challenges facing them, as working class men are laid off. And you’re telling me access to contraception and legal abortion doesn’t matter? Do you need more proof? Read Soraya’s excellent article here. And on that abstinence-only sex ed push the Republicans are gung-ho about? Teen pregnancies are higher in states that only have those policies…

Apart from staying away from policing women’s sexuality, we may wish to accept that neither a society’s credibility or honor are based on a woman’s purity. While not wishing to offend different cultures in which this continues to be the case (as clearly, the West thinks the same way), I would argue that this will only hamper economic, social and cultural development in the long term, by keeping women in subjugated and unequal roles. I know it’s a revolutionary idea to think that sex might be had for reasons other than procreation and might also include pleasure for a woman. But if equality is going to start somewhere, it seems like the bedroom might be a good place.

The repression of women is not inherent to religion, but the radical interpretation of religious beliefs seeks to preserve the patriarchal structures in which it can dominate. Resistance to change and a backlash against those who instigate it is common, but through de-linking the patriarchal power relationships between religion, culture and politics, the subordination of women can be restructured. The importance of streamlined political and cultural agendas for the proliferation of fundamentalism is paramount: without them, traditional values are subject to re-examination in the quest to advance women’s rights and are, ultimately, also subject to change – demonstrating that there is no place for a woman’s oppression in any religious society.

With that, have a great labor day weekend.

Love,

C

Photo via Google Images Creative Commons.

Twice last week, in two different articles, did I read some concoction of ‘feminism is dead.’ It was, of course, in response to the horrific trial verdict for Pussy Riot, the Muscovite punk band who staged an impromptu jam session at an Orthodox church in the city, imploring the Virgin Mary to become a feminist and singing about Russia without Putin.

They were sentenced to two years in prison, each.* Sometimes, I imagine that Russia has turned itself around: I see nice pictures of Putin smiling calmly with other world leaders. But really, all we hear out of Russia is it’s constant vetoes in the UN Security Council of sanctions against the top players: Iran, Sudan, Syria – and every once in a while, how a human rights journalist is murdered, protesters are imprisoned or opposition party members are ‘taken in’ for ‘questioning’. Edited pictures don’t solve any of that.

Now, with another notch on his belt of human rights abuses (freedom of expressions and protest is enshrined in the Russian Constitution), Putin, in collusion with the Orthodox church, has set a standard for dissent, and for what feminism represents: use it, implore it, live it – and risk imprisonment. No wonder feminism looks ill.

Before we succumb to believing what a trial witness stated was “For an Orthodox believer it is an insult and an obscenity,” let’s take a moment to define feminism before we kill it. My favorite definition is perhaps the simplest: Feminism is the insane idea that women are human beings (and here’s a little bit of layman history to go along with it). Since we’re all human, we should all have the same rights and, more importantly, the same access to those rights and control over the resources that give us that access. Here’s where it gets tricky (so bear with me): because we live in a male-dominated society with firmly entrenched patriarchal structures, two things are important:

1. Women and men might have different needs – and, since we’re committed to treating them equally, sometimes different solutions are needed for those differing needs. One size does not fit all.
2. Because of previous inequalities, equitable solutions are needed to make up for some pretty disastrous gaps, usually in access and participation. Think of it as affirmative action – for women – and works towards the goal of equality.

So far, so good. We’re not trying to take anyone’s rights away, and we’re not trying to become superior. Everything above is striving towards equality.

What the Pussy Riot trial has taught us is that equality is a detrimental force to two very powerful institutions: religion and politics. These two institutions have long been presided over by men – with specific roles of how a woman should act, both in public – towards her nation and thus towards the men governing it, and in private, towards her husband. The verdict, read for over 2 hours by Judge Marina Syrova, demonstrates this. She makes mention of the clothing the women wore, their disrespect for religion and its doctrines, disrespect of the church, their ‘satanic movements’, their brightly colored headgear, and their affront on the church and state. Clearly these women were acting outside of their prescribed roles.

Roles are funny things, because like them or not, we embody them every day. We play the role of husband, wife, worker, friend, mother, companion. What we do have, however, is the ability – legally protected – to change those roles and our actions within them. For some of us, this is the ability to change the gender norms to which we are supposed to ascribe – think our manner of dressing, not having children, not getting married, choosing fields traditionally dominated by the opposite sex - in other words, moving beyond the rigid contours of gender normative behaviour into the grey areas of gender – onto it’s continuum.

This is all good and great of course, but it becomes especially difficult when this change is not legally protected, nor socially approved. Why wouldn’t it be? Because it challenges the patriarchal structures  – it challenges the disproportionate power relations between men and women as it redefines roles, and how those roles can become interchangeable. Yes, it’s all about power.

But don’t let yourself be fooled into believing that it’s only in far flung places that politics and religion come together to regulate women through crazy witch trials. I have only to mention the war on women in the States for you to understand that as much as we gasp at Russia, we are fully culpable of doing the exact same thing, right here in America – to women who, quite unfortunately, do not have the world’s media to support them.

I give you Texas – a state known for George Bush and oil, and now for making women flock to Mexico for contraception, health services and abortions. Wonderful! Why? Just like in the Pussy Riot trials, religion and politics came together to assert that their beliefs were more justifiably right and politically and legally backed, than the human rights of women. It’s the same thing as the Church rising up against contraception under President Obama, as if somehow their beliefs trumped my health and my access to health care. It is the same morality invoked during campaigns to criminalize abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, to convene panels on contraception where not a single woman was allowed to be present or to lock out a senator from a House debate, simply because she used the word vagina.

And it falls right in line with Republican Senator Todd Akin’s stating that when rape is ‘legitimate’, women’s bodies can stop the pregnancy process, and therefore abortions in cases of rape should also be illegal.

Change is naturally threatening. Loss of power is a great fear. Combined with this is the sentiment that we will no longer be able to control a woman’s sexuality, her morality and her virginity, and our whole society will crumble. Think I’m going too far? These aren’t my words. She will go from virgin to whore, and bring our society down with her. If a woman is able to freely express herself, if she is allowed to make her own choices for her body and her sexuality, how will the ‘traditional’ family structure survive? How will we preserve ‘decency’ and ‘morality’ (as if women are the sole bearers of such things)? How will we maintain control?

I see where the articles are coming from, by stating that feminism is dead. It certainly might seem so, turning on the television and watching discriminating gender stereotypes being flung from the screen in the shape of mass media. It certainly seems so when you open tabloids where women are reduced to bodies without agency, and where even the ‘serious’ newspapers are devoid of women in power, or articles about women in decision making positions. I mean, look, we’re still trying to decide if women can have it all…

But here’s where feminism is alive, thriving and evolving – the web. Never before has there been such an amazing community of feminists (both men, women and everyone in between) than on social media: blogs, zines, twitter, facebook, discussion groups, live chat, I’ve seen it all. And I participate. And it’s wondrous, and it’s spreading – influencing media (just look at the NYTimes. Almost every day there is an article about women, gender issues and equality. A few years ago? Nada), influencing response (Daniel Tosh anyone?), influencing reaction (Hey Gabby Douglas, you rock!).

Feminism is alive in response to the Pussy Riot trials through the unbelievable global protests that could only have been possible through social media. It’s alive in the war on women that we feel in the States, and the constant reporting and dissecting of each law that is passed on our bodies. It’s alive in condemning Japan and Australia for sending their Olympic women’s football and basketball teams in economy class and their men’s teams in business, even though the women had won more trophies, more world competitions. It’s alive in trying to understand how it is evolving within particular concepts and contexts, it is becoming more inclusive and more just – and it is ever changing.

So feminism is not dead. No matter what anyone will tell you – if you think women are human beings too, you’re a feminist too. Congratulations! You no longer have to burn your bra. You no longer even have to wear one. Sometimes, you just have to get out of bed and open your eyes. It’s everywhere.

*Two members of Pussy Riot who were not jailed escaped the country yesterday.

Image credit Lorena Cupcake via the Creative Commons License.

Last weekend I was at the gym, waiting for a fellow male bodybuilder to get off the pullup bars. Yours truly can do about 7-10 wide grip pullups unassisted of which she’s very proud, and that Saturday was a heavy back day. While I’m waiting, another gym guy comes up and asks me if I’m doing just that, waiting. Why yes. Yes I am. Then:

Gym guy: “Can I just get in my reps before you?”

The first thought that crossed my mind was that this grown man had not attended kindergarden. That is the place, I recall, being taught about the concept of waiting your turn. But here he was, a full (approximately) 27 years later, clearly having passed kindergarden (although we musn’t assume). So then,

Me: “Uhh, no. I’m going to finish my set first.”
Gym guy: “Seriously? Jesus Christ!” and storms away.

The truth was, of course, that this guy figured that because I was female, my sets didn’t matter as much as his. His goals, his body, his gym routine was more important. He could probably do more, lift more, and above that he was male. He belonged in the gym far more than I did. His presence was normalized behaviour, mine was other – invited. Think I’m kidding? Do you think he would have attempted to butt in front of another man?

It’s interesting, this concept of gendered spaces. The gym is a great example of a place where men clearly feel they belong there more than women – and women definitely feel they need to either fight for their place or be relegated to the ‘women’s only’ section. Sometimes I feel like I have to push harder, lift more, be faster - just to justify my presence in the free weight section, usually the only woman among a good 20+ men. I find myself making my workouts harder and more complex, just to earn my spot. I guess this is motivation, but I’m not sure its from the right source.

Although public spaces are supposed to be just that: open to all, often they are dominated by those with privilege: traditionally white males. While these spaces have opened their invisible doors, those barriers often still exist, based primarily on gender, race and financial access. Think of country clubs, golf clubs, member only groups – while many have publicly denounced their racist and gender discriminative past, privately the gates remain closed, with white males still populating most of the ranks. Others who are allowed in are generally more scrutinized, need to have more credentials, pass more tests. More hoops to jump through, just to attain the norm.

The gym is not the only place women feel excluded. The very public arena of the street is highly gender-discriminatory, with a seemingly free for all in men’s gazes and words towards women. Sexual harassment through furtive touching on sidewalks, groping in public transit, and cat calling on the street makes these public spaces discriminatory and exclusionary towards women. While walking down the street for a white male might be second nature (he belongs there afterall, these are his streets), for a woman, it entails the burden of the male gaze, unwanted touching and jeers masked as compliments. Sometimes the street can resemble a soft battlefield.

If that weren’t enough, governments have taken to enacting policy that is making public spaces even more exclusionary and engendered. Whether you agree with France’s decision to ban women in headscarves from public places or not, it does fail on several accounts. First, the law was implemented without consulting the women who wear the headscarves – thus removing their agency and denying them a voice in a matter that affects them. Then, it contradicts its own motivation: it chooses to ban the headscarf, denoting it as a tool used to opress women, but instead of challenging the root causes of why this might be, it simply bandaids this supposed (both sides might be right, but its important to include both sides) problem, thereby further excluding (especially if the person in question is a girl in school) an already marginalized portion of the population based on gender and religion. Massive fail.

We have always been very concerned about protecting women within the private sphere – domestic violence, abuse, the burden of care and domestic gender roles are being criminalized and politicized. We’re becoming aware that women are paticipating more in obtaining higher education and in the working sector but without a diminished role at home, and that this is a major issue. See: Can Women Have it All?

More and more, however, I wonder if we are taking public spaces for granted, assuming that without actual targeted measures, these spaces will automatically veer towards gender equality. They are, afterall, public. But we know that not to be true. We know that when left to the norm, the norm veers male. White male. Time and time again.

I’m not sure the ‘women’s only’ section at the gym is the answer. Sure, women like to have a space where they don’t feel the male gaze. It can be very very liberating. But I think better strategies are needed. Maybe if sports were seen as normal for women. Maybe if women weren’t seen as sexual objects. Maybe if women weren’t seen as having lesser worth than men. Maybe if men were socialized to see women as equals instead of conquests or pushovers. The list goes on.

But maybe what it really comes down to is having women involved in the discussion. The ridiculous pictures of the Congressional Panel on Birth Control on Capitol Hill that included exactly zero women seems to be symptomatic of a widespread persisting issue: men are still talking about what women should and shouldn’t do without involving any women in the discussion at all. Again, this provides the message that we don’t have a voice. We’re not worth listening to. What we have to say doesn’t matter at all, and we can’t be trusted to make our own decisions. We may have the right to vote, but we’re still considered not full human beings. Children maybe, and to be taken care of.

I mean look, we still have to make (great!) videos such as these in order to ask for someone, anyone to respect our rights. It’s sad that we’re still here, asking for such basics, raising our hands to be permitted to speak, and being ignored when we do.

I completed my pull ups, and went on to my next exercise. Equality can’t be that far, I thought. But it’s still just out of our reach.

Photo credit deanetr via the Creative Commons License.  

This year marks the first year that all of the more than 200 countries represented at the Olympics have a female athlete as part of their delegation. Specifically, this year, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Brunei all included women in the London Games.

Saudi Arabia sent two judo athletes (who may be forced to compete without her headscarf - I’m thinking this is a move away from recent positive developments accommodating the wearing of religious clothing and thus improving the inclusion of all women in sport, although safety is a concern. But I digress.) and an 800 meter runner.
Brunei sent one 400m hurdler.
Qatar sent three women; a swimmer, sprinter and a flag bearer.

(As an aside, Palestine has been allowed to send athletes under it’s flag since 1996 even though it is an unrecognized state by the UN. They sent their first female athlete in 2000, and send another this year.)

In comparison, the US delegation has more women than men competing, ranking in at 269 women and 261 men. But let’s not compare! After all, the US has Title IX that just turned 40, and that changed the fate and futures of many a female athlete on American soil.

Saudi Arabia doesn’t quite have that.

Nevertheless, it is important to note this turn of events, because it means so much for women in sports and the empowerment of girls and women in these nations. Some will say that the Olympics Committee invited these female athletes to make up for gender gaps in sports in these countries, some people will say that they haven’t had resources, training, or opportunities worthy of getting them to the Olympic stage. Still others will claim that this dilutes the importance and worth of the Olympic standard.

Bullshit.

To get to gender equality, you have to go through gender equity. Think of the latter as a band-aid, like scholarships to make up for inequalities, affirmative action in the US and South Africa, gender quotas to fill parliaments with women. Do these actions necessarily target the social inequalities and root of discrimination against women? No. But they are a beginning.

This is much the same for the female representation at the Olympics – and, I would say, is even more important given the global scale of the event and the enormous precedent of having women from these three nations compete in sports. Should you need a reminder, women aren’t allowed to participate in sports in Saudi Arabia, and neither physical education nor sport are taught for girls in school. Conservative Muslim clerics oppose a woman playing sports, saying it is immodest and against their nature – (and before you pass judgement on realities you, as a Western non-Muslim may not understand, let me tell you that this sounds a lot like what my ex used to tell me and what I’ve heard from many a man right around Toronto, Belgium and New York.) And yes, I know, one of the Saudi competitors, Sarah Attar, was born in California and (luckily and rightly) profited from Title IX to become a competitor in her field.

So a cumulative total of 6 women who cannot even compete in their own countries is not enough, you will cry. We should challenge the discrimination, the gender disparities, the structural inequalities present in preventing women from participating in sport! I’m right behind you on that one.

But imagine for a moment the enormity of the moment those women walked into the stadium in London at the Opening Ceremonies. Imagine the joy, the pride, the glory. Imagine the cheers. Imagine the countries at home, watching, beaming with pride (this is a great time to forget about the haters). Imagine girls all around the world who are watching, wearing the hijab, seeing these women that look like them, possibly from their neighborhood, their communities, their countries, imagine watching and seeing them ascend to that level, to that Olympic stage. That is one measure of very very intense empowerment. The importance of strong female role models that girls can identify with is a very important part of a woman’s development.

Empowerment is important for girls in a world that is set on dis-empowering the female mind from the moment she exits the womb. In a media awash in gender discrimination, messages of seemingly acceptable gender violence and stereotypes, girls lose motivation to accomplish great things, focusing instead on the roles they must embody, happily and uncertainly trapping themselves inside the body’s gilded cage. When girls and women lack access to power, lack resources and opportunities, lack the control of their selves and their lives and, perhaps most importantly, lack the acknowledgement of their power, they become shells of potential, and their enabled inaction is a disservice to all levels of development everywhere.

Alice Walker said “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” When social structures are constantly telling girls and women they don’t have power, its hard for them to believe otherwise.

So while the representation of women from all countries may be a small step, it is an important one, one that is entrenched in traditional Olympic principles, and one that serves to inform and empower – a right step on the way to equality.

Image Credit The Other 98%.

It is difficult being a mother. Mothers bear the brunt of burdens, plainly seen if you take a look at the measly ratings the United States received from the recently published Save the Children State of the World’s Mothers. Not only does the country rank 25th on the list of Best Places to be a Mother, it also ranks ‘Poor’ in the Breastfeeding Policy Scorecard and judging by the current war on women being waged throughout each State, none of this is going to get any better any time soon.

On a smaller scale, in our everyday interactions there are bizarre balances that affect mothers and would-be-mothers. In certain circles, these women are praised and held in high esteem, but those circles are small and seemingly growing smaller. We live in an age where our determination to succeed in higher education and bigger and better jobs is greatly interfering in our personal lives. If you’ve read any of the Forbes articles on female CEO’s, you’ll know that women who have it all usually don’t, at least not at home. And those who want to have it all, have many a sacrifice to make.

The stigma is harsh: so you have the job, but you don’t have kids? You’re pushing 35 but you’re not married? How do you define yourself as a woman to your colleagues, friends, family (and to yourself) in the later stages of your life if you don’t have children? How do you balance the will to push yourself further in a career with the demands of a spouse or partner? How do you battle the ageing of your uterus, which, despite weight training, eating well and plastic surgery, does not respond to your efforts to combat the visible ageing of your body? How do you begin a relationship at 30 without thinking of the possibility of children yet without wanting to sound desperate? Hello biological tick tock.

Unfortunately, the problems don’t end there. Once pregnant (if you want to keep your fetus, that is – if not, try not to be here), you may be unlucky enough to end up in one of these states where you’ll undoubtedly pay ridiculous insurance costs, get fired for being pregnant, have no representative in congress and where child care costs are exorbitantly high (even when they’re low, because poverty is so high: Hello Mississippi). T

hen the social problems emerge: are you still having sex with your partner? Do you still go out to eat with your partner? You may think none of this matters, but study after study has shown that relationships deteriorate extensively after couples have children – and their social circle closes even more. If this isn’t enough – then you have the workplace issues that emerge like looming concrete walls: mothers stall in their careers after children, are rehired at temp positions and often never push up the ladder as quickly as before. There’s the workplace backlash against mothers who take time off, cut meetings short, can’t attend business functions and are, generally, mothers.

A study out of the University of Chicago showed how in the few years after graduation, business students of both sexes had similar incomes and similar hours worked. This stability ended, however, when women, who were predominantly more likely to take time off (because of children), paid a high price for such a choice. 15 years after graduation, men were making about 75% more than the women of their class. The subgroup of women whose careers most resembled those of their male counterparts, was the group of women who chose not to have children.

In truth, developed societies encourage this: we promote education for girls, we brandish statistics of educated women with well-deserved pride, we enact legislation to allow for equal pay and equal access to jobs… and we make it increasingly difficult for pregnant women and women with children to re-enter the workplace without taking a massive salary cut and progressively earning less than their male counterparts. In short, we want educated driven women without wombs. We want women to forget their biological clock and forget marriage, all the while sending out strong signals that they should definitely get married if they want to be any kind of contributing member of society. Talk about a double burden.

So thank your mother. Or your friend who’s a mother. Or a mother you might know. Mothers do not have it easy, and never really had. And it doesn’t look like it’s getting that much better. As women we have the ability to bring forth life – and yet it comes at such a price that it is really no surprise that more and more women are either choosing not to have children or ‘falling’ into that category due to the enormity of other social pressures. I don’t blame them. Neither should you.

Happy Mother’s Day.

Over the past few weeks there has been growing international outrage at the shooting of a young black teenager in Florida by an armed neighborhood watch man. I’m not sure I have much to add to this outrage, because so much has been quite brilliantly written on this by many social media partisans. I’ve done my part, by raising awareness over all the social media platforms I own. I felt I would only be reiterating the many commentators on the issue.

Then President Obama, when pressed on the case over the weekend, declared that, “…if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”

Then, the always eloquent GOP candidate, Newt Gingrich, replied to the President’s comments by calling them disgraceful, and saying that it shouldn’t matter what color the victim is.

That’s where I felt that it was time to write about this issue – because it’s something I’ve been hearing and seeing a lot of recently: the idea that race and gender should not matter, or that it doesn’t, actually, matter. And so, really, we should all stop talking about it.

I could not disagree more.

This is an especially important time for race in America, as the Supreme Court sets out to hear arguments that affirmative action should be repealed. And of course, with the upcoming elections, racist taunts have resumed en masse towards the current President. An Iraqi woman has just been beaten to death in her home in California with a note saying ‘go back to your country’ - but, all the while, race does not matter.

The overarching truth is that when you refuse to talk about something and say that it doesn’t matter, it negates and silences the every day realities of a large segment of the population, essentially condemning their history and their present story into silence, and erasing the way they live their lives and the struggles they might experience on a daily basis with the status quo of structures that regulate their actions.

Newt, you are creating an invisible race.

This raises interesting questions. First, who creates the status quo? And secondly, who are the proponents of saying that ‘race and gender don’t matter’? As we have learned with the whole Kony 2012 debacle, identifying who shapes an issue, and how it is shaped, is just as important as the response that we bring to that issue. One topic can have so many different interpretations, orchestrations and solutions.

In this case, it seems like an old, rich, white man believes that race shouldn’t matter. These are the same old, rich, white men who legislate time and again for restrictive measures on women’s rights, on their healthcare, on their sexual reproductive abilities. These are the same rich, white, old men that decry homosexuality and ignore the LGBT community.

Just as the many women around the United States who are currently reeling under the attacks of these political figures on their seemingly inalienable rights would not like to see their realities silenced, I do not believe that black people, with their particular histories and current realities, would like to be told that these do not matter and should no longer be spoken of.

This is especially true when women and people of color live within structures that have been overwhelmingly created by people that do not look like them (ie, old, white, rich men). If the goal is to move away from a social hierarchy that clearly favors one particular group of people, then all people’s realities should be considered as best as possible when erecting new structures. We see this idea in the fundamental tenets of democracy, and in the understanding that not all histories have been equal, and these create different current day realities that must be made up for in some way; hence the measures to make up for gender inequality and racial disparities.

This is not to say that this particular history is the only one that women or people of color know. It is not to say that this history should burden their shoulders today. This is not to say that these groups should be known or thought of as only attached to one particular history (Surprise! All black people are not the same.) But it is to say that the people who define whether or not this history and these realities are relevant are the people who are living them.

What would be lovely, of course, is to believe that we live in a world where race and gender shouldn’t matter. But shouldn’t and don’t are two completely different states. The former conveys a world where we are completely oblivious to our differences and to the different histories that we have lived because of those differences. In fact, it is probably a world where we have no differences. Unfortunately that is not our case.

If we take this one step further – saying, yes but shouldn’t we strive to have a society where race and gender don’t matter? Sure, we should strive for that. But we cannot silence these outright. When silenced, a funny thing happens: the status quo slowly continues to exist, and those who are benefited keep benefiting and create more structures that benefit them. In other words, if the norm is white and male, then structures will be perpetuated that will solidify this norm, and keep going forth.

Peacebuilding processes are a great example of this. During the Arab Spring, women were a huge part of the organization and spread of the movement. Yet, when it came time to pick the political representatives – women were completely left out. Prevailing attitudes towards women and women’s place in society took over. These new male dominated structures will then reproduce themselves to create more male dominated structures in the future. What could have helped was a system of quotas, whereby a certain percentage of women should be represented in government. While not ideal, it is a step in the right direction.

Much like feminism had to learn that women were not an all-encompassing homogenous group (otherwise known as essentialism), so do people, in general, and the United States, in particular. Being told that your reality plays no part in the social activities of every day life is a regressive and dangerous attitude to take. Unfortunately it seems to be one that pervades the white male conservative narrative.

And it is frighteningly sad to note that it takes a young man’s death to point this out, yet again.

Love,
C.

This piece originally appeared on The Eternalist, and cross-posted with permission.

Photo credit: Imagefield via the Creative Commons License.

Today was International Women’s Day. There were articles written by thoughtful well-meaning women and smart indomitable women, coming together to welcome our progress and caution about the obstacles yet to conquer.

I couldn’t help but feel pre-emptively weary of reading these articles. These last few months have been such a scathing beating of American women that I’m surprised women have managed to get out of bed each morning. In fact, that’s why my morning tweets usually begin with: “Every time I “add action” it’s a political statement. Unfortunately now I feel like writing: “Every time I go to bed, it’s a political statement.”

But rise we do, and we must. Perhaps a bit too late, but with added gusto that makes me always want to remind Republicans: women do vote. Of course the question will soon become: which women vote? Because you see, throughout the constant attacks, both sides have paint women into two categories, and it’s always the same: the virgin. And the whore.

Oh we’ve heard this one, I know. We’ve beat it to death. But apparently not. Apparently Rush Limbaugh thought to bring it back out for one last beating. But the sad thing is that in return, our defense of Sandra Fluke was one that only reiterated the virgin diatribe: this white, middle class, law school educated and articulate woman was to be supported. Would we have done the same for an unmarried mother of three? For a woman of color? Would we have reinforced the perfect victim stereotype? We want contraception because we too are white, middle class women who don’t have tons of sex, but are very concerned about our health and our rights. I’m just waiting for someone to say: “We don’t even ENJOY sex!”

It’s the same excuse for accepting laws that circumvent our right to contraception, abortion and women’s health provisions. We become accepting wilted roses of “At least they didn’t…” or “At least they did…” Could we stop with the ‘at least’ mentality? Sure progress is great. But I’m not shying away from voicing my full opinion. Half of women’s rights are not good enough, lets stop justifying that it is. We’ve talked about this before right here at Fem2.0.

We’ve all been rushing to Sandra Fluke’s defense, claiming that just because we all have sex doesn’t mean that we’re all whores. But let me tell you, there are worse things.

I worked for seven months in Swaziland, a country where a woman’s sexuality was not her own. A woman’s sexuality was to be taken, by her husband, by strangers, and at will. With the highest number of rapes and HIV per youth segment of the population, this was no small issue. The one thing I noticed time and again, was that for all the work being done to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, STDs and to educate women on contraception, nothing was being said about a woman’s pleasure during sex. That concept was completely foreign to men and to women. Women had no pleasure and could certainly not ask for some. Sex was for men.

What does this mean, on a broader scale? It means that women are not beings with agency and choice, but objects to use freely, whenever and wherever. If a woman is constantly subjugated to sex without her consent and without a voice as to the actions involved, she is degraded to an object that must accept the wishes of her companion or her oppressor, and this at all times.

But does this oppression transcend the doorway to the bedroom? Of course it does. An objectified woman with no voice or power over her sexuality and pleasure does not suddenly become powerful in social settings and an agent of change in her community involving the same people that remove that power within the bedroom.

A woman is constantly an example of her sexuality, a sometimes unfortunate, sometimes empowering, but always-consistent baggage of being a woman: to be the embodiment of culture, morality, value and tradition. Her sexuality is rarely her own. She is either a body for producing babies or tool for a man’s pleasure, part of a patriarchal bargain or aiming to set her own wishes into action in circumstances that have largely already been dictated by male structures.  That is why feminist sex might just be the best sex out there; at least in this context I can make some form of choice based on my wants.  On that note, being a feminist does in no way equate to hating men. It does, however, mean that women and men are treated in an equal way, and this equality is highly important in the bedroom. When my pleasure matters and I know that I can ask for my pleasure to matter, this does not make me a slut. It makes me a human being – an equal to the men who have been asserting their pleasure without question since the dawn of time.

It’s tragic that in February of 2012 we can’t turn off the virgin/whore dichotomy. If all women who have sex for pleasure are sluts, who exactly are they sleeping with? Certainly not other women, as most conversation on this subject makes no place for any other sex life than a heteronormative one. Where is the discussion on male sexuality? Oh yes, I forgot. Along with being either a virgin or a whore, a woman is always a temptress. Although a man has control over the act itself, he is supposedly tempted into it by a woman, her whiles, her ways, her wear.

On this International Women’s Day, I want women to be seen as human beings first and foremost. With that comes the responsibility of providing basic health provisions to that very large segment of the population. But let it not be at the cost of denying us our pleasure, our voice, our sexuality and our right to own it. I want access to contraception, but not just because of women’s health issues. Yes, I want access to contraception because pregnancy complications are a leading cause of death for girls 15-19 in developing nations, and when women don’t have access to basic health care like many don’t in the US, this rate applies to them too. I want access to contraception because we all have sex. It is not a recreational activity. Pregnancy, STD’s, abuse, etc. are not punishment for my having sex. And sex is not just for creating children. Sex is for pleasure. And the politics of pleasure expand far outside the bedroom. As a woman, my pleasure counts. And that’s why when I go to bed, I am making a political statement.

Photo Credit: Painting by Joan Griswold