I have a ‘forever family’. It consists of a mom, and dad, and me – their adopted daughter. I grew up in a permanent ‘forever home’ with a loving, supportive family in much the same way other children do with their biological parents.

And with all this love and support I was able to grow into a healthy child who played basketball, roller-bladed, and begged to quit ballet shortly after my very first lesson (you just can’t do a lay-up in a tutu). With the backing of a dedicated support system I was granted every opportunity to flourish into what I consider to be a (relatively) successful adult.

My parents and I don’t share blood, medical histories, or DNA but instead share a bond much deeper than any non-adopted family could possibly begin to understand.  And for that, the privilege that was granted, I’m incredibly lucky, as are many of the 1.5 million Americans who have been adopted into what I hope are similarly loving ‘forever homes’.

But often times I sit back and think about what my life would have been like if my ‘forever family’ hadn’t found me. Who would I have become? Would I have had the chance to go to university? Would I have had the security of knowing that, just a phone call away, I would have a family member who would be willing to help me fight any battle?  Would I even get a birthday card? Or would I have been just another child caught without a sense of permanency, caught within a flawed social system?

Thankfully I wasn’t. And while I’m grateful to all those who had a part in granting me my present-day reality it is tragically not the norm.

Worldwide, adoption is still very rare; the United Nations estimates that 260,000 adoptions occur each year, which equates to fewer than 12 adoptions out of every 100,000 children under the age of 18. What this results in is 13 million double orphans (children who have lost both parents) in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean who lack ‘forever families’.

13 million.

Let me put this into perspective. In Africa alone, it is estimated that the current rate of domestic adoption would need to be multiplied by 2000 in order to guarantee the approximate 8 million African orphans are adopted into permanent homes. Globally, the number of adoptions of AIDS-related orphans would need to be increased by a factor of 60.

Another 119 million children are single orphans (children who have lost one parent) and may also require adoption into permanent homes.

Within the United States, more than 250,000 children are forced into the foster system each and every year. Approximately half of these children will return to family members, leaving approximately 105,000 children stuck in limbo: with luck finding their ‘forever families’, or, like the nearly 20,000 children in the US, aging out of the foster system, without one. In Canada the situation is not much better: over 78,000 children are still waiting for permanent homes.

This isn’t the first time I’ve spoken about my adoption, the need for increased awareness about adoption, or the importance of viewing adoption as pro-choice. But over the past two months we have been witness to a new intensification of the adoption debate. Or at least, in my opinion it has. It’s time to talk about it.

We have a new Pope. For us non-Catholics this doesn’t exactly change anything; I doubt any of us, particularly in the feminist world, anticipated a newfound acceptance of our ‘liberal values’ – a modernization of old conservative, misogynist worldviews. But what Pope Francis brings is a particular dislike for same-sex marriage, which he declared a “destructive attack on God’s plan” although coming from a country which has openly accepted same-sex marriage since 2010 (a year, in fact, before New York did). But perhaps even more appalling, Pope Francis has a particular hatred for same-sex adoption.

Not that the Vatican has even really been a fan of same-sex adoption either. In fact, just weeks before the election of Pope Francis, the Vatican once again voiced its distaste for same-sex adoption, believing that children should grow up in “the ordinary way…with a father and mother”.

According to Pope Francis, same-sex adoption is not wrong simply because it’s not ‘ordinary’; to him, the adoption of children by same-sex couples is a “form of discrimination against children”.

But what’s obvious to me is the Pope’s misunderstanding of the term discrimination. Perhaps if he had a more formal understanding of what it means to be discriminated against he would view this situation a little differently, a little less harshly…or simply with a little more compassion.

So let me provide a definition:

Discrimination, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, is “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex”.

So, the academic in me could say that we could perhaps validate the Pope’s ‘discriminatory’ view of same-sex adopted children if there was evidence to suggest that children adopted by same-sex couples were at risk. Lacking. Limited. Affected negatively in any way by the sexual orientation of their parents.

But here’s the problem: there is none. Empirical evidence supporting the Pope’s ‘discriminatory’ standpoint just doesn’t exist. Thirty years of extensive research finds nothing to suggest that children of same-sex parents are any less likely to thrive. Excel. Be loved in the exact say same that I did with heterosexual parents.

• In fact, on March 20^th the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement regarding their opinion of same-sex parenting based on previous experimental evidence. In their view, it is “in the best interest of children that they be able to partake in the security of permanent nurturing and care that comes with the civil marriage of parents, without regard to their parents’ gender or sexual orientation”.
• The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and other professional healthcare organizations all agree that “same-sex couples are no less fit than heterosexual parents to raise children and their children are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of heterosexual parents” . They insist, to believe otherwise is, “inconsistent with the scientific evidence”.

So, who is really being ‘discriminated’ by discouraging adoptions by same-sex couples? The LGBT couples who wish to offer ‘forever homes’ to deserving children, and the deserving children wanting to find ‘forever families’.

Because what those against same-sex adoption and, by virtue same-sex marriage, are essentially suggesting is that children like me – children who have, by no fault of their own, and for reasons mostly unknown to them, been placed for adoption are not deserving of a loving family.

It is better, says those who believe in the ‘abomination’ of same-sex adoption, that millions of children around the world grow up without ‘forever families’ than to live with a loving couple, who by no fault of their own, just happen to be of the same sex.

People who don’t support same-sex marriage, or the adoption of children by same-sex couples, are in essence denying both deserving children and deserving couples the right to a ‘forever family’. I can find nothing Christian about that, nothing moral about it, and nothing just. This, in my albeit very biased opinion, is the very essence of discrimination.

In the words of Ezra Klein, “adoption by gay couples is one of the best arguments for gay marriage”. Well said, because as far as I’m concerned I would much rather grow up with a ‘forever family’ that happens to have two moms, or two dads, than to live without one.

Photo credit  DaveFayram  via Creative Commons

As I sat down to write this piece my thoughts turned to the never ending stream of stories about women and girls being used and abused; treated as less than human.  As an activist I do what I can to promote organizations working to prevent suffering and to help survivors. That’s why last year, I became a member of V Day DC, a chapter of VDay, the global movement end violence against women and girls.

You’d be hard pressed to find a group more passionate or committed to helping women thrive. In honor of the women and girls in the DC metro community we gather each spring to raise funds and put on a production of Eve Ensler’s award-winning play The Vagina Monologues. We believe that we cannot rest, we cannot back down, until every woman and girl can live healthy, productive, violence-free lives.

V Day DC is now in our 6th year, and we expect to exceed last year’s fundraising goal of 12k. This year’s proceeds benefit HIPS, a community organization dedicated to providing sex education and advocating for female, male and transgender sex workers in the DC area. As HIPS’ Interim Director of Development Emily Hammell puts it:

“HIPS work focuses on people living at the margins of society. We foster good health through education programs and testing, we promote and encourage safer and healthier behaviors through the harm reduction model, and we encourage self-sufficiency through compassionate support.”

And since HIV is such an epidemic in Washington, DC, HIPS is truly making a difference in curbing the spread of it through encouraging safer sex practices.  I think such a wonderful organization deserves our donations, don’t you?

If you’re in the DC area, I extend an invitation to you to please come see me and my fellow cast members in The Vagina Monologues April 6-7.  Get your tickets immediately, as they are selling fast!  If you can’t make it to the show, I hope you’ll make a donation to our beneficiary HIPS.  Together we can help support the DC community while raising awareness about global violence against women, but we need your support!

Cover Photo: Credit V day 2013

Second Photo: Vagina Monologue’s cast from last year

Helping women thrive is Nikki’s mission. She received her M.P.A. and a Certificate in Women, Policy and Political Leadership form American University (DC). She has advocated and raised funds for groups focused on reproductive rights, ending violence and empowering women at the local, state and national level. Her goals are to support and strengthen women’s leadership and continuing advocating for their rights. Follow

To get more information about this weekend’s event check out V-Daydc.org ,  V-Day DC Facebook page, and follow us on Twitter @vdaydc.

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

In the hours after the announcement of the Steubenville rape case verdict, the coverage has been non-stop. No big surprise in our 24/7 news culture. What should be a surprise, but sadly isn’t, is the sympathetic tone being taken by some reporters about the future of the two boys (or young men, depending on how you classify high school students who are 16- and 17-years old). According the Ms. Foundation, here’s what some of our major news outlets have been saying about the two students who have been convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl:

Shocked? I’m not.

Because it wasn’t that long ago when the New York Times wrote a story (for which it and its author eventually came under fire) about the gang rape of an 11-year-old girl in Texas, which contained passages like:

“[H]ow could their young men have been drawn into such an act?”

and

“Where was [the victim's] mother? What was her mother thinking?” said … one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record.”

But it’s not just the media. Even the Supreme Court had its moment when it upheld the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision that held that a high school cheerleader who is sexually assaulted might not even have the right to sit out on a cheer for her alleged attacker:

In her capacity as cheerleader, H.S. served as a mouthpiece through which [the school] could disseminate speech, namely, support for its athletic teams. Insofar as the First Amendment does not require schools to promote particular student speech, [the school] had no duty to promote H.S.’s message by allowing her to cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit. Moreover, this act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, H.S. was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.

Let’s not forget about journalist Lara Logan who was sexually assaulted in Tahrir Square. After the initial outrage over the incident, some commentators wondered publicly if Logan had brought the attacks on herself simply by being a woman covering a story in a Muslim country that has very different attitudes about where women should be and what they should be wearing in public than most of us in the West.

And, of course, we shouldn’t forget the coverage of the sexual assault of an 11-year-old in Maryland, where the newspaper headline initially seemed to blame the girl:

“Mother finds daughter performing sex act on man staying in home.”

I know you get the point.  This post could become an encyclopedic recitation of the numbers of stories like this where victims of sexual assault — even those who are still in elementary school — are portrayed as vixens behaving inappropriately, when we all know what the real truth is.

So then how do we get the media, as well as judicial scholars, to stop spreading the idea that the perpetrators of sexual assault are to be viewed as victims just as the victims themselves are? I hate to say this because I am no fan of censorship,  but maybe if we could keep books like 50 Shades of Grey from topping the bestseller lists, that would be a good start.

Joanne Bamberger is the publisher and editor-in-chief of The Broad Side. Her book, Mothers of Intention: How Women and Social Media are Revolutionizing Politics in America, is an Amazon.com best-seller.

This post was originally published on The Broad Side and is cross-posted with permission.

Photo credit: notanyron via photopin cc.

Graphic credit Ms. Foundation for Women.

So Marissa Mayer gets attacked for taking a 2-week maternity leave and building a nursery next to her office, yet a short while back Anne-Marie Slaughter was getting taken to task for leaving her executive level position in government because she couldn’t balance work and family?

Personally, I am relieved that Mayer is finding ways to make a high-level career and motherhood work. I would not have been able to stomach the gleeful gloating that would have erupted had she had her child and then stepped down.  When Mayer’s selection at Yahoo! was announced, the big question was whether a new mom could handle that level of responsibility.  And it appears that she can, with an ample support system and a ton of resources.  Just like men do.

Frankly, I am little dismayed about all the outrage over her nursery and 2 week maternity leave.  I don’t read about those things and feel like she’s doing or getting anything out of the ordinary for a high level executive.  But I also don’t internalize comments like “My baby is easy” as “and if yours isn’t, you’re a terrible mom” or equate a 2 week maternity leave with hating on maternity leave.  Most of the vitriol is coming from other women – why?

Katie Roiphe had a valid point when she pointed out that liberals (her word, not mine) are always pushing for more female executives and yet look at the treatment of Mayer and Sandberg.  Who wants to be a feminist executive when you get attacked for being successful?  Why are we not supporting these women for making it, especially in the male-dominated tech field?

I am not a high level executive, as I have time to write for this blog and spend an incredible amount of hours reading feminist-y stuff on the internet.  But I have worked directly under high level executives before.  In that organization, there were 4 male executives and three female executives.  Each of those 7 people easily spent twelve to fourteen hours in the office and worked every weekend.  All had a bunch of advanced degrees.  Traveled at the drop of a hat.  Subsisted on coffee and bars.  Scheduled meetings all day with no lunch break. That was what it took to do that job.

Executives are elites.  Very few people can perform at their level.  Fewer choose to do it because depending on the industry, your quality of life sucks even if you’re making a lot of money.  There is no 3 month maternity leave for many executives even if their company provides it and supports it.  But if you’re someone like Mayer, you can handle that with the resources you have available.  As a feminist community, I don’t think we should be judging Mayer’s lack of maternity leave.  We should be talking about the average woman’s shoddy maternity leave.

I don’t think having a small percentage of women executives or members of congress is enough to change the culture of American corporate or political organizations.  It’s not fair to look at Mayer and her revoking her company’s telework policy (or her lack of maternity leave), and claim that female executives behave just like male executives.  It’s like putting a few drops of food coloring into a few gallons of water and expecting it to change color.  We need a critical mass, a tipping point to change culture.  Otherwise, the argument sounds similar to Rush Limbaugh lamenting about how he just doesn’t understand why Hispanics lean Democrat despite the Republicans having Marc Rubio.

As the “token” women executive, Mayer and Sandberg are expected to represent and speak for and to all women.  Generally, if someone is a “representative” to a certain population than there probably isn’t enough of them to show a sincere investment.  Too much of this criticism directed toward Mayer and Sandberg seems unwarranted.

Has this tired discussion about whether women having families and high level careers switched from being about gender to being about class?  Successful women like Mayer and Sandberg are getting labeled as out of touch elites, privileged rich girls, lucky girls who are too full of themselves to see how lucky they really are.   Maybe they are.  However, we seem to be leaning towards this approach towards super successful women, with the exception of Sonia Sotomayer as of late, where their merit is discredited because they have some privilege.

We shouldn’t act like the only reason Mayer and Sandberg are successful just because they are rich or white or grew up middle class.  First of all, we don’t treat men executives this way.  Second of all, plenty of people grow up with that privilege and don’t become executives of major tech companies.  Yes, having those attribute is a privilege and yes, most of the time that makes someone’s life easier and more successful.   And yes, we should identify privilege in the course of discussion.  But are we judging executive women too harshly for having it?

Reading Maureen Dowd’s hypocritical caricature of Sandberg for being self-entitled while giving other women advice reminded me of Phyllis Schlafly’s successful national speaking career where she told women their place was in the home, not having a career.  Really Ms. Dowd? Could you not, perhaps, see just a little bit of yourself in what you wrote?

Have you ever been in a conversation where someone mentions anything that isn’t related to a scarcity of food/water/shelter/democracy and someone responds “Oh, first world problems” in a sarcastic tone and the conversation shuts down because there’s really not a great response to that?  That’s what I feel is going on when we talk about successful women.  When people freaked out about poor women not being able to “lean in” to their careers, did anyone stop to consider that maybe Sandberg wasn’t speaking to that group of women? And that it’s ok if she was only targeting her advice to middle/upper class career women?

Feminism needs to belong to everyone, those who have made it and those who are still working on making it.  Depending on country, race, social status, wealth etc. feminism is going to look different for different groups of women.  I feel like we are losing that perspective, that inclusiveness.  Are women, especially college educated women who have some privilege, not identifying with feminism because it only seems relatable to women who are struggling or belong to women who lack privilege?  By misinterpreting collective action as meaning what works for one woman must work for all women, are we are losing relevancy in a lot of women’s lives?

I want feminism to stay relevant.  I also want more female executives.

Photo credit: jdlasica via photopin cc.

I feel like a serious debate is beginning, and I have to throw my two cents in. I need to, because I am worried what the consequences could be I stay silent on the subject. Slate recently ran a well-articulated piece by Hanna Rosin called “Marissa Mayer Thinks Feminists Are a Drag. Is She Right?” As suggested by the title it is about the value of the term feminism. Rosin discussed Yahoo’s female CEO Marissa Mayer who has chosen not to call herself a feminist. The implication is that if a woman can be this successful and still make room for equality in her business, she doesn’t have to call herself a feminist and there’s nothing wrong with that. Rosin points out that many young women are reluctant to call themselves feminists as well, so perhaps there is a trend there.

The term feminism could be holding women back, and as long as women still succeeding and have options available to them we should not let semantics get in the way. Jezebel ran a sort of follow up piece by Tracy Moore titled “Feminism May Be Nearing Her Expiration Date”, commenting on the possibility of the f-word being outdated. I agree with both these articles in the sense that actions speak louder than words, and the movement towards equality matters more than the ‘ism.’ My partner doesn’t identify as a feminist and he is still a supporter of gender equality. But with that being said, I don’t think this means it’s time to let go. I believe it is important to keep the terminology alive, and fight back against the idea that it is outdated. Language has so much power, and the very word feminist signifies that sexism and misogyny are still alive and kicking. If the word becomes devalued and used less frequently I fear that it will become easier to dismiss something that isn’t as visible. For me the issue isn’t the value of the word feminist, but rather the perceived accessibility.

To begin, I am not saying that every woman must call herself a feminist or she is betraying ‘the cause’ if she doesn’t. Part of the point of feminism is that women should be allowed to identify themselves however they want and not be forced into a box because of what is between their legs. But what I want is for women to feel comfortable calling themselves feminists. A woman declaring her feminism, giving herself a title that overtly shows she cares about her rights and the future of her gender, should not still be considered controversial. But it is. The term carries weight because of its history, implications, and because of the people still fighting against it. Many people still cling to this idea that a feminist is an unfeminine, dangerous woman who hates men and never shaves her armpits. Or that feminism is a thing of the past, no longer relevant now that bellbottoms are out of style.

For those who are more informed on the current situation of feminism there is the ongoing news of feminists facing overwhelming misogyny (such as rape threats for trying to make video games free of sexist stereotypes) just because they are trying to create a safer, more equal world. For a woman it can potentially be harmful to her reputation just to identify with an ‘ism.’ Worst case scenario it is fatal. I understand how the term can be discouraging and why a woman wouldn’t want to single herself out in that way. Yet doesn’t this demonstrate that the terminology still matters? Is still needed? If the language is so loaded and often misunderstood that it appears to be bloated, doesn’t that show its significance? We need the term feminism precisely because women are scared or uncomfortable with just the thought of identifying with it. We need it because women should have the option not to identify with it because they simply don’t want to, not because of external pressures. If the word is so bloated that it is deterring women we need to work towards lightening the load, showing people that feminism is relevant and accessible.

One of the things that I love about feminism is it is so multifaceted. Feminism can mean so many things for different people, and it can manifest in a variety of ways. Anyone can be a feminist without jumping through hoops, the problem is that most people don’t realize this. I think something that activists should concern themselves with is not just fighting for abortion rights or to end the wage gap, but on educating the average person on feminism. If not for a couple of liberal teachers I would have gone through my entire pre-university education having zero knowledge of what feminism or sexism really meant. They were intimidating concepts that made me hesitant to speak up. It wouldn’t be until I reached university that I began to fully understand just how much feminism meant to me.

The word ‘feminist’ is anything but irrelevant. It has helped to get us this far, and is an important part of keeping the movement visible and present. Don’t let the term die out because it is difficult or misunderstood. Consider the capacity of language to make waves.

Photo credit: Eva the Weaver via photopin cc.

Of the estimated 61 million children deprived of basic education globally, 60 percent are girls.  But, that’s just the beginning of a dramatic gender gap. According to the Global Campaign for Education: “An additional 100 million girls worldwide that begin primary school do not finish [school]. The numbers are even starker for secondary education, which is unavailable to more than 200 million children and in which we see even more extreme disparity in enrollment.”

Today, International Women’s Day, a movie called Girl Rising, is being released nationwide. It tells the stories of nine girls from around the world who’ve fought for the right to be educated. This is no small thing in countries where girls fight poverty, unsanitary conditions, homelessness, child marriage, sex slavery and other forms of culturally sanctioned violence against girls and women. In her own right, each one of them, and tens of thousands more, are like Malala Yousafzai, the 15-year-old Pakistani education activist who was shot in the head as she rode her bus to school. The girls featured in the film demonstrate the tremendous barriers to girls’ universal education and also what happens when these barriers are overcome.

The film was produced by 10 x 10, a social action project, created by former ABC News journalists who collaborated with The Documentary Group and Paul Allen’s Vulcan Productions to produce the film.  It is one of many organizations working to make sure the world’s girls are educated.

Why focus on girls? When I write about girls’ rights the question I hear most is “What about the boys?” This particular knee-jerk, backlash response against girls equality is old but has a long life. It’s wearisome and wastes a lot of time will don’t really have to waste.  No one is suggesting that boys be ignored or hurt. Quite the opposite, as Because I am a Girl: What About The Boys illustrates. The problem is, however, that a boy preference in education, as in other things, hasn’t historically proved to be particularly positive for the other half of humanity, which has an equal right to be educated. Nor has it yielded satisfactory results in terms of national development or international peace and security.  I’d add that the boy preference is significantly bad for boys. The fact that boys are more valued and educated in greater measure is a symptom of larger problems that contribute to slavery, poverty, the spread of disease, and pandemic violence. As USAID put it in a report Education from a Gender Equality Perspective, “Educating females and males produces similar increases in their subsequent earnings and expands future opportunities and choices for both boys and girls. However, educating girls produces many additional socio-economic gains that benefit entire societies.”

Educating and empowering girls breaks cycles of generational poverty. Crop yields rise when female farmers are educated. Educated mothers are 50% more likely to seek health care and to immunize their children. And when more girls are educated, HIV rates and malnutrition decline. In addition, educating girls is a security issue. Democracy finds fertile ground where girls are educated and empowered and conditions that cultivate extremism are reduced.

When you educate a girl, as a viral Girl Effect video continues to so compellingly explain, good things happen for the girl, her family, her community. The Girl Effect web site has remarkable resources illustrating the profound impact that empowering girls with education and economic independence can have: personally, socially and globally. And, if you understand the work of the researchers who recently wrote the important and amazing book Sex and World Peace, for their countries and the rest of us.

But, this isn’t only a matter of large-scale organizations like Nike’s Girl Effect or 10 x 10,  dedicated to global change. For years remarkable people have, as individuals and in small groups, sought to do what they can to change life for millions.

In 2000, for example,  Barbara Lee Shaw started the Masai Girls Education Fund in order to provide scholarships for girls in Kenya, less than 20% of whom were educated. Their goal continues to be educating girls and women so they can gain economic independence.  “In 2003, Kenya instituted free public primary school education, and enrollment now has increased to 48 percent for girls,” explains Shaw on their website. “However, only 5 percent of those who enroll will make it to secondary school primarily because of forced marriages, but also because of teen pregnancy, circumcision (female genital mutilation), or HIV/AIDS.”  Since its founding, the fund has educated hundred of girls through the dedication and hard work of a handful of people here and in Kenya devoted to this cause.

Shaw, who has been immersed in these issues for decades, makes this correct assessment in describing the primary challenges in closing the education gap: “Since cost is not a factor in primary school enrollment, poverty alone cannot be preventing 52 percent of the school-age population from completing primary school.  Poverty and the high cost of secondary school certainly explains the large enrollment drop at that level, but primary enrollment should be much higher.  It is our belief that there will be no further advances in education for girls until there is a change in the way the culture values girls and an end to the cultural practices that prevent girls from completing their education.”

To this end, MGEF’s Community Education Program holds community workshops and meetings to discuss the greater economic benefits of educating a daughter than the one-time dowry received from her marriage; the harmful consequences of FGM and teen pregnancy, and how to protect against HIV.

Here are some resources to look into if you are interested in supporting efforts to make education universally available.

• Masai Girls Education Fund
• Florence Nightingale Girls Foundation
• Girls Education Challenge
• Basic Education Coalition
• Aid for Africa Girls Education Fund
• Global Campaign for Education, U.S. Chapter
• The Coalition for Adolescent Girls
• Global Fund for Women
• United Nations Millennium Campaign
• Because I Am A Girl
• UNICEF Country Statistics
• United Nations Girls Education Initiative
• RESULTS’ Education for All
• School Girls Unite

photo credit: Thai Jasmine via Creative Commons

The Visions in Feminism (VIF) Collective is a Washington, DC-based collective working with the common and overlapping goals of social justice and feminism.  It is for sure a lofty goal and one we try to achieve in the ‘extra hours’ outside of our day-jobs. Collective members come from all walks of life where careers range from dog walking, bar managing, domestic violence shelter managing and government contracting.  In addition to our ‘for pay’ gigs, and the additional collective work our members spend time doing a wide range of activities from advocating for animal rights, providing clinic defense, and performing burlesque. As a group we have organized events, and annual conference in the DC area since 2001, first partnering with the University of Maryland, although we have spent the last five years collaborating with American University’s Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies Program.  We work hard to make sure our conference is accessible, affordable and challenging to feminists and those with an interest in feminism alike.  Membership (and conference themes) has changed over the years and we have evolved both as a conference and a collective while still holding on to some very core beliefs about feminism, activism, and creating change.

The Visions in Feminism Conference is a small (and very Do-It-Yourself minded) conference priding itself on recognizing the practical and applicable aspects of feminism while really challenging folks to truly make it a movement that is non-exclusionary.  Past workshops have included creating safe space in art scenes, street harassment, bike repair, effective meeting planning and running, the overlap between animal rights and feminism, and safer sex practices. Our speakers have been just as impressive and diverse: Jeanne Flavin, Andrea Smith, Annie Sprinkle and Amy Richards to name just a few. Conferences may seem like not the most applicable or accessible way to apply feminism. After all they are usually insular, expensive, and require travel. I am proud to say that our conference is affordable ($15 for the day including lunch)  and we provide daycare and ‘self care’ space so that folks can come, learn, be engaged. We do this because it has always been a core belief that our collective should the Visions in Feminism Collective work together to bring together speakers, attendees, and organizers in an attempt to build a larger and stronger feminist community.

The reason I love doing outreach about our conference is because I get to not only sing the praises of past conferences I’ve worked on (and am intensely proud of) but because I get to talk about the philosophy behind our group, the motives that sustain us, and challenge myself (and the group) against the isolationism that can happen in any activist circles. I was first approached by a former collective member 5 years ago to submit a workshop as we worked together doing clinic defense. The theme that year was ‘Queering Spaces’ and I ended up leading a workshop about how to make activist spaces more open to religious folks, and how religious spaces could be more open to queer and activist minded people. My experience presenting a workshop was so great that I ended up being a collective member the next year, and now after four years in I can’t imagine our meetings, emails, and constant ‘to-do’ lists not being part of my life.  It is a truly enriching and challenging process to put together something awesome, and different every year.

This year our conference is happening on Saturday, April 6 and our theme is: Bringing Feminism to Un-Feminist Spaces.

Feminism as a movement is often torn between a generic “Girl Power” label and overly isolating academic jargon. Both methods can distract the application of feminism from its focus. The spirit of feminism is inclusive, multi-faceted and complex. By creating space for voices from across religious, social, and political spectrums to address racism, classism, hetero and cis sex-isms we expand and infiltrate spaces that are not outwardly labeled as “feminist”. This year, the ViF conference will explore how we can bring feminism into areas of society that have been under-served by, do not openly identify with, or are unsympathetic to feminism’s goals. By focusing on these efforts, the movement can expand to reach those individuals who would not readily align themselves with feminism and successfully demonstrate the necessity of feminist approaches in continuing the anti-oppression work of the future.

Each year, Visions in Feminism seeks to provide a forum for diverse perspectives within a feminist framework to keep the movement relevant, inspire action by its attendees, and destabilize patriarchy and other forms of oppression. We are asking that workshops be submitted via our googleform.

Maybe you’ve never considered yourself an activist but have experience making your work a more equitable place, or you have been organizing protests at your college, or started a queer support group at your house of worship. Maybe you’ve never run a workshop before, or attended a feminist conference – the thing is the collective is here as much to help folks put together a workshop, as we are to host the conference. Feel free to ask us any questions and we will work with you up until the conference date if your workshop is accepted.  So please consider reaching out or submitting a workshop by March 6. Not interested in presenting a workshop? Still think about attending our conference. If you are coming from outside the area let us know if you need support in organizing a couch-crash option, or some other support to make this conference affordable.

Laura on behalf of the Visions in Feminism Collective.

Learn more about the Vision in Feminism Collective on its Website.
Like Vision in Feminism Collective on Facebook and follow it on Twitter .

Laura is a member of the Visions in Feminism Collective, the voice/mind behind the Fully Engaged Feminism Podcast, a clinic escort, and general do-er of things. Not too proud to still live in the suburbs of the capitol Laura strives every day to make the world a little better by talking about feminism with anyone who will listen.

Photo credit: Katie U via Visions in Feminism Collective

Tweet Chat: On Thursday, February 28, at 2 PM ET Fem.2.0 will host a Tweet Chat with special guests, Cindy Cooper, creator of  ”Words of Choice“,  and   feminist writer, Soraya Chemaly ,  to discuss  how important it is for women to keep fighting for their reproductive rights and the role the theater plays as a vehicle to transmit the pro-choice message. You can join the conversation at #WoClive.

There is No Such Thing as Traditional Activism: Pro-choice Production “Words of Choice” Offers New Venue for Social Justice in an Engaging Theater Experience

The pro-choice movement is vocal in many areas. You see us spreading awareness on blogs and twitter, we’re on the streets and you probably see us tabling at events; but on the stage? That might be a new one for a lot of us. “Words of Choice”, a dynamic pro-choice theater piece is bringing its show to New York City this March in honor of Women’s History Month and the 40^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. “Words of Choice” weaves together dozens of stories of reproductive rights through poetry, spoken word, oral history, theater and journalism.  It is performed by three actors, and showcases a variety of serious, comedic and contemplative pieces.

“Words of Choice” is not new; since 2000 the show has maintained its home base here in NYC, as well as toured across the country. What’s particularly exciting about its next performance is its inclusion in the first ever WiredArts Fest. In addition to the two performances in NYC, the show is available via live-streaming to audiences across the nation and the globe, where it will be showcased to hundreds of activists with the shared goal of reproductive and social justice.

We all know that women’s rights and reproductive freedoms are still under attack. As activists and ambassadors of change, we need to remain united in shifting that tide. Those involved in the “Words of Choice” production are committed to moving public sentiment and influencing policy makers. The production was created as a way to use the theater as a vehicle to transmit the pro-choice message. Using the stage as a venue for activism offers the opportunity to open hearts and minds, all while empowering the movement for women’s full equality and rights.

It’s not too late to get involved – “Words of Choice” will be performed on March 1 at 7 pm EST and March 2 at 3 pm EST at The Secret Theater in Long Island City. As part of the WiredArts Fest, the live streaming audience will be able to participate simultaneously with tweeting, instant messaging, photo shots and Facebook. If you can’t make it to the show, check out the streaming and get your voice heard using the hashtag #WoCLive.

Panel discussions will take place after both shows: Friday night will feature Amanda Marcotte, blogger at Pandagon, writer at RHReality Check, and author; joining us on Saturday is Lynn Roberts, founding board member of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective and an assistant professor at Hunter College.

More information on tickets or setting up a viewing party can be found at www.wordsofchoice.org. Special discounts for activists are available by emailing: wordsofchoice@mindspring.com.

As someone who saw the show for the first time last year, I really enjoyed the opportunity to do something fun with my favorite pro-choice buddy; I highly recommend seeing the show, either in person or via the live-stream!

Ashley Paskalis is an activist, both professionally and voluntarily. She believes in and works towards social justice and women’s rights. As a healthcare communications professional, she often finds herself at the forefront of controversial modern day issues such as reproductive rights and medical research. Ashley is a feminist, member of Planned Parenthood NYC’s activist council, and an advocate for raising awareness and support for people living with HIV/AIDS. Her mission is to take a stand against injustice and make a difference in her community.

Photo credit “Words of Choice”

Photo credit: FORCE: upsetting rape culture

These words are the full text of a poem by an anonymous rape survivor.  Yesterday they were floated in the Reflecting Pool, with symbolic resonance, between the Lincoln and Washington Memorials in Washington, DC. The letters were put into the pool yesterday afternoon by the guerilla art movement FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture. Over the course of several weeks, the FORCE team created giant, red styrofoam letters in order to assemble the words .The simple poem illustrates verbally and graphically the isolating and silencing experience of rape in the United States. No need to go into the facts again. There’s an epidemic of rape in the United States and globally.

It was beautiful and haunting to those who saw it.  I was there and spoke to people who, casually sightseeing, stopped to talk and think about what we were quietly doing on a sunny, cold day on the Mall. Along with Holly Kearl, the founder of StopStreetHarassment, I ended up helping FORCE mount the poem on the steps of the Memorial.  How does this help anything? Why would anyone do this?

Well, today there is Reeva Steenkamp. This morning’s newspapers are filled with news of her death. She was the woman shot by Oscar Pistorius.  It was an act of small-arms-in-the-home domestic violence that resulted in her death. To read the news reports you’d easily lose this central fact in stories filled with “paralympic athlete,” “bikini-clad, vamping photo spreads.”  That and the message that, despite past incidences of violence, as was the case with Katrina Perkins and Jovan Belcher, many people on editorial boards really wants us to know that “they had a healthy, fabulous, relationship.”

The news of this murder surfaced on the same day as the V-Day One Billion Rising global strike against violence against women.  In my lifetime there have not been many transnational strikes for women’s rights. I went because women and men who defend their rights chose to transcend difference and speak peacefully with one voice. The global diversity of particpants spoke directly to how violences against women are broad and manifest themselves differently in different contexts.  Their root cause – brutal physical domination that is the core of patriarchy – is the thread that binds them. But, there is also one other – the degree to which it is hard to face, digest and deal with. It’s sad, grim and depressing. But, ignoring and sugar coating the reality only perpetuates it.

FORCE doesn’t just want us to openly confront and dismantle this culture. They want to create safe public spaces where survivors of violence can find affirmation and healing. FORCE is dedicated to changing the national conversation around violence against women, specifically, sexualized violence.

“We built this temporary monument as a call to create a permanent monument to survivors of rape and abuse in the United States.  It is the first of many actions and the beginning of a larger campaign,” explains Rebecca Nagle, one of the founders of FORCE.

The floating poem is the latest in a series of actions undertaken by the group. You might recall their recent  panty prank “PINK loves CONSENT,”  a fake website pretending to be Victoria’s Secret. The site was filled with underwear printed with consent-themed slogans like “ASK FIRST” and “NO MEANS NO”.

Last Fall, the group projected RAPE is RAPE unto the US Capitol Building.  The group exists, as they put it, “to upset the culture of rape and promote a culture of consent” and they are doing a good and creative job that captures the public imagination. With a seriously difficult topic.

“We want to build a national monument to survivors, because we want to live in a country that holds public and supportive space for survivors to heal,” adds co-founder of FORCE, Hannah Brancato, “Because we want to live in a country that believes rape can and must end.”

Some think that people like Rebecca Nagle, Hanna Brancato, Holly Kearl – people who attended VDay events around the world – and I are deluded in believing that this can happen.  I think they’re part of the problem and we need to stay focused. No matter how long it may take. Setting aside a moment to dance or to create art (a luxury and privilege to be sure) puts aside in favor of common humanity, ever so briefly, the sad and persistent brutality at the heart of rape and domestic abuse violence. Art doesn’t just reflect culture, it presages change.

Watch a great video from yesterday!

Video credit: FORCE: upsetting rape culture