Cross-posted here with permission from Bitch Flicks. 

Superhero films often exhibit assertive, outspoken female characters. Yet they often simultaneously objectify women’s bodies, reduce them to ancillary love interests or perpetuate gender stereotypes. So when I heard that Pepper Potts would have a more active role in Iron Man 3, I was excited yet remained cautiously skeptical.

Gwyneth Paltrow eagerly talked about putting on the Iron Man suit and getting tired of the “damsel in distress”:

“I was really hoping that Pepper would be more engaged in this movie…So I was really happy, not only that she was wearing the suit, but that you see her really on equal ground with Tony in their interpersonal dynamic, and as a CEO, and then she’s got all this action… I think in order to move things forward and keep it fresh, you can only be the damsel in distress for so long, and then it’s old.”

Producer and Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige also said they wanted to “play with the convention of the damsel in distress…there is fun to be had with “Is Pepper in danger or is Pepper the savior?” over the course of this movie.” Okay, okay, this all sounds awesome to me.

Now I’m all for subverting gender norms. But is Pepper really empowered? Or does she really remain a rearticulation of the Damsel in Distress trope?

When Pepper puts on the Iron Man suit, it’s not of her own volition. It’s not because she cleverly thought of it. Tony, who can now recall his arsenal of Iron Man suits on command, remotely puts it on Pepper to save her during an attack. Once she’s in the suit of armor, Pepper does make the most of it as she gets scientist Maya (who of course has to have had a sexual past with Tony) to safety and protects Tony from a falling ceiling as well.

However, when Gwyneth Paltrow discussed putting on the suit, I envisioned an assertive move by Pepper — that she boldly decides to put on the armor so she can go out and save Tony. Not something she passively has placed on her body by a man. What could have been an interesting exploration of Pepper and gender becomes a wasted opportunity.

Just because Pepper donned the Iron Man suit for like two minutes, doesn’t mean she isn’t a “damsel in distress.” She still is for a majority of the film. Archvillian Aldrich Killian kidnaps Pepper and ties her up, using her as bait to lure Tony and blackmail him. Yep, that sounds like a passive damsel to me.

In Iron Man, Pepper is Tony’s personal assistant and according to him, his only true friend. In Iron Man 2, she becomes the CEO of Stark Industries. By The Avengers, they co-exist as a team, partners both in romance and work as Pepper helps Tony develop Stark Tower and the Arc Reactor. In each film, Pepper grows and progresses to have a more important role. So how did Pepper — Tony’s friend, partner and brilliant CEO of Stark Industries — get reduced to an objectified and victimized “damsel in distress” yet again?

“So the damsel trope typically makes men the “subject” of the narratives while relegating women to the “object.” This is a form of objectification because as objects, damsel’ed women are being acted upon, most often becoming or reduced to a prize to be won, a treasure to be found or a goal to be achieved…The damsel in distress is not just a synonym for “weak,” instead it works by ripping away the power from female characters, even helpful or seemingly capable ones. No matter what we are told about their magical abilities, skills or strengths they are still ultimately captured or otherwise incapacitated and then must wait for rescue. Distilled down to its essence, the plot device works by trading the disempowerment of female characters FOR the empowerment of male characters.”

Surprisingly, as it revolves around Tony, Iron Man 3 passes the Bechdel Test. Huzzah! A brief conversation transpires between Pepper and Maya, the botanist who invented the Extremis virus. Maya laments being naïve about science, just wanting to help people and how her ideals became distorted. Pepper reassures her, telling her that Stark Industries once carried out military contracts so she shouldn’t be so hard on herself. What a nice moment. But don’t get too cozy. This moment of sisterly bonding shatters when Maya betrays Pepper. Sidebar, it’s interesting that Maya has a change of heart not after talking to Pepper but after talking to Tony later in the film.

There’s a telling exchange near the end of the film when Killian tells Tony he injected Pepper with the Extremis virus because he wanted to make Pepper perfect. Tony, ever the good boyfriend, retorts, “That’s where you’re wrong. She already was perfect.” This could have been a nice albeit clichéd message about accepting and appreciating people how they are, rather than trying to change them. But 5 minutes later, when Pepper asks if she’s going to be alright because she’s got the unstable virus in her, Tony says he’s going to “fix” her because that’s what he does, he “fixes things.” Ahhh the mechanic imagery strewn throughout the film comes full circle.

It’s a strange juxtaposition between “she’s perfect the way she is” and “I’ll fix you,” especially in proximity to one another. This dialogue could have easily been altered to show Pepper’s agency — that either she wanted to keep the virus and harness the superpower or have it removed. We could have seen things from her perspective. But instead, it’s all to convey how Tony is decisive and protective of his woman and how he’s grown emotionally.

Taking place after The Avengers, we see a changed Tony Stark. Due to the stress of combating aliens and traveling through worm holes, Tony suffers anxiety, insomnia and PTSD. I was pleasantly surprised at the film’s respectful depiction of mental illness. Although its treatment of people with disabilities is abhorrent. We see the weight of Tony’s obsession creating Iron Man suits straining their relationship. Pepper is frustrated that his suits come before her. But they never resolve their issues. It’s as if Pepper said, “Oh I almost died, got injected with some fiery shit and now you fixed me? Okay, we’re good now!” Um, no.

So what’s the lesson here? Don’t worry, ladies. The right man will fix you and all your problems.

Pepper isn’t an empowered, self-actualized character in Iron Man 3. Instead she’s used as an object for the two dudes to fight over. She’s used to show that Killian is a villain who never really loved her while she’s used as an incentive for Tony to fight and to realize what truly matters in life. Tony and Killian battle it out with Pepper as a trophy to the victor, aka the better dude.

As film critic Scott Mendelson said: “For Potts, the movie was about other men giving her temporary agency/power and then quickly taking it away again.” Despite her intelligence and success, she possesses no agency of her own. Men bestowed power upon Pepper. Any power she appears to exert stems from men. Now some superheroes (Spiderman, Wolverine) have their powers given to them by others, either by accident or against their will. But once they have their powers, they decide what to do with them. They decide through their intelligence or cunning how best to utilize their powers. But Tony and Killian make all the decisions for Pepper. She doesn’t make any for herself. Pepper doesn’t choose to don the suit. Tony does. Killian decides to inject her with the Extremis virus that grants superhero powers. She doesn’t choose to keep the Extremis virus or have it removed. Tony decides to remove the virus. Even though she has a brief romp with superpowers and briefly kicks ass, Pepper somehow remains less empowered in Iron Man 3 than in the other films. Men decide her fate.

If the film really played with the conventions of a “damsel in distress,” rather than playing out every other superhero trope, Pepper wouldn’t have been kidnapped or if she had, she would have saved herself, rather than needing Tony’s rescue. At the film’s climax, we do see Pepper, injected with the Extremis virus, kick ass and save Tony. Oh and of course she does it in a skimpier, sexy outfit. So even in the shadow of empowerment, Pepper must be anchored as a sex object, intertwining power and sexuality. Again, it isn’t about Pepper’s growth and development. It’s about how Tony sees her.

While she acknowledges it “isn’t perfect on gender issues,” Alyssa Rosenberg posits that Iron Man 3’s “progressive gender play is noteworthy when you consider the kinds of roles actresses in superhero movies usually get stuck with.” But no, no it’s not progressive. Did we watch the same movie? Having women scientists and women CEOs in your film, while a good start, isn’t smashing gender stereotypes if you ultimately reinforce the same old tired gender tropes and clichés. It isn’t actually showcasing powerful women if you continually undercut women’s agency.

While action sequences are enjoyable, fighting is probably not what audiences find empowering. It’s characters’ decisiveness, assertiveness, ingenuity, struggle to survive — all of which can be conveyed through a visual manifestation of action sequences.

Sure, it was nice to see Pepper kicking ass. But let’s be clear here. Just because a female character wields a sword or shoots a gun or uses her fists to punch a villain, doesn’t automatically make her emotionally strong or empowered. Possessing agency to speak her mind, make her own decisions, chart her own course — these are what make a character truly empowered.

The problem with the Damsel in Distress trope is that it strips women of their power and insinuates that women need men to rescue or save them. And yet again it places the focus on men, reinforcing the notion that society revolves around men, not women.

Maybe I’m a greedy feminist but four minutes of ass-kicking does not automatically make an empowered female character shattering gender tropes, nor does it satiate my desire for a depiction of a nuanced, complex, strong female character. Sigh.

Photo credit: Marvel.com

Olivia Harris as Wonder Woman. When asked why she isn’t smiling she said, “Because Wonder Woman doesn’t smile.” Take that street harassers!

What did you want to be when you were a little kid? I wanted to be a ballerina until I saw Lynda Carter spin into Wonder Woman on my black-and-white TV. Sure, I had already seen Christopher Reeves as Superman. He was pretty great and all, but the only quasi-strong woman in that story is reporter Lois Lane. And while I did eventually grow up to be a reporter, it had nothing to do with Lois. After all, she was just another damsel-in-distress, a prop to show Superman’s emotional side. But Wonder Woman… Now there was a woman who was smart, fierce, and stronger than any man and never apologized for it. That was a hero to inspire my little heart as I watched breathlessly as she foiled bad guys and saved the world from Nazis.

And that’s when I started begging my mom to buy me comic books.

By now, you’ve probably done the mental math and can tell I was born in the 1970s and came of age in the 80s and early 90s. I’m of that generation. No, not Gen X, although that label probably fits. No, I’m of the Comic Book Geek generation. In particular, the women-who-like-comic-books generation. Indeed, we’re not just here, we’re demanding parity in characters and, at the publishing level, to include more female-created books. And now, as we raise our own children, we feel the friction of a world that has not moved as quickly to embrace strong women as the world of comics, which has come a long way from the likes of the seminal but singular Wonder Woman. Today there are whole teams of female superheros, including a Storm-led team in the Uncanny X-Men. Over at Captain Marvel, Maj. Carol Danvers has saved no less than the galaxy and led The Avengers.

It’s been a somewhat uneasy relationship for women in comics, not unlike the real world for women in a patriarchal society. There are many female characters that came into their own in the 1970s and 80s including Jean Gray/Phoenix, The Dazzler (a personal favorite), Barbara Gordon/Batgirl, Ms. Marvel, Hawkwoman, and Black Widow. The 90s brought in characters like Xena the Warrior Princess, Tank Girl, and the animated Powerpuff Girls, not to mention Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which successfully jumped from movie to television to comics after the show ended. In the modern era, we’ve seen both heroes and villains who are women portrayed with vacillating levels of real or pseudo-feminist characteristics and sexist tropes. We can see this play out in the not-quite fully actualized character of Pepper Potts as conceptualized in the Iron Man movies and contrast it with Anne Hathaway’s Cat Woman in the last Batman.

So with this growing wealth of self-actualized (or at least progress toward self-actualized) women in the comic book universe and an ever-growing legion of female fans, it is a wonder that parents of girls are still struggling to outfit their tiny heroes. In my own home, my toddler is infatuated with all things Spiderman (just like her dad), Batman, and pretty much any character that appears to be a superhero. (Although, to my chagrin, she is a bit apathetic to Wonder Woman, which she thinks is me. So, any compliment that might be taken as is immediately diminished by the fact that she thinks her mom is not that interesting.) She loves playing with her Wonder Woman invisible jet and Batman workshop, both from Fisher Price, equally. And last Halloween, at the last minute (of course), she shrugged off the Elmo costume she had originally picked out and opted instead to wear her Spiderman pajamas to go trick-or-treating. Because she loves Spidey so much, it has forced a kind of gender discussion early in her young life. We routinely have to travel to the “boys” section to find clothes and toys that suit her fancy. In turn, she is routinely called a boy, which is not an issue for me but one I find interesting in a sociological and feminist-perspective way.

My little girl loves Spiderman!

How is that when a child chooses to not wear pink, that decides her gender identity? How is it that in an age when there are more and more female heroes and villains in the comic book world, there are still such static labels on who should be the target audience?

A lot of times I can shrug it off or even welcome the conversations that my daughter’s clothes may spark as a micro-level teaching opportunity about construct of gender and about letting children just be kids, without labels, free to choose the apparel and toys that suit their spirit. Why box a kid in (or out)? Why limit who that child can be? One could argue that even by the mere fact that my husband and I call our child “daughter” we have already labeled part of her identity. But at least we’re trying to crack the door open and take away as many boxes as possible.

All of this has been a kind of prelude to one of the biggest disappointments in my daughter’s young life. On the cusp of turning three, my child is deep in the potty training phase. And as any parent knows, you want that process to go as smoothly as possible. It’s a big change in their young lives. It’s a time of liberation and learning that you have control over your body and also about fears (toilets are loud and scary) and anxieties (feelings of failure when having an accident). We want to help our kid through this process as guides and also as partners in her growth and learning.

One thing we read was to get your kid excited about potty training by taking them to buy their first underwear. So, I took my daughter to the store. She was very excited to see all the underwear, “just like mommy and daddy.” She’s not into princesses, yet, so most of the girl-branded pink underwear weren’t that interesting to my kid. What she really got excited about — like jump up and down in the aisle excited — was the package of Spiderman underwear. It was marketed to boys and sewn with the boy-style flap. But I bought a package (along with a “plan B” style, just in case). I wanted my kid to feel excited about potty time. And I wanted her to feel like she had control over her life in some small way. She could choose her underpants! (Which is really saying something, considering the gender-coding of the diaper aisle, which is almost exclusively branded out not just in shades of pink and blue but corporate characters that intensify that gender-coding.) Sadly, when my kid tried the Spidey underwear on, it just didn’t feel right. And it upset her. She didn’t want to put on the plain green, blue, or pink underwear. She wanted Spidey.

I took to internet, scowering hand-made websites like Etsy, auction sites, mass-retailer sites. I posted to all my social media sites. I was a mother on a mission! All I found was that a lot of other parents — and I mean A LOT — have the exact same problem. (Going the other way, too. With parents of boys wanting princess or “girl” themed underwear.) This was a real capitalism-fail moment. The demand is here! So where is the supply? I immediately signed the petition, which was started by another mom of a girl who loves Spidey.

So, maybe that’s why I was so excited to see this female superhero meme started by artist Alexandra Law, who finds pictures of girls dressed as superheros and turns them into comic book-style drawings of bad-ass characters. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Don’t we want every kid to see themselves as awesome superheros, with powers that amaze and delight? Isn’t that what my daughter wants when she puts on her Spidey costume? Or when she throws on the Batman rash-guard with a pink tutu to go to the water park?

As we get ready to celebrate Mother’s Day, I wish that the kids in our lives can be their true selves, explore their world without judgement, and be celebrated for who they really are and what they really love without shame. Because all I want, for Mother’s Day or any day, is for my kid to be happy. And maybe a pack of Spiderman undies for girls, size 4T. Thanks.

When I was a young the first I heard about sex and all that jazz was through friends.  Most of what they ‘knew’ isn’t worth speaking of now but as far as I was aware at the time they were fountains of knowledge on the matter and not to be questioned.  I went to a Catholic primary and secondary school, in primary school we were deemed much too young and thus were never told anything about anything even though at ages 11 – 13 some of us were clearly hitting puberty with a bang.  Up until then I had absolutely no sexual experience at all (I was 12) but had I started ‘meeting’ a boy I would have gone by what little and wrong information I knew as I had been told nothing else.

Before I went to secondary school I asked my mother for a book about the birds and the bees, thankfully this cleared up a lot for me!  But still in an all girls secondary school we never received any sort decent sex ed.  The most we got was a biology lesson.  My brother went to an all boys school and had a similar experience but with one difference, they got a talk on STD’s (with very graphic pictures included).  No-one ever attempted to talk to any of us about feelings, love, other emotions, respect, sex, proper sexual health, rape, boundaries or consent.  We got NOTHING.  So at 16, 17 and 18 years old we were finished school and off to take on the big bad world armed with biology, old wives tales and the blind leading the blind when it came to sex.

I remember a friend of mine had an older boyfriend while we were still in school and we were hearing all about her first time.  When I heard the details I was a little shocked (it did not sound like how it was in the movies).  The truth is she wasn’t really ready and she wasn’t really into it but he didn’t stop.  She knew it didn’t feel right but she didn’t know what to do so she lay there.  Knowing now what I didn’t know then was that for her first time she had been raped by her boyfriend.  Maybe if someone, ANYONE with a bit of real knowledge and experience had sat us down and explained to us about boundaries and consent she wouldn’t have ended up staying with a rapist for several months after that because she didn’t know any better.  (I am in no way blaming her for anything that happened, all of the blame lies solely on the person that raped her).

In the digital age we live in now it is harder than ever to grow up.  There is social media, more peer pressure and mixed messages seem to be everywhere.  Take the Steubenville case, some people actually still believe that those boys did nothing wrong.  In the UK children as young as 8 are ‘sexting’ and sending naked pictures of themselves to their friends.  They don’t see anything wrong with it because they haven’t been told any different.  There have been respected retailers selling t-shirts with slogans saying ‘keep calm and rape them’ on them, someone obviously assuming there would be a market for them.  A tumblr account called facebook- whores exists consisting of pictures of “dumb bitches” found on facebook.  Just this week a 17 year old boy in Belfast is being investigated for boasting about an alleged rape on facebook.  His post claimed he had sex with a woman after misleading her about who he was.  The post received over 1000 ‘LIKES’.  Then there are TV shows like Jersey and Geordie Shore where girls are openly talked about and treated like objects and sex acts with numerous random strangers happen more often than the cast members have hot dinners (that is what apparently passes for entertainment these days).  Not to mention the damage hardcore pornography is doing to kids.

No wonder children and teens are growing up completely confused.  In a way you cannot entirely blame them when there are mixed signals everywhere they turn.  Not enough is being done to change their young minds and show them right from wrong and just how important consent, respect and boundaries are.  Now it is more important than ever that no child ever feels any sort of confusion on these matters.  Ending these mixed messages for good could potentially stop another Steubenville from happening in the future.

Any feminist worth their salt has no doubt seen at least one mention of the latest Victoria’s Secret dust-up. This time, the retailer has struck the ire of conservatives and feminists alike for the reported launch of a hyper-sexualized line of lingerie marketed to tweens. Or did they?

It wouldn’t be surprising that a brand that has faced constant backlashes for not just one racist incident, but two racist incidents in less than two years. Need I remind you of the “geisha outfit” and the Sioux-style war bonnet incident? And then there’s the whole “fair trade” fiasco, in which cotton underwear marketed as fair trade were actually made by abused African children. (Note to Victoria’s Secret: The definition of fair trade is to empower normally oppressed populations with work that pays a fair wage and sets a precedent for a fair work environment.)

So cue a Liz Lemon-style eye roll, when reports started surfacing on the internet and in the media at large — I’ve counted stories on FOX News, MSNBC, ABC News, Huffington Post, and more — that Victoria’s Secret was up to no good, again. And this time the story has been framed largely by an outcry from “angry moms.” Now as a mother myself, I have to find out which kind of “angry moms” these are. Color me Glinda, asking the internet: But are you angry moms the good kind, or the bad kind?

The genesis for this current shit-storm seems to originate with anti-choice “mom of seven sillies” and “homeschooling guru” Amy Gerwig via the Black Sphere in a an article titled, “Victoria’s Secret is coming for your Middle Schooler.” Sound the alarm!

Gerwig proceeded to denounce a new spring collection called “Bright Young Things,” marketed to teens and tweens. We’re going to circle back to that in a sec, but for the time being let’s stick with what Gerwig said about the line, which includes thongs and underwear with suggestive slogans on the them including “Wild,” “Feeling lucky?” and “Call me.”

Gerwig writes:

Our country is replete with an unprecedented number of young girls suffering from eating disorders and body mutilation, while pushing the limits of sexual promiscuity. Is this racy underwear modeled by unrealistically thin girls really the best that we have to offer our girls? In this age when female sex trafficking is becoming a wide-spread crisis, reaching into the depths of our inner cities, is it really responsible for Victoria’s Secret to entice our impressionable young girls with this “come hither” message?

Here, Gerwig hits upon messages that, in part, overlap with many feminist themes. We feminists frequently call out products and marketing campaigns that enable the misogyny of our society — including imagery that encourages people to have unrealistic beauty myth ideals, which can lead to eating disorders and other forms of self-harm. Gerwig really lights it up by including human trafficking. Well done, Gerwig.

From here, several outlets — both conservative and feminist — picked up the meme. Notably, Rev. Evan Dolive, of Houston posted an open letter to the company, imploring them to scale back their role in the sexualized media-assault on young women and girls. Dolive’s letter gained a lot of traction, perhaps more than Gerwig’s piece. I admit, I posted it on my social media feeds, as I was surprised by the relatively inclusive tone (there’s a hint of LGBTQ acceptance here) and the message that fathers care about the negative messaging girls are receiving.

I believe that this sends the wrong message to not only my daughter but to all young girls.
I don’t want my daughter to ever think that her self-worth and acceptance by others is based on the choice of her undergarments. I don’t want my daughter to ever think that to be popular or even attractive she has to have emblazon words on her bottom.

I want my daughter (and every girl) to be faced with tough decisions in her formative years of adolescence. Decisions like should I be a doctor or a lawyer? Should I take calculus as a junior or a senior? Do I want to go to Texas A&M or University of Texas or some Ivy League School? Should I raise awareness for slave trafficking or lack of water in developing nations? There are many, many more questions that all young women should be asking themselves… not will a boy (or girl) like me if I wear a “call me” thong?

Then came the Jezebel piece that sort of tossed a grenade into this whole meme, pointing an accusatory finger at conservatives for co-opting feminist themes and at the feminists who may have been duped by it, or even been among the 40,000 who signed a petition to stop the line.

Victoria’s Secret is not “launching” an underwear line “for pre-teens.” Pink is a standalone Victoria’s Secret brand marketed at older teens and 20-somethings. “Bright Young Things” is the advertising tag-line the company gave to a Pink collection that hit stores in time for spring break. Spring break is a university vacation. It has nothing to do with pre-teen girls. …

Gerwing’s dog-whistling to conservative values couldn’t be more obvious. Social conservatives aren’t interested in fighting the objectification of women in advertising or the sexualization of young girls: they’re interested in the social control of women’s sexuality, plain and simple. They are not feminist allies. …

But the seed was planted. The notion that Victoria’s Secret was out there, and it was coming for Your Daughter was established. The media then took hold of the story. Many outlets repeated the untrue assertion that the company was actually launching a line “targeting” tweens. Others merely devoted valuable column inches to far-right rhetoric about the need to protect the “innocence” of “our” girls (it’s always “our” girls, because while boys know they belong only to themselves, girls are raised from birth in a society that tells them their bodies are never fully their own) from the potential harm of their own sexuality

So there it is. Victoria’s Secret is not coming for the tweens, the girls, or their virginity (because that’s the implied fear, right?). The uproar about what amounts to a retail marketing campaign is, either wholly manufactured or (less likely) a gross misunderstanding of the facts. I am led to believe that these “angry moms” are not the angry moms I am looking for.

But there’s something unsatisfying about tying this up in such a neat little — haha, you’ve been suckered — package. I’ve been working within the feminist movement for more than 20 years. I have a minor in Women’s Studies. And, yeah, I’m a parent. So, was I really that off-base to find a thread of empathy with the words of a Protestant pastor and father? (I didn’t even read or know about Gerwig’s piece until I was researching this post.)

I must cop to bristling at Jezebel writer Jenna Sauers’ accusatory tone. Because the open message of her piece is to question the bona fides of any feminist who agreed with any part of Dolive’s post. Yes, Gerwig’s alarmist piece is base pandering to folks I have little (if anything) in common with. But I can’t simply write off Dolive’s more reasonable defense of the innocence of childhood and a need to dismantle the damaging messages girls (and boys) receive. He might not have gotten it completely right — in a feminist sense — but as my daughter nears her third birthday, I find myself worrying about the many ways that social messaging tries to rob kids (of all genders and gender identities) of their right to a childhood without sexualization, without problematic body image campaigns, without forcing the issues of sex and sexuality before their time.

Before you get the pitchforks and torches, hear me out. I disagree whole-heartedly with the idea that “our girls” must be protected by the “natural” predatory instincts of boys. I disagree with labeling teens (of any gender) who have sex or express interest in sex as whores, sluts, or in any way wrong. I disagree with fretting that girls are not virginal, or the phallacy of a rape culture system of oppression that says there are “good” girls and “bad” girls. Full stop. I’m against all that shit.

But those problems are not the only problems I see with a lingerie line — in this case imagined — that on its face flirts with a hyper-sexualized view of girlhood, femininity, or gender identities that conform to a “weaker sex” model. As a survivor of sexual abuse, I was introduced to sex acts and sexualization well before my mind and body were developmentally ready for it. I think there is something right about protecting children from that and that has nothing to do with being feminist or anti-feminist. It has nothing to do with being religious or atheist. It has nothing to do with upholding sexist views about gender roles. What I’m talking about is a true form of, well, protecting the children. As a survivor, I have a problem with clothing, products, and marketing campaigns designed to rob kids — and by kids I mean people who are pre-pubescent — of actual childhood innocence, fun, and joy. (And, by the way, I do not agree with using this kind of argument as a way to fight against comprehensive sex education. There is a difference between medically accurate, age-appropriate education and retailers trying to sell sex to five-year-olds.)

If you want to revoke my feminist card for saying that, go ahead.

So, yeah, I take umbrage to the tone Jezebel takes. I’m glad they are dismantling the troubling, anti-feminist elements of this meme. Gerwig’s ideas seem like true anti-feminist troll-think. But I am disappointed at the limited view Sauers takes on the totality of the subject. Gerwig’s alarmist article was designed to stir up a conservative base that is more interested in maintaining the status quo of misogyny and rape culture, without a doubt. But there is an opportunity for a much broader discussion here. How do we raise feminist kids and still do an appropriate amount of watch-dogging of media and messaging that are actually harmful? Where’s the line? Is it underwear marketed to teens? Is it Disney movies that propagate the gender binary and covert racist and homophobic messaging? Is it photoshopped ads and magazine covers? Where is that line?

Because the real discussion that we could be having is about what can we do to be feminist parents and help parents participate in feminism. Sure, there are obvious signs. Purity balls and virginity pledges are obvious tools of misogyny. But is a parent’s worry about hyper-sexualized clothing automatically anti-feminist? I think that line is a lot grayer than some of the folks in this debate are willing to admit. And rather than castigating parents for their worry, how about we give them a hand by offering some help? How about we help parents in how they frame the discussion about things like the not-actually-real Bright Young Things campaign?

Because I think the last thing parents — feminist or not — need is one more group of people judging them for worrying about their kids. The last thing I need is one more person, group, or media outlet telling me I’m doing it wrong.

Photo credit: jm3 via Creative Commons

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

The horrific and preventable death of Savita Halappanavar due to septicemia from a miscarriage at Galway University Hospital in Ireland made me once again shake my head in appalling astonishment. Why didn’t licensed health professionals provide Savita an emergency abortion as she requested? The tone deaf response continues to ring in my ears:  “Ireland is a Catholic country”

The early lessons from childhood can be difficult to unlearn. I was raised in a Roman Catholic household and learned from a young age that men, irrespective if they actually have the skill set, are leaders. Men lead the church, men lead the community, and men lead the family. Only men have direct line to god. Catholics confess their sins to a male priest, who then through his connection with the divine, can dole out the appropriate penance. Women exist to serve.  This outdated worldview came into direct conflict with women’s continued inclusion and influence in the social, economic, and political mainstream. As a response the Women’s Ordination Conference (WOC) was founded in 1975 to ordain women as priests, deacons and bishops into an inclusive and accountable Catholic church. The long-term goals of the WOC are heady:

Renew church governance to be inclusive, accountable and transparent;
Bring about justice and equality for Catholic women; and
Incorporate women-centered theologies into every-day Catholicism.

I abandoned Roman Catholic teachings as a teen and never looked back. Let’s just say I found Catholic doctrine limiting and leave it at that. Indeed, I don’t identify with any religious or spiritual group. I also do not care much for atheist, agnostic, or other humanist communities. If I had my way, I’d never want to talk about spirituality, believers, non-believers or anything connected to faith or the divine ever again.

Until now.

Abortion laws in Ireland need to be updated. No doubt. But laws are not enough. In the United States abortion rights have been curtailed to a level that Roe v. Wade is effectively meaningless for poor and working class American women attempting to access the services.

The law changed almost 40 years ago but our society’s thinking and feeling hasn’t. We need to change the how spirit of the law is interpreted so that the letter of the law can be carried out effectively. And one way to do that is to support women’s ordination. Catholic women need to be seen as moral thought leaders. Catholic girls and boys should learn that women can lead and are moral agents and experts of their own lives.

In Jodi Jacobson’s recent on-point post addressing conception and what it all means, her line “The issue of ‘personhood’  is a theological and personal rather than medical or scientific question” really gets to the crux of this matter. Imagine a world where female Catholic bishops and priests have a seat at the table and are looked to for leadership and as experts in attempting to answer that question. Imagine a world where women priests and bishops had a hand in editing the next encyclical letter on Humane Vitae.

Being seen as a leader, being taught that women can lead is powerful, make no mistake. It’s one reason why the Catholic hierarchy is dead-set against allowing women anywhere near the altar. But the Catholic Church is also a political construct. Vatican II happened. It was real and it changed the hierarchy just enough to allow it to survive and remain relevant in the 20^th century.

Roman Catholicism is one of the largest transnational religions in the world. What happened to Savita has been and will continue to repeat its tragic outcomes in countries in every part of the globe where Catholicism is practiced.  Catholic women’s ordination is a necessary part, though not a silver bullet, to help to create a culture where women’s lives have meaning outside of being an auxiliary to men. And to be clear, I don’t think that all women clergy would be social justice warriors. I’m sure a Sarah Palinesque priest or three would get access to the pulpit as well.

I’m an empiricist. I accept and deny assertions based on provable facts. I do not believe that pregnancy and childbirth are miracles. To me, both are pretty mundane—we know the mechanics, we simply refuse to fully teach accurate sexual health information. I also accept that so long as there are questions unanswerable to humans, religion is one way that some people choose to fill in the gaps of knowledge. Women are needed as priests and bishops in the Catholic Church. When Catholic women are recognized and accepted by the Catholic Church as leaders all women and men will benefit.

Image credit joltgen via the Creative Commons License.

50 years ago, women attending college wasn’t nearly as commonplace as it is these days.  And if they did, nine times out of ten it was only for them to get their “MRS” degree. For those of you unfamiliar with this degree plan, it’s when a woman goes to college not to pursue any educational pursuits or ambitions, but to find a man actively pursuing his, marry him and then proceed to live out her days as a devoted wife and mother.

Before I go any further, I want to stress that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing this if it’s really what your heart desires.  Some people long to do nothing more and nothing less than raise a family—and that’s nothing to scoff at.  Parenting is the toughest gig in the world. You’re in complete control of another human’s existence, and you don’t get to take a vacation from it.  If that’s not overwhelming then I don’t know what is.

Opting to be a homemaker because your husband and others around you deem his professional endeavors more worthwhile than yours is where we start to have problems.  The “MRS” system implied that things HAD to be a certain way. The woman was supposed to give up her hopes and dreams to find a man because God forbid she end up alone and possibly INDEPENDENT…OH MY! Luckily for me and future generations of free-thinking women everywhere the times have changed.

At colleges across the globe women are studying everything from aerospace engineering to elementary education. Our interests and talents are far and wide and our involvement on university campuses reflects that.

More women than ever before are enrolled in school and pursuing higher education, and not only that, they are said to be outnumbering their male counterparts. According to the U.S. Department of Education 12.1 million women were enrolled in a degree-granting institution compared to just 9.1 million men. Compare that to statistics from 1970, which showed male, female enrollment at 5 million and 3.5 million, respectively.

Talk about changing tides. Data also revealed that women are gaining ground in traditionally male-dominated fields such as business and math-based disciplines.  So, not only are they getting at home on campus, girls are branching out of their traditional comfort zones, likely in an attempt to remain competitive in this fierce economy.

Another way women are striving to stay employable is by gaining not only bachelor’s but masters and doctorate degrees as well.  In the last few years, statistics have shown that women have consistently earned the majority of masters and doctorate degrees. That’s an impressive accomplishment when you look at where they were just 30 years prior.

However, amidst all of this progress, there is still one area where women have yet to surpass men, and that is in the realm of equal compensation.  A year out of college, women are said to be earning 80 percent less than their male counterparts. Some say it’s partially because of the tendency for women to go for professions that historically pay less, but analysts says that’s not enough to account for the immense pay gap.

News like this is nothing but discouraging. What does this teach the present and future generations of women? That their work and effort is not valued? That they still need a “man” to succeed and thrive? Whatever the cause, we can all agree it’s sending a conflicting message to our planet’s female population—both young and old.

Women and men alike need to unite and stand for equality together, because until someone stands up to the broken system, what hope do we have of it changing?

Maria Rainier is a freelance blogger and writer for several educational websites and regularly updates an online degrees blog. Maria believes that online degrees and online universities are the future of higher learning. She is interested in all things concerned with higher education and is particularly passionate about life after college. Please share your comments with her.

Photo credit NazarethCollege via the Creative Commons License.

This post is originally published on The Opinioness of the World.  It is cross-posted with permission.

Even if you don’t watch trashy reality TV, you probably know socialite Taylor Armstrong, from Bravo’s Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (RHOBH), survived domestic violence.  RHOBH has aired episodes involving an intervention with Taylor about her abusive marriage.

I cringe at the thought of people knowing I watch the Real Housewives. But sadly, I do. Call it feminist research. Or a guilty pleasure. Feminist media critic Jenn Pozner, in her groundbreaking book Reality Bites Back, argues the detriments of reality TV for its horrifically negative portrayal of women. Many of us might brush it off as a harmless indulgence. But we should question what we’re watching.

Now, I normally wouldn’t even mention the Real Housewives except to deride it for its horrifying message to women about materialism and cattiness. But watching as a domestic violence survivor, I noticed some things that other people might not pick up on. Who says you can’t learn something from watching TV?? Whether or not you saw the show, it raised some common misconceptions about domestic violence that I want to dispel.

Domestic Violence Myths:

1. Only poor people suffer domestic violence. Now, I hope to god people realize this isn’t true. But I have a sneaking suspicion that many people still believe this pervasive myth. Domestic violence doesn’t know income, class or socio-economic status. The only reason why it might appear that rich people don’t face abuse is that they often have the money to afford staying at a hotel if they leave their abusive spouse. Those without disposable income might stay at a domestic violence shelter or turn to law enforcement to intercede. Being rich doesn’t inoculate you from domestic violence. In the U.S., one in four women will face domestic violence in her lifetime. Domestic violence is an insidious crisis that affects us all.

2. If you can’t see bruises or cuts, there isn’t abuse. On RHOBH, Camille Grammer told Taylor she’s confused as to whether or not she’s telling the truth about her abusive marriage (getting hit, having her jaw broken) since she has no bruises or cuts (and stays in her marriage…but we’ll get to that myth in a moment). Physical abuse might not be apparent for a couple of reasons. Some sneaky abusers won’t mark your face to conceal abuse from the outside world. Abusers might punch you in the stomach or crack your ribs. Abuse also escalates. What starts off as pushing or shoving can advance to slapping and then punching. But abuse isn’t just physical. Even if no visible signs of abuse exist, violent threats and intimidation constitute abuse too. Abuse can be emotional or psychological. Abusers can control your finances, not allow you to see your friends or family, tell you you’re fat, ugly or worthless. You should never doubt someone when they confide in you about their abuse.

3. The abuser is SO nice, calm, mellow, _________, s/he can’t possibly be an abuser. On RHOBH, Adrienne Maloof’s husband said he just couldn’t believe Taylor’s husband abuses her. He’s too nice and calm. Appearances can deceive. Just because someone seems nice or shy, doesn’t mean they aren’t a total douchebag behind closed doors. Facing domestic violence is a horrific experience. We must take domestic violence claims seriously; people do not bring violence on themselves. Abusers are the ones to blame, not the survivors.

4. If someone says they’re abused, they would never stay with their spouse or significant other. If they do, they must be lying. The women on RHOBH can’t seem to wrap their heads around why Taylor (or anyone for that matter) would stay in her marriage if it’s abusive. If abuse happens once, why stay? Many people just don’t understand. A violent relationship often exists in a cycle. Things may go well for a while. Then you bicker, arguing turns into fighting, and that’s when physical violence may occur. Next comes the “hearts and flowers” phase (which Faye Resnick points out on RHOBH). The abusive partner apologizes, professes their love and swears they will never hit again. Then the survivor thinks, “oh they didn’t really mean it” or “they were stressed.” The abuser goes out of their way to make amends. Then the cycle begins again.

Many women stay in abusive relationships because they love their partner and truly believe things will change. Others desperately want to leave but can’t as they’re bound by fiscal chains, worried they have nowhere to go and no way to support themselves. Or their partner threatens them by taking away their kids. Or withholds their passport and reporting them to the authorities if they’re an undocumented immigrant. Others stay for they don’t want anyone to know their dark shameful secret. We shouldn’t assume someone’s lying when they say they’ve been abused. We never know what goes on behind closed doors; we never know the private pain someone faces.

5. If I reason with a person in a domestic violence situation, logic will spur them to leave their abusive relationship. Ahhh, it’s so easy, just leave! I know that’s what many people think. What people who aren’t domestic violence survivors don’t realize is that it’s not that simple. When you’re being abused, you feel as if you’re losing your mind. You question every choice you make, every word you say. You often blame yourself, thinking you could have done something different or that somehow you provoked it. “Logic” often doesn’t work here. If you happen to know someone in an abusive relationship, as much as you want to, you can’t make them leave. As hard and as frustrating as it is, they must leave when they are ready. What you can do is provide them with love, encouragement and support. And let them know that love should never hurt. Ever.

If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic violence, please call Safelink at (877) 785-2020.  It’s multilingual, free and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Photo credit USAG-Humphreys via the Creative Commons License. 

Last week a Taliban hit squad in Pakistan targeted and shot Malala Yousafzai, a 14-year-old who was fighting for the right of girls to be educated. I cried at the inhumanity on and off all day when I heard. Maybe she should have just dressed the part and saved her life. I’m not being flip. I wish with all my heart that she didn’t have to be shot in the head to become a “global icon” for the plight of girls. But the plight of girls is the plight of the world. That’s what people need to come to terms with.

What would you think when I say that if a country dedicates itself to reducing its rates of violence against girls and women it also lowers its propensity for engaging in military conflict? What if rape and domestic violence and all these “women’s issues” and “social issues” are integrally part of “manly” “national security” ones?

This is common sense, but apparently that’s irrelevant. Which is why I am so glad that now it’s also legitimately documented in a quiet but powerfully provocative book, Sex and World Peace. Why the authors’ findings should be provocative is beyond me but I am glad they are finally being talked about.

If you take one idea away from the year 2012 this should be this: “The very best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is not its level of wealth, its level of democracy, or its ethno-religious identity; the best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is how well its women are treated. What’s more, democracies with higher levels of violence against women are as unstable and insecure as non democracies.”   It turns out that the security of girls and women – how safe they are in their homes, in their schools, on their streets,  is the measure of the security of the states in which they live. In very few countries do we have a clear and culturally evident equality in the equal value of boys and girls and in very few states are girls secure.

Consider the simplest fact that everywhere, when you want to humiliate a boy or a “real man” you accuse him of being a “girl.” If the U.S., if he’s a rookie football player, you give him a little girl’s backpack to show him his “place;” if he’s an Iraqi prisoner, you make him wear girls’ underwear to demonstrate your complete power over his body. In Afghanistan, cross-dressed dancing boys are “invisible victims” of rape. It’s a shaming tool and a cheap weapon. If you’re a boy — you understand your intrinsic superior value. If you’re a girl or a woman it’s a slap in the face every time you see it or hear it. Most of us brush it off and go about our business. But it wears away in your brain nonetheless. How can it not? It really is everywhere a subtle, backhanded reminder that your way of being is a way to denigrate and insult others.

The linguistic and actual subjugation of girls is a ubiquitous cultural meme that feeds a real and deadly harm. And, it turns out, has everything to do with war. I imagine however that most people aren’t considering what all of this has to do with our likelihood of going to war. Some of our political leaders certainly haven’t.

By now, you might know that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the U.S.  But, domestic violence is one aspect of multi-dimensional assaults that one in three women in the world experience every day: street harassment, rape, child marriage, female infanticide, spousal murder and more. Borders and nationality are irrelevant in the big picture of the epidemiology of this violence.  Any careful consumption of news reveals a daily litany of horrors — France, Eygpt, Afghanistan, the U.S., South Africa, India, Congo, Brazil, Morocco, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Syria, the U.S. again.  Everything from small indignities to big ones, from public executions to private ones. You get the point. One-third of all women is more than one billion women. It’s why you should rise up on Feb. 14, 2013, in support of Eve Ensler’s V-Day #onebillionrising movement. When the word “women” isn’t even mentioned in a U.S. presidential debate on “domestic policy,” you know we’re in trouble. Imaging that anyone with power is going to talk about “girls” in the context of international security and diplomacy is laughable. But, that doesn’t make it right.

Sex and World Peace was written by Valerie M. Hudson, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill, Mary Caprioli, and Chad F. Emmett. Their findings are derived from more than 10 years of study. During this time, this group of multi-disciplinary researchers created the Womanstats Project and Database, the most comprehensive aggregation of data regarding the status of girls and women in the world. The database, which contains more than 130,000 datapoints, includes more than 375 variables for 175 countries, all of which have populations of at least 200,000 people.

The authors analyzed a broad spectrum of behaviors to rank women’s status. They looked at domestic violence, maternal mortality, rape, and women’s political participation, physical security and rated them on a scale of 0 (best) to 4 (worst). Not one nation rated a 0. The U.S., for women’s physical security, came in at 2 (the world average is 3.4).

In addition to granular empirical analysis, the authors mapped these data to illustrate the distribution of violence against women geographically and to graphically illustrate the scope of the issues. The maps are fascinating and can be found here. The authors acknowledge that, while empirically sound, substantive and certainly provocative, their findings are preliminary and further analysis, within the context of conventional explanations,must take place before they are considered authoritative.

What could possibly be at the root of these findings? Well, it is interesting to consider the idea that war is a function of how we treat people who we understand to be different from us. I wrote about this idea and book earlier this year for Women Under Siege. This independent project, directed by Lauren Wolfe, documents how rape and other forms of sexualized violence have been and continue to be used as tools in genocide and conflict. Their most recent study charts the use of rape as a tool of terror in Syria. In that piece, I explained that idea, of difference, this way:

Gender is the fundamental construct for how a society understands difference, it is the first identifier at birth, for example. Regardless of which state we are talking about, tolerance for domestic violence, street harassment, rape and restrictions on women’s reproductive freedoms are among several indicators of gender inequality rooted in such difference. These behaviors correlate to state security in multiple dimensions. In the simplest terms, states in which women are subjected to violence and uncontested male rule at home, where they are not allowed equal freedoms and rights to bodily integrity, privacy, and equal protection under the law, are those most likely to engage in violence as nations, the authors report.

I understand that there are many other intersectional factors that make up “difference” and how we define what is “other” in culture, e.g. race, class, sexual identity, religion and am in no way dismissing their major influences and indivisibilities– but, as Shirley Chisholm said, “The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: It’s a girl.” The exact same thing happens to boys — only with a radically polarized set of stereotypes. The first and most profound difference, globally, remains gender.

Please think hard about what this means. Then talk about it! Then share it! Blog, Tumble, tweet, “like,” whatever. It’s a big idea with daily relevance and real and powerful consequences: Microaggression against girls and women in private, in neighborhoods, in communities is integrally connected to macroaggressive national behavior. The greater the polarization of gender in a household, the higher tolerance there is for violence and oppression and the greater the violence experienced by women and girls in those households the greater the likelihood of militarization and national violence.

All over the world, societies are experiencing cultural and political backlash against 50 years of dissolving gender polarity. Our presidential election is providing two very stark options from this perspective. For the first time in decades, the Republican Party continues its evisceration of the Violence Against Women Act, while simultaneously and repeatedly making rape apologist statements and enacting violence through legislation. This party proudly embraces a traditional, conservative, primacy of the father, “privacy of the family” worldview. It is also no coincidence that the Republican Party is also mightily invested in the idea of a strong military. Men are men. Women are women. Men are violent. Women aren’t. Conservative men and women both hold this view. Regardless of nation, women’s inequality is maintained most effectively through adherence to this very complementary, gender hierarchical world view. The family is where girls and women, and boys, are most often isolated and victimized. On the other hand, the Democratic Party, does not. That party at least more actively seeks to find ways for women to live strong, independent lives, free from violence and to allow men and women to define for themselves the nature of their families.

What we do in this country has implications for everyone. This is why I want to cry or shake someone (gasp, a woman with a violent thought!) when opinion writers like Kathleen Parker write sentences such as, “How about we ditch the gender nonsense and declare this the year of the American?” When you consider the perpetuation and tolerance for this type of culture as a result of Republican obstructionism and “fiscal” conservativism it’s simply shameful. A willful, self-serving blindness, provincial in its considerations.

It goes without saying, although I am saying it, that boys and men are oppressed and hurt by violence as well. In some parts of the world, their masculinity is perverted so that there is barely any humanity left. Boys are held to destructive standards of masculinity that not only perpetuate violence but also mean that when boys are preyed upon, sexually especially, a debilitating faux-ignorance and deafening silence has been the cultural response. There are healthy masculinity alternatives to what Gloria Steinem so accurately described as a “cult of masculinity.” How else do you describe a culture that makes a man kill his three daughters by putting a poisonous snake in their bed because he finally has a son? Or gives rapists, rape being just “another method of conception,” rights of custody?

But the fact that violence is essential to patriarchal culture doesn’t mean this is the only way we can exist. And, I know, war is not going anywhere anytime soon. But, it’s far easier to decide to treat little boys and girls equally in a home than to say we will stop fighting wars because they are evil. I just don’t understand why as a society, we wouldn’t eliminate, and as systematically as possible, the violence that girls and women face every day. If in a few generations we find a more peaceful world, then what’s the harm?

Photo credit Kaz Andrew via the Creative Commons License.

The first International Day of the Girl has come and gone and I’m very excited that international agencies, non-governmental organizations, governments, and community leaders are yelling from the rooftops that girls can and are changing the world. As a former girl myself, I totally agree! There’s an old saying ‘when you educate a girl, you educate a family.’ It seems self-explanatory, right? Women are overwhelmingly likely to be the first educators to their own children. And indeed, the empirical evidence shows there is a direct correlation to the educational attainment of women and a nation’s improved gross domestic product (GDP) as well as a host of other improved social and health outcomes.

But don’t take my word for it. Consider these tangible benefits from girl-child education:

• Greater participation in the work force and increased family incomes: for each additional year a girl is in school, her wages as an adult rise by approximately 15 percent.
• Greater chance that their own children will be educated: children whose mothers have no education are more than twice as likely to be out of school as children whose mothers have some education.
• Girl education is linked to higher productivity; higher returns to investment; higher agricultural yields; and an improved demographic structure. The economic growth that results from higher education supports continued investments in education and extends the gains to human capital and productivity. The impact is felt not only in women’s lifetimes, but also in the health, education and productivity of future generations.
• Girls with higher levels of schooling are less likely to marry as children. In Mozambique, some 60 percent of girls with no education are married by 18, compared to 10 percent of girls with secondary schooling and less than one percent of girls with higher education.
• Educating adolescent girls has been a critical factor in increasing the age of marriage in a number of developing countries, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Thailand.
• Improved family planning.
• Lower infant mortality: every day over 2,700 children under the age of five will die needlessly because their mothers were denied an education earlier in life.
• Fewer maternal deaths in childbirth.
• Lower HIV/AIDS infection rates: rates are doubled among young people who do not finish primary school.

Girls have an inalienable right to education. Education is better for them, and it’s better for our world. Girls’ education contributes to economic growth; educated mothers increase human capital through their influence on the health, education and nutrition of their children; education improves a family’s economic prospects by improving women’s qualifications and skills; and education improves reproductive health.

Why then are only 30% of girls worldwide in secondary school? There are many reason, including child marriage, school fees that are too high, and the sexist belief that girls do not need an education in the same way that boys do.

Ingrained sexism held up by the columns of tradition and culture will be the hardest to overcome. I’m excited that he Ford Foundation will spend 25 million dollars over the next five years focusing on reducing child marriage rates in Nigeria, Egypt, India and Central America, working with local nonprofits and civic leaders in those countries.

But how do we, long term, change the hearts and minds of people about the common humanity of girls and women?  I think one of the reasons that girl-child education is not given the weight it deserves, besides taking on deep-rooted cultural beliefs and traditions, is because girls grow up to be women. And too many societies, including our own, are invested in limiting the voice and power of women.

The evidence is clear but the political will is still slow to muster.

The path to sustained growth and strong emerging economy is tied directly to the education of girls. Sarah Moore Grimke the 19^th century American abolitionist and women’s right’s activist famously wrote, “All I ask of our brethren is, that they will take their feet from off our necks and permit us to stand upright on that ground which God destined us to occupy.”

It’s well past time to lift the burdens of tradition and culture off of girls so they can help us be the change we need.

Photo credit DFID-UK for International Development via the Creative Commons License.