Ok maybe more than just “from time to time.”

Ok fine I’ll confess, I’ve considered paying to become a registered, paying member.

This week, I’m very glad I never took that step.  Here’s why: Shaadi.com recently released a new app called “Angry Brides.”  If this sounds like it’s about to get really sexist . . . it is.

Before reading a single sentence of the Gawker article that first called my attention to this new app, I was already holding back tears, just by looking at the accompanying graphic.

As a primer for my non-desi readers, the word “shaadi” refers to a South Asian wedding, and Shaadi.com is the leading Indian matrimonial website. “Angry Brides” is a Facebook game developed by Shaadi in which the player is an Indian wife beating her husband with frying pans, shoes and rolling pins. The game, Shaadi says, creates awareness for dowry-related abuse, in which a groom abuses his bride to blackmail her family for a larger dowry. This gruesome video game turns such abuse on its head.

I commend Shaadi for being proactive and trying to create awareness of a very serious social issue. Dowry deaths, bride burning and other dowry related violence is still quite an extensive problem in India.  As was recently reported by Reuters, there were 8,391 cases of dowry-related deaths in India and 90,000 cases of torture and cruelty toward women by their husbands or family as recently as 2010.

I’m proud that this for-profit business started thinking about social justice problem that affects their audience and is somewhat connected to their industry and purpose. But the thought that went into this app was misguided and ultimately, offensive to the very community it targets.

Before I start my feminist rant, let’s begin with what’s right: the words. ”A woman will give you Strength, Care & all the Love you need, NOT Dowry.” If you just replace “a woman” with “your spouse” the words are quite good, actually. If they had left it at this, I wouldn’t be so enraged.

It was the graphic that set off all the alarm bells for me.  My first thought was “why are we addressing a very serious issue of dowry deaths by promoting violence?” The best way to eradicate gender-based violence is not to react with a different kind of gender-based violence, I can assure you.

My next thought was “why are women beating their husbands with pots, rolling pins, and sexy red heels?” Why is she holding a tomato and a broom; where is her briefcase, book or even car keys — anything to show independence or even ability for independent thought? Now yes, it’s true less than a quarter of the workforce in India is female, but how is that ever going to change if all the images of women include frying pans and ladles?

Other initial reactions include annoyance of the hyper sexualization of the lady depicted and an eyeroll- because — of course — she has Barbie-like mythical proportions. I guess the sociology and gender classes I took in college aren’t required courses for or app engineers or computer science majors. Too bad.

And then finally, my thoughts shifted to one of my personal pet peeves: use, or rather misuse, of goddess imagery. I’m infuriated when I see mainstream media twist images of an elephant or woman, add 6 too many limbs and then casually place in an ad. Can you imagine the uproar if a fast food chain hyper sexualized Jesus, mischaracterized him with the wrong attributes and then had him eating a burger?  But do that to a Hindu figure, and no one bats an eye. Furthermore, how many times are these sexist god imageries depicting men? Yeah, I can’t recall any either. This misuse of goddesses in advertising is disrespectful to women and just plain religiously intolerant.

I generally write it off as corporate marketing buffs being culturally ignorant, but this time I can’t use that excuse. Shaadi’s execs are not ignorant white men, they are Hindus – both in India and across the Indian Diaspora. The worst part is so are their customers. That’s what I find so hard to understand — why they would use maligned imagery characterizing a religious figure of almost their entire consumer base? Of all people, they should get it; they should be setting a good example, not perpetuating the bad one.

Now in all fairness, I should probably point out that I am particularly primed to be outraged on this particular item, probably more than most people reading this article or viewing this app.  I am a young professional South Asian female who works at adomestic violence prevention nonprofit and am a particularly progressive, strong-headed feminist. But at least the first half of that also makes me Shaadi.com’s target audience. Which leads me to wonder, who could have possibly thought this was a good business decision?

Even worse for a business is sexism or promoting violence in any form, even if intentions are “good.” While I can’t confirm it from their website, something tells me there aren’t too many women in executive roles at Shaadi. Hiring women at all levels of your organization is the best business decision you can make, and hopefully will also help you avoid making bad business decisions that alienate or even deeply offend your target audience.

Nicole Varma currently works for a national teen dating violence nonprofit. She graduated from the University of Florida with a Bachelor of Arts in political science with a specialization in public affairs and a minor in sociology. Nicole has previously worked with many local and national non profits and campaigns including the Hillary Clinton Campaign, Democratic National Committee. Nicole currently serves on several boards including Women’s Information Network and Asian American Action Group.  You can request to follow Nicole on Twitter at @varmanator.

When the New York Times recently asked “Are You as Fertile as You Look?” the question was rhetorical. The reporter suggested womenfolk are ignorant about their declining fertility because they confuse youthful looks with having youthful ovaries. It’s easy to judge women like the ones trotted out for this piece; in their late 30s through mid 40s, they express surprise at having difficulty conceiving. After all, the fact that fertility declines with age—particularly after 35—isn’t exactly a revelation. But the conception woes of women past their fertility prime can’t be written off as a symptom of mass female stupidity. As Jessica Grose cautioned, focusing on women who think shiny hair, white teeth, and clear complexions are sign of fertility “takes away from the messy reality that most women who wait to have children aren’t doing it because they believe they are endlessly fertile. They’re waiting because they haven’t found the right partner, or they don’t have enough money, or they don’t feel ready, or a million other reasons that have nothing to do with female ignorance.”

Grose is right. The New York Times is ignoring a thornier predicament than naiveté: many women are increasingly out of synch with their biology. And no one knows quite what to do about it.

According to the census, far fewer folks are marrying than just a few decades ago. Those who do marry are marrying later, and the number of women in the workforce continues to grow at the same time that working-class men’s prospects are floundering. Culturally, we’re cheerleaders for narcissism and delayed “adulthood,” encouraging a quarter-century-adolescence, especially for men. This all but assures that fewer women will find suitable partners and start families before their fertility declines precipitously. And for those who are willing to become mothers on their own, our government doesn’t provide any of the social welfare or safety nets that protect and support women with kids, like nationalized healthcare, daycare, or even a living wage for many. How could the confluence of these factors not dramatically impact how women think about the circumstances under which they have kids? Wouldn’t you expect to see more women “waiting” for children under these circumstances?

Newsflash: Most research points to a woman’s prime fertility years being from 22 to 26. How many women that age do you know who are married or in a committed partnership, financially stable, and ready for kids? How many men? (I recognize that my upbringing puts me far outside the median, but I literally have one friend who had a child in her 20s–and she was 29).

It’s time we start talking with some sensitivity and compassion about a growing type of women’s issue: “circumstantial infertility.” It’s a term Melanie Notkin coined recently in a touching biographical piece she wrote about coming to terms with the fact that at 42 she may never be a biological mother. “Circumstantial infertility” is the name Notkin gave to the situation faced by many women who want(ed) children but never had them for reasons other than biological infertility. It is something that impacts women who hoped to be mothers but ended up missing the window (whether that’s because they never found a partner, found a partner at too advanced an age, weren’t financially secure, or encountered a host of other impediments). Two simultaneous trends are worth noting here: Many more women over 35 are having babies than just two decades ago, while, at the same time, the number of childless women overall is increasing. A 2010 Pew Report notes that one in five women has made it to 40 without ever having a child. This is an increase from the 1970s when only one in 10 women between the ages of 40-44 was childless. As might be expected, women with the most education are the least likely to have children. While we don’t know what percentage of women are childless by choice—versus biological or circumstantial infertility—I think we can agree that childless women deserve our kindness, support, and understanding.

After all, it’s not hard to imagine how women find themselves in this situation.  One day you’re busy living your life and the next you’re suddenly in a race against the clock. Just look at me. I’m 33 and have always wanted children. I’m also lucky to share my life and home with a lovely gentleman who would make a wonderful father. In fact, that’s what prompted me to inquire at a recent annual gynecologist appointment about my own fertility. My question was of a general nature, along the lines of, “If I decide to have kids in the next few years, what do I need to think about now?” Imagine my surprise when, instead of assurance that I still had plenty of time, I was told, “My best advice for you is to go home and start trying tonight.”

Reality check, anyone?

Here’s the double-whammy for many women who find themselves in this situation: The realization that you can’t slow down your biological clock often comes hand-in-hand with the acknowledgement that you can’t really speed up choosing the partner you’d like to raise children with—at least not in a particularly healthy way. My doctor may have thought she was talking about fertility, but what she was really suggesting was that I’d better figure out the future of my relationship, and fast. But can anyone really do that on command, especially in a relatively new relationship?

Making a lifetime commitment to a partner (and eventual co-parent) isn’t something that should be done hastily, and women in their 30s must often weigh difficult options: Put faith in your current sweetie and start procreating faster than you might otherwise? Head to the nearest sperm bank? Ditch your man and start auditioning a new potential life-mate? Of course, these kinds of tough choices are not new. But as the timing of landmark life events like marriage start taking place later and societal expectations around work and family change, the lives of many women are put on a collision course with biology. Of course single women can have babies alone, and many choose to do just that. But it seems uncontroversial to suggest that most women would probably prefer a co-parent and ideally a committed relationship before they have kids.

The emotion stirred by Lori Gottlieb when she told women to settle for Mr. Good Enough exemplifies the discomfort many feel when encountering the realities of pregnancy and aging. Gottlieb’s advice to “settle,” after all, was informed by her personal experience as a single mother who conceived with a sperm donor after not meeting “Mr. Right” by the time she was nearing 40—along with the subsequent challenge of raising a child alone. There was some realistic tough-love buried in her advice to unmarried women in their 30s: “If you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go.” But for anyone who has ever actually been in a nice-enough relationship with a nice-enough guy, it doesn’t feel like sound advice.

At a time when more women than ever are childless, more are having babies later, and a record four-in-ten births are to unmarried women (that’s up from 28% in 1990), we ought to think long and hard about the social, political, and emotional repercussions of our entrenched ideas about what makes—and when to make—a family. We need to understand that women who “wait” (often too long, biologically speaking) for kids are responding rationally to new paradigms that are still governed by old rules. We should talk more about options like nontraditional family units, adoption, and medical advances like IVF and do less judging and finger wagging. Our bodies aren’t changing, but the world is. Maybe it’s time our attitudes toward “circumstantially infertile” women do, too.

This piece was originally published on Role/Reboot.  Republished with permission.

Photo credit dirkoneill/Flickr

…Uhhh, no. You could see the UN people become parched and turn green.

7 billion. That’s a lot of people. The Economist is seeking to reassure the pessimists among us that in fact, our population growth is on the decline. And while the magazine wants to tell us to start taxing carbon emissions in the top 7% of polluters (China, Europe, North America), this is unlikely to happen.

What would help, however, is an increased support to family planning. And while this would serve well in sub-Saharan Africa and much of India, it would also benefit us right here, in North America.

I cannot emphasize how lucky you are if you live in Canada. Land of the free, we certainly are. So free, in fact, that we have no legal basis for our abortion rights – only that we have it, its protected and both parties are so afraid of the topic that it never really comes up in a serious, legislative way. While I think that abortion should be completely legal, it would be interesting and perhaps even necessary to have a constitutional debate on the topic, no? As long as my rights are not trampled on that is…

And I’ll keep my access to birth control too. Some clinics provide free monthly packs, other discounted rates, and thank you for the Plan B morning after pill, condoms do break, mistakes do happen, and bearing a child should be a choice not a punishment for my actions.

Slip passed the border to the United States and it’s a whole different story. State by State are enacting increasingly restrictive laws cutting funding towards family planning facilities, abortions and birth control.

While you were sleeping, your rights were being usurped. At least they were if you live in Mississippi, Ohio, Florida, or a dozen other states in which a new proposed Personhood Amendment would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person – turning abortion and some forms of birth control into murder.

Not just a ban on abortion, the Personhood Amendment would disallow the procedure for women who have been raped, who are victims of incest, or who have life-threatening conditions that could be saved by having the procedure. It bans the morning after pill, IUD’s and limits contraceptives (because some of these don’t allow a fertilized egg to stick to the uterine wall).

So far, states have tried, successfully, to hamper access to abortions – we’ve seen this with the constant financial attacks on Planned Parenthood, or restricting the procedures to only 20 weeks, requiring women to view ultrasounds of the fetus (how inhumane is that?!!), placing regulations on clinics or banning insurance coverage for the procedure.

Although the Personhood Amendment has been shot down with large margins in Colorado, only one clinic performs abortions in Mississippi where the topic is highly debated and widely resisted, and so had gained a bigger following in the state. Ironically, Mississippi also has the highest poverty rate in the country, and plans on increasing taxes – which will gravely affect the care of these children mothers can’t afford to have (an even heavier financial burden if the child is disabled).

Currently 30% of children in Mississippi live below the poverty line, compared to the 18% national average (2008). Teen (15-19) pregnancies are also inordinately high: 72 out of every 1000 pregnancies.

With a new governor stepping into power – and both candidates saying they would vote for the Personhood Amendment, we have to wonder how mixing criminal law with medical life saving procedures or a woman’s rights is a viable option for the wellbeing of a generation and of a State.

Would a woman who has taken the morning after pill be charged with murder?
Could a woman be charged with murder if she has an abortion out of State?

Biologically, many fertilized eggs do not go on to implant themselves successfully in the uterus. Fertilization in and of itself is a process along a continuum – some never go on to be fully viable. What happens to ectopic pregnancies (where the egg implants outside of the womb and are life threatening)? Or in-vitro fertility treatments? Will we be asking legislators to decide what is best for women in these medical situations, instead of a doctor?

And what if a woman has a stillbirth or a miscarriage? Will this be manslaughter? Will her eating habits, lifestyle and living conditions be placed under scrutiny and could she then be charged?

Whatever the moral, religious or other views of each individual, on November 8th (thats tomorrow!) when Mississippi will have to vote on the Personhood Amendment to the State Constitution, they should at least be voting on a clear and cohesive document.

Unfortunately, since so much of the abortion debate falls on moral and religious war grounds, this Personhood Amendment is tarnished, legally inept and a mess of variable definitions that aren’t upheld on medical fact. As with most things concerning women’s bodies, none of that matters when the womb is involved.

And if you were wondering how all this fits into the ‘good girls have rights, bad girls don’t‘ debate, go here. Because, of course it does: sex outside of marriage is punished. Sexual relations are punished. Pleasure is punished. Sex for procreation is the only sex that is allowed. (Clay Naff makes a great (but realistic) spoof on this. For more, read The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood.)

Results from the vote in Mississippi on the “Personhood Amendment” will be coming in tonight.  I know I’ll be watching – you should, too.

Fem2.0 is delighted to welcome Clara Vaz to the blogging team.  Currently a full time writer and women’s rights consultant, Clara has been working in these fields for over seven years. With a BA in Political Science from Laval University and a Masters in International Law from Kent in Brussels, she has worked for several organizations on human rights and gender issues, including UNICEF, HPCR International and the European Parliament. She recently spent 7 months in Swaziland working on sexual violence and rape laws for SWAGAA and continuing her writing as communications officer for the Breast Cancer Network. Currently in Toronto, Clara devotes any of her spare time to personal training, providing work/life advice on her blog, The Eternalist, and as fashion writer for Dreamland Apparel. You can find Clara on Twitter at @ClaraVaz1

Let’s take a common scenario: the police are called to a domestic violence dispute. They find a woman lying on the floor of her own home, bleeding, crying, possibly surrounded by her frightened children. She states that her boyfriend, husband, former lover has beaten her up. The offender is found, arrested, and booked into the county jail. After eight to twelve hours he is taken before a judge who releases him on his own recognizance with a 72 hour no-contact order and referral to either a 13 week or 26 week Batterer Intervention program. The offender returns home, the only difference being that he is now even more pissed off at his partner than before, because now he has to attend a two hour group once a week. He may go at first; he is equally as likely to reschedule his initial assessment two or three times, miss a few weeks here and there, and continue to threaten his partner. All of these are probation violations, but he never spends another night in jail until the next time he beats his partner up. Then the cycle starts all over again.

It will not surprise any of my readers to know that this is hardly effective treatment. We need more accountability for men who batter their partners; one night in jail does little except give the victim time to clean herself up before the next beating. Men need to have a mandatory sentence of at least two weeks for a first offense of domestic violence resulting in physical injury. Men who fail to attend their programs as required, fail to complete their assessments, or in other ways do not abide by their program’s rules and regulations need to be sent to jail and then returned the program. If this seems like an obvious solution, well, it is. The only problem is that it doesn’t happen.

Programs do not have the right to send an offender to jail; that right belongs to the probation officer who is more concerned about the cost of housing an inmate for two weeks than whether he missed two classes. The most serious threat a program can issue is to discharge an offender; in those cases the offender simply goes to another program and another, until he finds one that will pass him for nothing more than showing up. And yes, offenders retain the right to choose their own program.

But these are rare cases: programs are paid per day, per offender, so discharge is the least desirable option. No, far better to kept the erring offender and forget about teaching accountability, or positive communication skills, or empathy.

The most difficult bit to swallow in all this is the fact that yes, batterers can change. Abusive behavior to a batterer is like the urge to drink for an alcoholic: there will always be a danger of slipping back into the ugly habit, but batterers can and do learn different ways of interacting with their partners. Abusive behavior is learned, often from abusive parents, or from learning that if they are abusive they get what they want from people and what is learned can be unlearned. But it can only be so if those men show up to class and do their work; if they fail to do so and are not punished, they simply continue to do as they please. So we need to say forget the cost of housing an inmate; give them immediate consequences for beating their partners and they will learn not to.

Brian E. is a domestic violence specialist and expert on correctional behavior within the criminal justice system.  He has worked extensively with batterers and survivors of domestic violence.

Photo Credit: Antigua Observer

And so that’s why I’m hoping that when I get pregnant, it happens in Mississippi.  As a result of this amendment being passed, here’s what I and others are anticipating as the potential consequences:

1) Fertilized eggs could potentially inherit money.

2) Fertilized eggs could potentially be counted as part of the population for purposes of political representation in government.  Another Congressional seat for Mississippi, please?

3) I could potentially use HOV lanes during rush hour.

4) The concept of age could change.  So those who are right now 20 years old and three months are REALLY 21 years old, since we now have to count the time spent inside the mother’s body – oh wait, I mean the incubator.  Still, those new 21 year olds could now buy lots and lots of alcohol legally.  Can anyone say ‘stimulating the economy’?  I want to serve my country and be a part of that!

5) Laws all over the country would be inspired to change.  Cruel and unusual punishment will take on many more cases as we all debate whether its humane to leave a person virtually locked in a tiny cell like a womb for all that time.  Surely that’s against our moral code?  Wait, what’s that? It couldn’t SURVIVE outside the womb? Well now you’re just playing into women’s need to feel self-important.

6) Birth control could become illegal as well.  15.3 million American women use hormonal birth control, but whatevs.  This means men will need to either A) always wear condoms no matter what, B) not wear a condom, significantly increase the likelihood that their partner will get pregnant, and then provide lots and lots of money in child support.  In addition to, you know, having a child.  Which may or may not have serious mental or physical health problems.  Oh yes, and the woman could die or be seriously injured during pregnancy or birth, so you may be on your own.  But no worries.  Or C) Stop having sex unless the purpose is to procreate.  I’m guessing men will go for option C.

7) Outlawing of abortion entirely, even though it’s a right protected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.  I guess once other states take up this amendment too, 3 out of 10 American women will have to endure a pregnancy, give birth, and support another child they don’t feel capable of safely and successfully bringing into the world and then raising.  But that’s ok, because 61% of women who would have had those abortions already have children, so the kids’ll have company.  And it’s not like raising a kid is hard or expensive.  It’s just more work.

Oh there are so many good reasons for this bill to pass, and for me to get pregnant in Mississippi.  I’ll have many more privileges, my kid will likely have company, my partner will stop having sex with me unless it’s to have even more kids, and then I won’t need to read so many trashy magazine articles about pleasing my man, since that will no longer be the point.  I also won’t need to worry so much about my career, or pursuit of happiness, or my health, or dignity, or my own life.  So really, it’s all a blessing in disguise.

The truth is, this bill will make everyone’s lives better.

Or the opposite.

But you know, whatevs.  It only really affects women anyway.  And everyone knows that while fertilized eggs may soon be considered people, women still aren’t.

This post is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival on the Mississippi Personhood Amendment.  For dozens of more posts about the impact of this incredibly dangerous legislation, check out www.HERVotes.us.  Then, go donate to Mississippians for Healthy Families to join the fight.

You’re so sensitive. You’re so emotional. You’re defensive. You’re overreacting. Calm down. Relax. Stop freaking out! You’re crazy! I was just joking, don’t you have a sense of humor? You’re so dramatic. Just get over it already!

Sound familiar?

If you’re a woman, it probably does.

Do you ever hear any of these comments from your spouse, partner, boss, friends, colleagues, or relatives after you have expressed frustration, sadness, or anger about something they have done or said?

When someone says these things to you, it’s not an example of inconsiderate behavior. When your spouse shows up half an hour late to dinner without calling—that’s inconsiderate behavior. A remark intended to shut you down like, “Calm down, you’re overreacting,” after you just addressed someone else’s bad behavior, is emotional manipulation—pure and simple.

And this is the sort of emotional manipulation that feeds an epidemic in our country, an epidemic that defines women as crazy, irrational, overly sensitive, unhinged. This epidemic helps fuel the idea that women need only the slightest provocation to unleash their (crazy) emotions. It’s patently false and unfair.

I think it’s time to separate inconsiderate behavior from emotional manipulation and we need to use a word not in our normal vocabulary.

I want to introduce a helpful term to identify these reactions: gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a term, often used by mental health professionals (I am not one), to describe manipulative behavior used to confuse people into thinking their reactions are so far off base that they’re crazy.

The term comes from the 1944 MGM film, Gaslight, starring Ingrid Bergman. Bergman’s husband in the film, played by Charles Boyer, wants to get his hands on her jewelry. He realizes he can accomplish this by having her certified as insane and hauled off to a mental institution. To pull of this task, he intentionally sets the gaslights in their home to flicker off and on, and every time Bergman’s character reacts to it, he tells her she’s just seeing things. In this setting, a gaslighter is someone who presents false information to alter the victim’s perception of him or herself.

Today, when the term is referenced, it’s usually because the perpetrator says things like, “You’re so stupid” or “No one will ever want you” to the victim. This is an intentional, pre-meditated form of gaslighting, much like the actions of Charles Boyer’s character in Gaslight, where he strategically plots to confuse Ingrid Bergman’s character into believing herself unhinged.

The form of gaslighting I’m addressing is not always pre-mediated or intentional, which makes it worse, because it means all of us, especially women, have dealt with it at one time or another.

Those who engage in gaslighting create a reaction—whether it’s anger, frustration, sadness—in the person they are dealing with. Then, when that person reacts, the gaslighter makes them feel uncomfortable and insecure by behaving as if their feelings aren’t rational or normal.

My friend Anna (all names changed to protect privacy) is married to a man who feels it necessary to make random and unprompted comments about her weight. Whenever she gets upset or frustrated with his insensitive comments, he responds in the same, defeating way, “You’re so sensitive. I’m just joking.”

My friend Abbie works for a man who finds a way, almost daily, to unnecessarily shoot her down and her work product. Comments like, “Can’t you do something right?” or “Why did I hire you?” are regular occurrences for her. Her boss has no problem firing people (he does it regularly), so you wouldn’t know that based on these comments, Abbie has worked for him for six years. But every time she stands up for herself and says “It doesn’t help me when you say these things,” she gets the same reaction: “Relax; you’re overreacting.”

Abbie thinks her boss is just being a jerk in these moments, but the truth is, he is making those comments to manipulate her into thinking her reactions are out of whack. And it’s exactly that kind manipulation that has left her feeling guilty about being sensitive, and as a result, she has not left her job.

But gaslighting can be as simple as someone smiling and saying something like, “You’re so sensitive,” to somebody else. Such a comment may seem innocuous enough, but in that moment, that person is making a judgment about how someone else should feel.

While dealing with gaslighting isn’t a universal truth for women, we all certainly know plenty of women who encounter it at work, home, or in personal relationships.

And the act of gaslighting does not simply affect women who are not quite sure of themselves. Even vocal, confident, assertive women are vulnerable to gaslighting.

Why?

Because women bare the brunt of our neurosis. It is much easier for us to place our emotional burdens on the shoulders of our wives, our female friends, our girlfriends, our female employees, our female colleagues, than for us to impose them on the shoulders of men.

It’s a whole lot easier to emotionally manipulate someone who has been conditioned by our society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they don’t refuse our burdens as easily. It’s the ultimate cowardice.

Whether gaslighting is conscious or not, it produces the same result: it renders some women emotionally mute.

These women aren’t able to clearly express to their spouses that what is said or done to them is hurtful. They can’t tell their boss that his behavior is disrespectful and prevents them from doing their best work. They can’t tell their parents that, when they are being critical, they are doing more harm than good.

When these women receive any sort of push back to their reactions, they often brush it off by saying, “Forget it, it’s okay.”

That “forget it” isn’t just about dismissing a thought, it is about self-dismissal. It’s heartbreaking.

No wonder some women are unconsciously passive aggressive when expressing anger, sadness, or frustration. For years, they have been subjected to so much gaslighting that they can no longer express themselves in a way that feels authentic to them.

They say, “I’m sorry” before giving their opinion. In an email or text message, they place a smiley face next to a serious question or concern, thereby reducing the impact of having to express their true feelings.

You know how it looks: “You’re late ”

These are the same women who stay in relationships they don’t belong in, who don’t follow their dreams, who withdraw from the kind of life they want to live.

Since I have embarked on this feminist self-exploration in my life and in the lives of the women I know, this concept of women as “crazy” has really emerged as a major issue in society at large and an equally major frustration for the women in my life, in general.

From the way women are portrayed on reality shows, to how we condition boys and girls to see women, we have come to accept the idea that women are unbalanced, irrational individuals, especially in times of anger and frustration.

Just the other day, on a flight from San Francisco to Los Angeles, a flight attendant who had come to recognize me from my many trips asked me what I did for a living. When I told her that I write mainly about women, she immediately laughed and asked, “Oh, about how crazy we are?”

Her gut reaction to my work made me really depressed. While she made her response in jest, her question nonetheless makes visible a pattern of sexist commentary that travels through all facets of society on how men view women, which also greatly impacts how women may view themselves.

As far as I am concerned, the epidemic of gaslighting is part of the struggle against the obstacles of inequality that women constantly face. Acts of gaslighting steal their most powerful tool: their voice. This is something we do to women every day, in many different ways.

I don’t think this idea that women are “crazy,” is based in some sort of massive conspiracy. Rather, I believe it’s connected to the slow and steady drumbeat of women being undermined and dismissed, on a daily basis. And gaslighting is one of many reasons why we are dealing with this public construction of women as “crazy”

I recognize that I’ve been guilty of gaslighting my women friends in the past (but never my male friends—surprise, surprise). It’s shameful, but I’m glad I realized that I did it on occasion and put a stop to it.

While I take total responsibility for my actions, I do believe that I, along with many men, am a byproduct of our conditioning. It’s about the general insight our conditioning gives us into admitting fault and exposing any emotion.

When we are discouraged in our youth and early adulthood from expressing emotion, it causes many of us to remain steadfast in our refusal to express regret when we see someone in pain from our actions.

When I was writing this piece, I was reminded of one of my favorite Gloria Steinem quotes, “The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn.”

So for many of us, it’s first about unlearning how to flicker those gaslights and learning how to acknowledge and understand the feelings, opinions, and positions of the women in our lives.

But isn’t the issue of gaslighting ultimately about whether we are conditioned to believe that women’s opinions don’t hold as much weight as ours? That what women have to say, what they feel, isn’t quite as legitimate?

This piece was written by Yashar Ali and cross posted with permission from The Current Conscience. Yashar Ali is a Los Angeles-based blogger, commentator, and political veteran whose writing is showcased on The Current Conscience.

On Tuesday afternoon, the UNFPA and National Geographic held a conference in Washington, DC on Unleashing the Power of Women and Girls.   Participating in the panel were representatives from the World Bank, the State Department, the International Women’s Health Coalition and The Kakenya Center for Excellence as well as celebrities. Each panelist told their story of how they work to improve the lives of women around the world.  Kakenya Ntaiya had the most striking story.  As a young woman in Kenya she told her father she would undergo FGM (female genital mutilation) if she could get an education.  What a horrible barter to make for an education.  But she was determined to get an education and live life as she wanted.   She is now pursuing her Doctorate at the University of Pittsburgh.  But along the way she returned to Kenya and established a school for girls – The Kakenya Center for Excellence –to help girls with education, self-realization and leadership.  Now, through her activism & work, no other girl in her village will be subject to FGM.

Singer & Actress Natalie Imbruglia spoke of her work  with UNFPA to end Fistula – a condition resulting from difficult childbirth that can be fixed with surgery but that leaves many women and girls isolated for much of their lives.  Alexandra Garita from the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) discussed the need for greater sex education for everyone.

All of these people are change-agents.  They empower others to help, they inspire us to be better and work harder.  I invite you to share the videos from both National Geographic and UNFPA.   Join them in their 7 Billion Call-to-Action by sharing your story.  By forwarding a video, writing an article or tweeting, you participate in the movement.  You help raise awareness of these issues and hopefully create change for the girls of tomorrow.

This piece was written by Lauren Supina Farber

“Mommy, I want to have a princess party this year for my
birthday.”

Suddenly the air was sucked out of the room and I waited for the oxygen masks to deploy from the ceiling as the living room nose-dived.

“What?” I coughed out, wide-eyed to my 4-year-old daughter.

“A princess party!” she smiled, cheekily. “And I can dress up as a princess for Halloween!” She took off in a happy spin as I plummet to the soon-to-be-memorial ground below us.

Welcome to my surprising life as a stay-at-home mother of two daughters, who is grasping at the label “feminist” with all her might. I thought my role as the Coordinator for the SPARKteam, which stands for Sexualization Protest: Action, Resistance, and Knowledge, provided me with a shield that protects against anything that is sexualized, pink, princessy, and stereotypical for girls. I was wrong. Really, really wrong.

Let me introduce you to my 4-year-old. She’s the oldest and most graceful of my daughters, with beautiful long, curly locks that bounce down her back. She loves wearing her black tennis shoes, running through mud puddles, playing with cars (especially Lightening McQueen), soccer, swimming, watching baseball, and drawing. Oh, and she wants to be a princess when she grows up. (Yes, I am clawing at the oxygen masks and the under-the-seat life preservers as I gasp for air.)

Now, I know she is too young to read our blogs at Spark Summit that battle against the sexualization of girls and counter the whole princess-movement for children. I also haven’t read her the Holy Grail of parenting books, “Packaging Girlhood” at bedtime either. And she’s too young for programs at the city non-profit Hardy Girls Healthy Women that I work for. (Not much longer, I’m sure, once they see me hosting a fucking princess party.)

“She is so pretty,” is the most-often heard compliment I hear about my first-born. And yes, she is. Very. Much prettier than I was or ever will be. She reminds me of “Missy,” the most popular girl in my high school class that had the perfect curly hair and the just-right clothes. You know, the one I was taught to dislike because she was so perfect.

Let me make this clear as I brace for impact: I do not own one princess movie. My daughters’ favorite movie is Cars and there are more matchbox cars, books, and musical instruments than any other toys in our home. I admit, we do own various Tinkerbell fairies and her fairy friends. (Yes, Tinkerbell has lots of skinny, perfect looking friends, too, with perfect hair. Don’t hate.) But, each fairy has a talent and show bravery and courage at various times throughout the films. I also believe it teaches girls about friendship and forgiveness. So where in the hell is this princess shit coming from?

Get this: A book. One stinking old princess book in a huge box full of books on Craigslist that we bought for $10. It’s like giving Kool-Aid to a baby and expecting her not to like it. Seriously, one look at that dress, that damn carriage, and the dancing with the prince at the end and suddenly everything changed. It’s as if Disney created the brainwashing technique for the United States military. Who can battle a singing mermaid, a fairy godmother, a prince, and a beautiful blue dress with glass slippers?

I never called myself a real feminist before my work with SPARK. I mean, I chose to be a stay-at-home mom and homemaker. I believed that real F-cards were handed out to career-or-nothing-types, until I discovered feminists who taught me about real feminism.

SPARKteam Blogger Stephanie Cole said it best in “The Loaded F-Word” when she redefines a feminist as someone who “keeps an open mind, and tries to always be aware of patriarchy and sexism wherever it occurs. She or he also tries to educate others who are unaware, as well as speak up and take action against inequality.”

And my friend Dr. Lyn Mikel Brown, co-founder of Hardy Girls Healthy Women, put me in my place when I questioned if I could be kicked out of the feminist club for allowing my house to become a pink castle. “Feminism gets a bad rap as being one very strict thing, when there are so many ways people are feminists,” Brown said. “My feminism is one that doesn’t turn people away from the honest struggle you are having.”

But, how can I be a feminist and a stay-at-home mother at the same time? Especially when I have failed in the princess debacle?!  The answer is simple for me. I follow my gut. I was once on a path to save the world as a high school teacher. Yet, everything changed once I met my daughter. Everything. I left my career as a teacher and moved across the country with my husband to become a stay-at-home mom and homemaker. (Full disclosure, I suck at the homemaking part, but I’m a damn good mom.) Two years later, I had daughter #2–an identical piece of sass with curls.

It was a gutsy move and the best decision my husband and I ever made. I honor the fact that we’ve bloodily scraped by on a one-salary income so I can host play dates, kiss boos-boos, find blankeys, and read stories at naptimes. The monotony of my days is often monstrous and hard. Though it’s not for everyone, I know it’s something I will always treasure..(Seriously, I don’t really know how “working moms” do their jobs either.)

I have activism in my blood. When I look deep enough, my feminism and my loathing of inequality has always been there. Am I political? Yes. Opinionated? Yes. Strong-willed? Yes. (My husband would say “Hell YES.”) I feel feminism is inherently found in the voice of a mother raising her children, too. I am fighting so hard for my girls to be strong, focused, secure, loving, and determined young women. I abhor a media that labels my girls “tom boys” because they love a good play in the mud or cars.

Real feminism is about choice, right? The choice for me to instill in my girls and others how powerful their lives can be, even if they choose to be stay-at-home moms who let their daughters dress as princesses.

“Why do you want a princess party?” I later asked, when I felt the crash landing had aborted.

“Because I want to be a princess,” she answered.

I shrugged, “But what do they doooo that you like?” I asked, drawing out the verb and trying to crack the code. My daughter shrugged, “They’re princesses, Mommy! They wear those dresses and are pretty. Do you like princesses, Mommy?”

I think she already knew the answer… “I think they’re kind of boring. They don’t run and play sports, have fun or draw like you do.”

“Then I can be your princess, Mommy,” she said with the biggest smile in the whole wide world. “I can be all of it.”

Yes, she can.

I learned four lessons today: First, I have no idea what I am doing. Second, I am doing a pretty damn good job at it. Third, I just may be hosting a “You-Can-Be-It-All” Princess/Cars party in my future .

And last, my daughter is one awesome princess.

And yes, I am a feminist.

-Dana Hernandez is a feminist, a stay-at-home mama to two, writer, activist, and SPARKteam Coordinator for SPARK Summit.This piece originally appeared at Pigtail Pals and is cross-posted with permission.

Yet one thing that cannot be disputed is the amazing progress women have made in society even from a few decades ago.  Feminist Marlo Thomas recently wrote a piece for the Huffington Post entitled Passing the Torch…Who’s Going to Run with it, in which she points out:

It wasn’t long ago in this country when, if you stood in a hospital hallway and looked through the glass window of the nursery, you could point to all the babies wrapped in pink and know exactly what they’d being doing in 20 years.

Stay-at-home mom? Teacher? The options were limited.

Twenty years ago, only the babies cocooned in blue blankets could become an astronaut, a doctor, scientist or even a solider. Today, this is clearly not the case, and it’s the women who came before us that we have to thank for clearing our path to equality and success.  As those strong and valiant women carry their torches with pride, they begin to light future generations’ torches and slowly, our light shines brighter…not just brighter, it shines ferociously.

So, who will carry the torch?  What will the next generation of feminists pursue? We’ll be joined by special guest Stephenie Foster, a Fem2 ally with over 25 years of experience advocating for women with governments and organizations all over the world.  Join us on our tweet chat using the #nxtgenfem hashtag to share a vision of the future of feminism and talk about what we should expect not just from the world, but from ourselves.

Date: Sunday August 14
Time: 9 PM EST
Place: #nxtgenfem

Image by Danielle Marks