Anger is a very interesting emotion. I feel that many social movements have been formed based on anger. And outrage. And righteous indignation. In one regard, if you take a look at the current state of the world today, how can you not become angry? Looking at the rampant injustice and inequality that characterize the institutions and processes that lie at the core of our society and the sheer number of people that suffer as a result, it’s no wonder anger begins to bubble up inside. And sadness. And a general loss of faith in the inherent nobility of human beings.

Yet at the same time I can’t help but wonder whether acting for the betterment of the world, for the equality of women and men, out of anger is really sustainable. I don’t think anyone can be in a state of anger for very long, its damaging to your mental and physical health. It sort of flairs up and then inevitably dies down. Also when you’re taking action on the basis of anger, you’re really reacting to an incident rather than actively pursuing something for its own sake. You’re angry that some injustice is being perpetrated so you are reacting to it by trying to work for change rather than being an active protagonist that works for sustainable change even without some trigger.

Also I think you would be working for the advancement of civilization from a misconception of human nature. If you’re angry it’s because you’ve been hurt, because you’re disillusioned, because you’re fed up – all manifestations of being disappointed in your fellow human beings. But how can you really work for the betterment of the world when you don’t actually trust in the capacity of individuals to be better? If you aren’t looking at others as your equal, your partner, your fellow builder of a world civilization? Because I think if you looked at people like that, then you would inevitably be looking at people with love. And this love is the place from which you would be working towards equality and justice.

I think love is often underestimated and underemphasized and deemed inappropriate for the public sphere. Its power is limited, misplaced and misrepresented.

Love is a light that guides us through darkness and what greater darkness is there than the forces of inequality and disunity that are so pervasive in our society right now? Love connects us one to another and allows us to recognize the oneness of mankind and recognize that our individual fulfillment and happiness lies in the welfare and happiness of others. And if we recognize that, the interconnection that exists between us, then we will inevitably continue on our path towards equality, undeterred and unshakable, until we reach our desired end goal.

The issue of gender equality is inherently an issue of justice and I think the following quote on justice pretty much encapsulates what I said above. “[Justice] is not obtained by righteous indignation and loud demands made from a distance on behalf of the oppressed when one is cushioned by the comforts of privileged circumstances. It is promoted, instead, by patience and long suffering, through consistent action and loving education. One endures injustice in the process of building justice.”

I should clarify that I don’t mean to say that when unjust things happen, we can’t be angry about it. But to attempt to try and create change in patterns of thought and behavior by having anger at the core of our motivation is greatly limiting. I would even say it’s debilitating. So when we work for the equality of women and men I think we need to get a lot more loving, both men and women. I think we should constantly be reflecting on our motivations for working for change. And we have to recognize that what we’re working towards, the establishment of gender equality, is a process. This by no means has to curb our intensity but it should make us more focused, less superficial and more thorough. Because on the days when you get fed up, disillusioned, tired and angry, it’s the love, for each other and for the end goal, that makes us persevere.

Because all these situations have made me wonder why is there no sense of female sisterhood, no sense of women speaking up for other women? Where is all the conflict and contention coming from? Recently, in an interview with the Observer, Gloria Steinem explained her thoughts on why people so often complain that groups of women can be catty, “do women compete for the favors of men? Yes. They’ve spent 5,000 years competing. It [competition] is true of any subordinated group. But once you get a sense of possibilities and shared experience, it becomes the most powerful community. I see a form of it when I travel. I’ll be walking through an airport, say, and my plane will be four hours late, and a woman cleaner will say: ‘Here, take these magazines I’ve collected’, or: ‘When I’m tired, I sleep in the closet over there. Would you like to use it?’ It’s the same with the flight attendants. It’s a floating community.”

So it seems that women, just as other oppressed groups, often perpetuate the same prejudicial thoughts or behavior that they’ve experienced in a way to separate themselves from the oppressed group and be accepted as part of the positive majority. Competition is formed in order to be ingratiated to those in positions of power or those seen as possessing positive characteristics. And yet, Steinem explains, when an opportunity is created for the sharing of experiences, a sense of community emerges. A sense of sisterhood, if you will.

I admit, I’ve had my own problems with the notion of sisterhood. It always seemed like this sense of camaraderie between women was based upon some opposition to men (granted that was probably a very ill conceived notion of sisterhood but it’s the one I understood). But in thinking about it now this sense of sisterhood is important in that it should lead us to a greater sense of community, which in turn leads us to a better understanding of the oneness of humanity as a whole. It might just be a first step. If women can see other women as more than just these characteristics assigned to them by culture and tradition then we can use this same outlook towards men.

And why sisterhood and not brotherhood?

Well brotherhood is probably also important but I think it goes back to the idea of an oppressed community. In instances of oppression, it’s true that both the “oppressed” as well as the “oppressor” need time and space in which to reflect on the forces that are acting on them and causing them to behave in such a manner. I think men also need space to reflect on where they are getting understandings of manhood from.

But in response to this pattern of behavior, of underestimating and insulting women, so endemic to our culture and perpetuated by both men and women, and by social structures and institutions, lets promote this idea of sisterhood (men can promote it too!). Let’s promote this idea that groups of women as well as individual women aren’t dramatic, catty, manipulative gossips. They are human beings endowed with the capacity to love, reason, understand, acquire knowledge and serve their community. Let’s move beyond stereotypical tropes that have been perpetuated and supported by years of subjugation, lets question cultural norms of thought and behavior, and let’s support each other in the process, as we move towards an understanding of the oneness of humanity.

I was at a dinner the other day and for a time much of the attention was focused around this young child, who was sweetly interacting with one of the other dinner guests. Some of the other guests were commenting to each other about how cute this young boy was, and he really was, and cooing about the way he was dressed and the way he was interacting with the other guest. Then a comment from one of the side conversations caught my attention. “I really want to have all boys, girls are just too much drama”, I overheard one of my friends say. The others around her nodded and spoke up in agreement, interjecting their own brief statements of why boys were preferable to girls. Boys were easy to dress, girls wouldn’t let their moms dress them, boys are more easy going, girls are high maintenance – basically boys > girls.

As I sat there listening to some people I consider to be pretty amazing women, who would raise terrific women themselves, I couldn’t help but wonder, where were they getting these idea from? And why was everyone so readily agreeing? Did no one think this mass generalization of boys and girls was a bit of an oversimplification of reality? Not every social situation lends itself to serious conversation about the forces that are acting upon us and causing us to accept certain beliefs as fact so I figured this was perhaps not the time in which to bring up the questions above.

This conversation actually reminded me of an article that I think has been going around from Yashar Ali, published on the Huffington Post a few days ago. In it, Ali explains how women have been constantly portrayed as emotional, hyper-sensitive and generally crazy that it impacts not only how men view and treat women but also how women view themselves. His depiction of men interacting with women under this assumption was interesting but more interesting to me was how he was describing women who bought into this idea. He describes an encounter he had with a flight attendant in which he explained that he mainly wrote about women, which caused the flight attendant to respond, “oh, about how crazy we are?”

Much like Ali, her reaction makes me rather depressed. There is very little chance of achieving gender equality, so crucial for the advancement of civilization as a whole, if women themselves hold misconceptions about women. When I was studying ISGP’s document on the equality of women and men in Uganda, one of the women we studied the document with said that before we want to talk about how we can stop men from oppressing women, we have to deal with women oppressing women. She was right. The task of overlooking stereotypes and recognizing someone’s true identity doesn’t lie just with men interacting with women but also with women interaction with women (and men interacting with men for that matter). Essentially, you teach people how to treat you and if women can’t even support other women, why would men support women? Somehow when women can make callous and careless statements about other women it makes you realize we still have a long way to go.    

I’ve asked people to contribute to this blog and write about how they try and engender equality in their own lives and a lot have said that they don’t really think they are actively contributing so they don’t have much to write about. Honestly though, if one person in that room would’ve said something, not in a confrontation way, but in a way to invite reflection, that would’ve been engendering equality. We should all take time to reflect and thus become more aware of what is influencing our understanding of gender and relationships between men and women. I think any contribution to equality between women and men requires honest reflection and the realization that our actions and our beliefs are not always perfectly synced, as well as the commitment to achieve that coherence between the two.

The three ladies who won the Nobel Peace Prize at the end of last week definitely fall into that tough lady category. Firstly, there is Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, current president of Liberia, first female president in all of Africa, nicknamed the “Iron Lady.” She shares the award with her compatriot, Leywah Gbowee, founder and executive director of Women Peace and Security Network-Africa, who fought to bring an end to the civil war in Liberia, which is the focus of the documentary, “Pray the Devil Back to Hell”. And finally Tawakkul Kamran, the youngest of the three, currently one of the leading activists fighting to bring peace and democracy to Yemen, has been arrested several times and received numerous death threats.

In one of the articles I was reading about these Nobel Prize winners, the author was lamenting the fact that women’s issues are still considered separate issues to be highlighted and defined as its own category. It is funny that women’s issues are considered a special interest when women are actually the majority of the population. But I find myself turning to cynicism sometimes when I read the news so I don’t want to be cynical about this. At the same time though it’s a point worth mentioning because it should help us remember that women’s issues don’t exist in a vacuum. When President Sirleaf promotes mandatory primary education for all Liberians, she does it to help ensure that young girls get to receive an education but she also recognizes that promoting the interests of young girls is not a standalone issue, that she has to be a promoter of education so that these girls (and boys) can help create a better future for themselves and for their country. When Leywah Gbowee mobilized Liberian women to fight to bring about the end of the war in her country she knew that the end of war would ensure peace for of all of Liberia’s people. When Tawakkul Karman protests on the streets of Yemen she does so knowing that her rights are intrinsically tied to that of all Yemenites.

I don’t mean to downplay what these women have accomplished in the field of the advancement of women by discussing the impact their courage has had on more than just women. But the point is that working on women’s issues is working on everyone’s issues. These Nobel Prize winners know that in their push for women’s rights, they are working for the advancement of whole communities, whole countries. That’s the reason why they dedicated their wins to all their people, both men and women, of Liberia and Yemen.

Upon handing out the prize to these three women, the Nobel committee explained, “we cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.” Actually, I’d go a little further, because I don’t just think achieving the same opportunities as men is exactly the end goal these women are working towards. They aren’t working towards creating spaces alongside men in broken institutions; they’re demanding new institutions and social practices that ensure the prosperity of all. That’s why they are undercutting the status quo. And that’s what being a tough lady is all about, after all.

Miss Representation explores the media’s portrayal of women. It talks about how the media’s representation of woman as sex objects and possessions of men has detrimental effects on both young girls and boys. It focuses on the role media has in shaping the way we perceive ourselves and the expectations that are placed upon us. The trailer is eight minutes and includes some interesting points.

The trailer made me think of a conversation I had with two friends a few days ago. One of my friends was discussing how men are negatively impacted by the media because it skews their standards of beauty. They develop unrealistic expectations of beauty and this impacts how they seek relationships. Honestly I had never really thought about that before and my initial reaction was a bit unsympathetic, as in, “oh no, poor boys are disappointed because they only want girls who look like models they see in magazines and they don’t actually exist, boo hoo.” But in addition to being a bit condescending, this understanding of how media impacts boys is highly superficial. Even if you just focus on this aspect of beauty standards, having an unrealistic standard of beauty is detrimental. Boys can end up forsaking certain friendships and missing opportunities for real long term relationships because of this, which in turn impacts their development. This might sound like a little thing but as my friend sat across from me and explained how guys have told her, this clearly beautiful human being both inside and out (seriously, she fits neatly into conventional standards of beauty), that they just weren’t attracted to her, that she wasn’t pretty enough, I sat there feeling sorry for any guy who missed out on the opportunity to spend time with this woman. Any guy who knowingly walked away from her clearly had some negative forces acting on his understanding of beauty.

There are other aspects of the media’s portrayal of gender norms that can have negative impacts on boys. Media hypes up a certain idea of masculinity and imposes it on these young boys, fostering a culture of ridicule and bullying for any boy who doesn’t succumb to these pressures.

And of course there is the impact had on young girls. They are bombarded with images of what they should look like, how they should act, what their value is – all reinforcing the idea that they aren’t good enough. It starts from a young age and follows women throughout their lives.

Likely, just as the trailer makes clear, we need more female leaders and more women in media. But we also need a better understanding of what our true value and nature because without that, we’re likely to continue to promote some of the same media messages just in different forms.

I just don’t understand the value of promoting this type of thinking. The author of the article The End of Men, which we’ve talked about here and caused a lot of controversy when it was released last year, was featured in Slate Magazine lately in order to discuss this issue and promote a debate that she will be having on this topic later this month. To remind us, Rosin explains that men are falling behind is the job market because they have failed to adapt to the more stereotypically feminine skill set that is become valuable in our postindustrial economy, skills such communication, empathy, social intelligence and consensus building. For Rosin, there has been a shift in society that is seeing women advancing and men falling behind. Now women have become the dominant gender.

This might be a slightly simplistic presentation of Rosin’s ideas but I’m less interested in the specifics of her arguments right now but rather the underlying assumptions she’s making about human behavior and human interaction. She is very much working within the framework of competition—that success looks a certain way and that there can only be a limited number of people who will be able to achieve this success. She’s not making a case on whether the end of men and the dominance of women is a good thing or a bad thing necessarily but just that it’s a fact; it’s the reality of our current economic order.

What I struggle to understand, however, is the value of engaging in this sort of conversation about interactions between men and women. What’s the conversation hoping to achieve? Why are we seeing these interactions as a zero sum game in which there are winners and losers? This thinking is premised in an understanding that there will always be those at the top and those are the bottom, that the success of one sector of society will necessarily come at the expense of the other. But that type of thinking has gotten us into the inherently competitive social reality in which we now exist. I think we’re all losers now, trapped in a reality that tells us that because of how we look, where we live, and what we do, we have act in a certain way.

Our understanding of our social reality should be advancing, should be building on itself and should recognize the inherent interconnectedness of the well being and welfare of all human beings that is an inescapable fact of reality. Yet continually working within frameworks and thinking that espousing competition and zero sum games doesn’t allow us to advance. It’s the same thinking that has shaped our social reality for years and has allowed for the perpetuation of the same broken systems and institutions which promote sexism, racism, classism, war and violence.

So I just have to ask, why?

I was introduced to the term describing the advancement of understanding and actions between men and women, “gender equality”, when I came in contact with the teachings of the Bahá’í Faith when I was nineteen years old. By that point, I had already absorbed much of the social hype regarding how a “man” and “woman” should behave and experienced its shortcomings. I had said, done and heard so much regarding so many less-than-favorable behaviors and postures, and found myself in front of a mirror. A mirror that wouldn’t be ignored or avoided when the term that had been nagging at my subconscious all these years found me. In the mirror I saw a hurt boy struggling to understand his place in the universe, and within the social spaces he traverses, and I often have to converse with him to get a better gander at what I’ve learned and have yet to learn. This conversation would always be incomplete without some of the major players in the social space: Pops, Moms, Lil Sis and My Peers.

Pops 

Pops grew up in a highly rigid atmosphere within Port-au-Prince, Haiti, as a son to a Priest. This environment had the strange blend of the fear of God and the guilt felt of ones’ own shortcomings. My grandfather wasn’t a monster, but had some very specific training about a woman’s “place” according to a particular Biblical interpretation, and many mixed messages were passed along to his children about what that “place” should look like. Within the household of 3 boys and a girl, maids would turn up pregnant from the men in the household, and new branches of my extended family thus formed. Pops, having internalized these values, went on to have many sexual exploits with women as a source of pleasure rather than a true partner in life to be valued as an equal. This pattern held through his meeting my mother at a club in Spain, where the natural attraction brought them together through dancing and partying. The perceived compatibility of this couple brought them to decide to get married because…that’s what you’re supposed to do eventually, right? 

Moms

Moms grew up the first of two children in an African-American family that valued education and the arts. She was raised by a music teacher who was driven to succeed in a world where there were very few people of color in prominent positions in society, and was determined to be one of them. Moms was brought into dance, singing and acting lessons, and many other artistic areas that would develop in her a sense of appreciation for the act of creation. Her younger brother was somewhat less inclined artistically, but was given preference in his education, and many stories could highlight how she came to feel less valued and subservient to the males around her who simply didn’t consider that her role in society could be as important as the man that she found to take care of her. As she grew up, her experiences with men developed a pattern of codependency and acquiescence to subservience which carried over into her meeting Pops.

They decided to get married and start a life together. Pops was in Medical school and Moms was studying education in Valencia, Spain, and came together in the US to pursue a path towards material prosperity. My father entered Chiropractic school, and my mother soon had a little Oak in her womb. During this time, Moms was contemplating spirituality for this little person growing within, and found a community to relate to with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The teachings that she internalized informed her that her life had to change, and change it did. This change seemed somewhat abrupt to Pops, and he didn’t gain receptivity to the teachings of Moms’s exciting and new faith. Over time, the things that brought them together faded away. Dancing and partying were now “Things of the World” to Moms, and she wanted no part of it. Their sexual relationship, the very fabric of what their initial relationship was based upon, became strained and faded into the distance. Lil Sis was born, and we moved to the Caribbean where Pops would open a practice. Infidelity and distance began to seriously strain the relationship, and it was determined that the physical location was the culprit, and a move back to the US would be a reprieve from the challenges that Moms and Pops faced, not to mention they had a little boy about to go into preschool. Both of them were trained that the women in the family, to some extent, play a role of servitude to men, and that they were never to be “heads” of the household. That men and women could be “equal” in any practical sense is to this day a puzzling and preposterous thought for them.

Lil Sis brought an interesting new element into the mix, because I was charged by my parents to be a good example and protect her. In that role, I had to challenge even the examples that my parents set in how they saw the role of women in society. I would have to stand up to bullies, teach her to stand up for herself, and ultimately, that role paved the way for my understanding of why calling a female anything less than noble was unacceptable, for I wouldn’t want anyone to refer to my sister in such a way. I also learned that the often patronizing role of men as “protectors of women” was an ego trap, which is fraught with false responsibility and devoid of empowerment of our female family. My most major regret in providing an example to Lil Sis is that I fall into the social pressure trap that many young boys fall into regarding sexuality. Most young boys when I was growing up had little to no sexual experience, but felt the need to prove their “manliness” by boasting of their sexual experience, if not prowess. The social implications for me for being truthful about my utter lack of experience with females had been ridicule and allusions if not condemnations regarding my possible interest in males instead. All of that played on my young brain when my Lil Sis began to ask about all things sexual, and I streamed my usual ridiculous web of tales that I had on hand for just the occasion. Little to knowledge, my response compounded with the other social influences that she was exposed her to actually brought her to experimenting and losing her virginity even before I did. Many things followed that I won’t recount, but it instilled in me a profound lesson on how we can truly be influenced and influence each other. She has grown into a strong woman who I respect far beyond the bonds of family, and I am thankful for the positive influence I may have had in light of my earlier blunders…

My peers informed me of the multitudinous contradictions between what one presents publicly to an audience that doesn’t know you from what they practiced in private. The same kids who would refer to or call a woman a “bitch” in a heartbeat, would speak with the utmost respect to their own mothers at home in most cases. If one said anything untoward about their mothers or sisters, there would invariably be a violent altercation with the source of the offense. Seeing this dissonance made me question a lot about the way we were being socialized and socializing each other, for it seemed to all make little sense. 

All of that baggage traveled with me over the years as I explored the space that I occupied with women, and much of the various arguments made on the topic flow through my head as I process my role in the process of understanding gender equality. Many women have been socialized to accept and even defend their role of subservience or inadequacy in covert and overt ways, even those who have been empowered in some ways. Questions that this now married boy asks are: What does gender equality look like within a marriage? Does it mean that we hyper-emphasize the responsibilities that were held to be traditionally “women’s work” as valuable when the family set-up is one that may on the surface look like the traditional model? Do we pressure men to suppress their masculinity in order to prove that they are committed to whatever sacrifice it takes to be the “new man”? Do we ask women to be more like men in ways that runs counter to the unique and powerful station that women naturally bring to the table? How do we treat a couple who is pregnant or has a child, and do we value each individual’s contributions equally? Do we strive to bring equality in all ways or do we favor the traditionally oppressed at the risk of creating a new type of oppression? My answers to these and other questions remains unclear…

Interested in sharing your experience promoting the equality of women and men? write a post and send it to engenderingequality@gmail.com

A very interesting point came up during my travels that I thought would be useful to bring up here. I was in Uganda, for part of the time, studying the Institute for Studies in Global Prosperity’s document on the equality of women and men with a non-governmental organization that focuses on the advancement of women and the topic of gender roles was brought up.

The organization we were meeting with focuses specifically on food security, so we were discussing what type of conversations they have with the people they work with in the villages. One of the women at the organization explained that most of the agricultural work is left to the old women and young girls, the youthful energetic ones rarely take part and yet they are among those benefitting from this work. The staff members were talking about the importance of creating a strong sense of community within the village so that everyone is participating in the production of food and everyone has enough to eat. It was clear to them that restructuring communities and promoting gender equality will require profound changes in the minds and hearts of people.

Two of the staff members at the NGO then began to discuss how they had actively begun to promote equality between women and men in their homes. One of the female staff members explained that she has three boys and one girl and that in her home, it was everyone’s responsibility to contribute to the chores. Her neighbors thought it was very strange that she made her sons participate in cooking. Normally the boys go and play and come back and eat. She said that in many homes in Uganda, boys will not do what is regarded as woman’s work. The male staff member agreed as he is an active contributor to the chores in his home, including making dinner and fetching water, much to the confusion of his neighbors.

The challenge of men taking more of an active role in the home is not limited to just Uganda, this subject was recently discussed in the New York Times**, reflecting on this issue in the United States and across Europe. While it has become easier for women to work outside of the home, men have been slower to participate in work around the house. The series of articles attempts to explore why this is so, although the conversation is often stuck in this very narrow understanding of work and success. They are written from the perspective that our current employment structure is best and that we have to think of ways in which we can get more women to be involved in this system. Yet it is clear that our current emphasis on material gain is not without its problems and has contributed to this stark division of work inside and outside the home, making it an either or situation, and promoting one (working outside the home) as having more value than the other.

Achieving total parity around the division of work between women and men inside and outside the home isn’t the benchmark of equality. Yet the lack of mobility regarding this issue is indicative of gender norms which stand in the way of equality. If so much of our identity as women and men is the acts that we perform and the responsibilities we have around the home, we will continue to perpetuate inequalities. What we need is the space in which to reflect on the roles that we assume to be natural and ask ourselves, where did they come from and what is their purpose?

**for some reason its not letting me link now, you can find the articles here http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/05/how-can-we-get-men-to-do-more-at-home

This time last summer, my friends and I gathered every evening to watch whatever game from the men’s World Cup that was on that day. Without fail we would rush home from work, eat our sunflower seeds and spend the next two 90 minutes yelling at the TV.

And this summer?

I haven’t watched a single game of this World Cup. Every so often I catch the results of one of the games if it happens to come up in the headlines of one of the news websites I’m reading.

Clearly I’m not the only one paying less attention to female sports. An article in Time magazine explains that a recent study showed that across TV and print media in the US, female athletics makes up about 8% of the overall sports coverage. In an attempt to counteract the lack of coverage and increase viewership, female sports associations have been seeking to drive up publicity for their sport through more aggressive advertising.

One example of this is the Women’s Tennis Association, which launched the Strong is Beautiful campaign. In its video segments, female tennis stars are shown hitting the ball in slow motion as they explain their love of the game in a voiceover. Obviously the emphasis on the female form and beauty has drawn criticism. The article mentioned above explains, “when female athletes are featured in ads, it tends to be in ways that hyperfeminize them rather than highlight their athletic competence.”

A similar approach was taken by members of the female German national soccer team, with several players deciding to pose in Playboy magazine in their underwear, explaining, “we want to disprove the cliché that all female footballers are butch. The message is: look, we are very normal — and lovely — girls!” The article makes the overall point that advertisements focusing on female athletics seem to by tied up in the context in which the public is comfortable looking at women. Essentially the idea that women can be strong, powerful athletes has to be curbed by the idea that they are beautiful as well. To simply be strong and capable athletes would be off putting, it’s not how society likes to see its women. We like our women beautiful.

I guess. So say the advertising and athletic associations that are desperate for money and funding and somewhere along the way they got to decide how we like to view women. As it explains in the document, “media systems work to naturalize the messages and habits of thought they propogate, until these messages and habits begin to appear as normal, inevitable features of social life.” So maybe these media messages aren’t the norm, they aren’t what people really want. Maybe there is a market out there for people who just enjoy sports; who enjoying watching people play to their fullest capacity. Maybe they just need a helping hand to realize what they are missing and should be reminded through images of athletes doing what they do best not looking their best. People like me.

I never cared much for fantasizing about my future wedding, nor do I believe the (Western?) myth that all little girls do it. It was not until I had to plan my own wedding (with help from my now-husband) that I fully realized what madness is going on.

I observed—with apprehension—that weddings are becoming increasingly lavish. They cost incredible amounts of money that could otherwise be used to establish a somewhat secure life for a couple. They involve great and greater amounts of complexity in terms of clothing, food, gifts, decoration, and entertainment. They invite many and more members of extended families and circles of friends and acquaintances. And it’s not only in North America (where I live); I’ve heard tales of enormous, bank-breaking weddings from friends in India, China, and other places—tales that would strike fear into humble hearts.

Now, somehow, our permissive culture has turned wedding-related materialism and selfishness into “entertainment”. Sarah Haskins sums it up with insight and humor in one of her “Target Women” videos (which satirize advertising that employs gender stereotypes):

These “reality” shows paint brides as manipulative, controlling, shallow, and self-obsessed. Grooms are painted either as impotent slobs or indifferent chumps. Where is the equality in that? These shows highlight inequality as well as the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

The most beautiful and touching weddings I’ve been to have upheld both bride and groom as contributors to a new family, a new social institution (however small in scale), and have asserted that both members accept responsibility for the well-being of their relationship.

I suppose I can only speak from my experience when it comes to equality on the ground, so I will:

As I began to plan my own wedding, I made efforts to strike a balance between humility and hospitality. We wanted to host and be generous to our dear family and friends, yet we wanted to emphasize that the marriage was to be more important than the event of getting married, no matter how joyful and reverent it was. We took to heart certain examples set by the humble and greater-purpose-driven figures of religious history—in particular, those from the Baha’i Faith, since my husband and I are Baha’is: we read about the modest weddings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi (in The Priceless Pearl). We found it valuable to seek inspiration about principles and attitudes, even in the matter of wedding planning.

Yet we also had to contend with the extravagant climate. For example: I walked into a bridal shop last summer and was immediately bombarded by an overbearing busy bee who aggressively insisted that I fill out a form with all my personal information and details about my wedding (date, theme, etc.) before I peruse the store merchandise—which I was afterward sharply instructed to do (quickly, and with no shoes on, presumably so as not to sully anything). The gowns began at $1000 and ranged in color from “white” to “eggshell” to “ivory”.

I left the store. I won’t bore you with the details of my wedding, but I wore a reasonably priced blue dress. A select group of immediate family and dear friends gathered for a weekend, went tobogganing together, ate vegetarian food, and played board games. We wanted not only a just, moderate, joyful wedding, but a just, moderate, joyful marriage. We had a brief but lovely ceremony, and then it was over. On with the business of being married—and it is going very well; we both work to be equal participants in a balanced relationship. Now the only thing left to do is keep at it for the rest of our lives….

Interested in sharing your experience promoting the equality of women and men? write a post and send it to engenderingequality@gmail.com

The website Feminist Frequency has recently started posting videos that explore the  tropes women are placed into when they are depicted in popular media. These short videos explain that a trope is a “common pattern in a story or recognizable attribute in a character that conveys information to the audience. A trope becomes a cliche when it is overused.” Often, these tropes depict stereotypes. Enter the Smurfette Principle.

We’re constantly being bombared by all sorts of different images in the media and whether we like it or not these depictions begin to inform our perception of reality. Therefore the meager presence of women, especially women with diverse looks and opinions, in our mainstream media, serves to undercut the equality of women and men. The lack of visibility of women serves to propogate the idea that women are the minority and makes it seem as though issues that impact women are only interesting to women. It creates a sort of “otherness.” The lack of females in the media are a reflection of a male centered society, illustrating that we place priorities on men, men’s stories and the things men do.

The video elaporates:

Further female tropes discussed include the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, Women in Refridgerators and The Evil Demon Seductress.

The thing that stands out to me is that in a rush to avoid putting their children in one category, not allowing gender stereotypes to define their children, parents are rushing to put their kids into other categories such as gay, transgendered, effeminate, masculine, etc. And maybe for some of those kids those categories are the reality. Yet at the same time, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that these kids just like these certain toys, games, style of clothing, with little implication on how the choices and life they will lead at an older age. It seems like we can’t get away from seeking to take certain facets of one’s personality and making it the core of their identity, even in an attempt to be “open minded” and “non judgmental”.

Obviously for the parents featured in the article, this practice is coming out of love for the child and a true desire to want to create a safe and nurturing environment in which their children can grow. Parents don’t want their children to feel as though they can’t be who they truly are. But what does it mean to assume the child is what they do or what they like?

It seems that for many of the parents, social acceptability was something they worried about for their kids. They wanted their children to feel as though what they did and how they behaved was “normal” and just like everybody else. But maybe the greater lesson to the children could be that when they interact with other people they shouldn’t look at people based on what they do and their likes and dislikes but who they are – a human being with the capacity to love, laugh, show kindness, justice and generosity who happens to have a wide range of interests and hobbies. This to me seems like a better way to create acceptance.

A couple in Toronto has decided that they aren’t going to be sharing the gender of their child with others. After the baby was born the parents send out a message to family and friends explaining, “we’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place? …).” The couple believes that our culture is obsessed with gender and that gender dictates much of how people treat and respond to others. They believe they are giving their baby the freedom to choose who it wants to be without assigned characteristics based on other people’s understandings of gender identity. They feel like parents make too many decisions for their children, and this is a decision they feel best left to the children themselves.

After being interviewed for an article in the Toronto Star, the topic of the genderless child went viral. Commentators flooded the newspaper with their thoughts and concerns. Numerous articles have been written about it. Talk show hosts have featured segments discussing the positives and negatives of such an act.

Much of the criticism of the couples’ decision comes from concerns that the child will be a social experiment. Others express concern that by not acknowledging that the baby has a gender, parents are enforcing the idea that gender is a problem. Some argue that they are making gender a bigger deal than it needs to be by not identifying it; rather gender is just one part of who you are.

The concept of gender not being fixed is not new. In certain circles, people regularly talk about gender not being binary (simply masculine and feminine), the difference between gender and sex and gender identity and gender expression. Yet the decision to actively promote a “gender free” child seems to elicit strong feelings in many people.

Is the way to combat the ruinous consequences of placing gender at the center of someone’s identity simply to ignore gender all together? Is this the way in which to promote equality?

Nineteen Percent shares her thoughts on Beyonce’s latest video “Run the World (Girls)”. She also prefaces her thoughts by saying the following, “It’s a song. I get it. It’s just a song. This video is not about Beyonce. It’s not even really about this song. My point is NOT that she shouldn’t have made this song because of X, Y, and Z. My point IS: Oh, Look! X, Y, and Z exist and this song is a great tie-in to a discussion of feminism.”

My initial reaction was to think it was horrible that anybody could think it mattered whether the situation involved a man or a woman. The problems that one would have with this type of cover should exist regardless of the gender of the member of congress in question. But upon further reflection I realized that I would think it was different. I realized I would judge a congresswoman more harshly than I judged this congressman for his magazine cover. I think this prejudice stems from the portrayal of woman’s bodies in the media. Images of scantily clad women have always had hyper-sexualized undertones so a woman on the cover of a magazine with her shirt open seems more about selling sex to me and I would wonder why I female congresswoman would want to project that image while this image of a man is questionable but doesn’t seem as overtly sexual because its about fitness.

Bothered by this realization of a double standard I asked my friend what she thought. She offered her opinion:

Re the senator, I think it’s ABSURD that he posed for this cover and I do think he’s selling sex along with fitness, but if the woman had been on the cover like that I probably would have been outraged and considered her a terrible role model for children, etc, etc.  That likely is a double standard. One thing, though, is that I think I’m offended more by the woman doing it because I’m so tired of the sexualization of women and of women feeling like they have to resort to sex to be valued whereas with men I just think you’re ridiculous if you do it but don’t see it as a sign of oppression.  Although that may also be a double standard against men and an erroneous/naïve omission of the reality that men are also feeling the pressure to sell themselves as sexual beings to succeed…although I don’t really think they feel it as strongly as women, that pressure may be mounting in some arenas.

So we both came to the conclusion that we had this double standard in the way we would react to the female senator as opposed to the male senator. Whatever way we sought to explain our thinking, it wouldn’t change the fact that we were judging them differently although they were hypothetically doing the same thing. So the question is why? Why do we have this double standard in our minds even though we both recognize it as such?

Interested in sharing your experience promoting the equality of women and men? write a post and send it to engenderingequality@gmail.com

A while back on this blog, the question was raised in a couple of comments about what the impact of greater participation for women in science might be.  I think it’s actually part of a larger question underlying several conversations on the blog:  To what extent are women different from men in ways that might make their contributions to social processes and structures different from the contributions of men?

This question isn’t really my favorite because, as Nava put it recently, I am not too concerned about whether or not there are preexisting differences between men and women that lead them to act differently.  But in recent weeks my studies have really led me to concentrate on the question of how participation in science — specifically who participates — shapes the work that is done.

It turns out that there are people saying some really interesting things on the subject.  I have had the opportunity to read about a number of examples where assumptions about gender have seeped into science work and shaped the theories that were developed: theories that our early human ancestors came to walk on two feet because men needed to hold tools to hunt; theories that among monkeys, chimps, and other primates, the actions of men are most important to determining what happens in the group, suggesting that it is only “natural” that the same be true for humans; theories that the highest stage of moral development consists of decision-making on the basis of an appreciation for universal rights, and research that suggests that women tend to demonstrate this “highest stage” less often than men.  My favorite example of a theory influenced by gender bias is the following, pointed out by a woman named Emily Martin.

Martin examines the story of conception.  We all know it, right?  Scientific fact learned in school.  Many tiny sperm travel through the female reproductive system until they come upon a patiently waiting egg.  The strongest and most capable sperm beats out the others, powerfully burrows through the outer layers of egg and badda bing – there you have an adorable little zygote.  Sound like anything else you’ve heard?  Emily Martin compares this explanation to a fairy tale: the fragile damsel of an egg, waiting for her existence to take on meaning with the arrival of a strong, determined sperm.  It’s an entertaining comparison, but her analysis of the language used in textbooks and science journals to describe the actions of the sperm and the egg are quite compelling:

It is remarkable how “femininely” the egg behaves and how “masculinely” the sperm. The egg is seen as large and passive. It does not move or journey, but passively “is transported,” “is swept,” or even “drifts” along the fallopian tubes. In utter contrast, the sperm are small, “streamlined,” and invariably active. They “deliver” their genes to the egg, “activate the developmental program of the egg,” and have a “velocity” that is often remarked upon. Their tails are “strong” and efficiently powered… “with a whiplashlike motion and strong lurches” they can “burrow through the egg coat” and “penetrate” it.  (Martin, 1991, 489)

Even more interestingly, later research in biology found that sperm actually have very little forward force and that the egg has a much greater role in binding the two together.  Yet, quite strikingly, the language employed by the authors of such findings often continued to portray the sperm as the active party that penetrates and fertilizes.  It seems that perceived gender roles first made it difficult for scientists to see what was happening in conception, and then after certain discoveries, it was still difficult to move past certain ways of talking.

A few final examples of how gender might affect scientific work:  One female physicist I read remarked on how the culture of physics might be different with more female participation (generally only 10-20% of physicists at the moment), as the culture currently relies heavily on self-promotion, which she argues has been difficult for the female physicists she has known.  In the social sciences, academics identifying as feminists have made many contributions to discussions of research methods, pushing for methods that try to diffuse power relations, that pay more attention to diversity among research participants, and that are directed towards responding to human needs.

These academics aren’t suggesting that the biological differences between men and women lead to differences in contributions to science.  But they are asserting that greater participation of women in science may bring in new perspectives and draw attention to ways that previous theories and methods were based on incorrect assumptions or limited understandings.  The same, I think, is true regarding the participation of people from diverse nationalities and cultural traditions.  Examining reality from more and more diverse standpoints holds the potential to generate greater insights into the workings of that reality.

I share these discussions from the field of science studies as a part of my own effort to engender equality by slowly learning to participate in relevant discourses and share insights between conversations.  In the readings I have done over the past several weeks, I have found people saying a number of interesting things about the role of gender in science.  As I have been working on organizing my thoughts in relation to this literature, I’ve been thinking about the importance of really listening to what others are saying, trying to identify the underlying assumptions that shape their logic, and reflecting on ways that insights that I have gained from other conversations—such as discussions here regarding the Advancing Towards Equality document—might offer points that contribute to moving the discourse ahead.  In the case of the discussion on gender in science that I have shared here, I deeply appreciate the insights I find in that conversation; at the same time, I hear in the discussions points that I find rather limited, for example, assumptions that efforts to integrate knowledge from different sources will necessarily lead to the oppression of some types of knowledge.  Many of the authors whose analysis I value tend to recommend as a solution separate sciences for different social groups; but these for me call to mind warnings of a “deeply fragmented social reality” that come from “narrowly identifying with particular physical or social characteristics and placing them at the center of our understanding of self and other” found in the Advancing Towards Equality document.  Somewhere in this interplay of diversity and oneness I feel there might be a space for insights from these two conversations to be brought together to illuminate one another.

Interested in sharing your experience promoting the equality of women and men? write a post and send it to engenderingequality@gmail.com

Leslie: “Hey, we should go eat at that restaurant over there.”

Ron: “Which one are you talking about, there are like three different restaurants in this area.”

L: “The one with the two girls standing in front of it…”

R: “What two girls? Oh you mean that one with the brown hair and her fat blonde friend? Yeah we should go there, I love that place.

L: “Fat? Why did you just call her fat? She’s not fat, that’s so mean.”

R: “Oh I’m sorry, I forgot who I was talking to. Sensitive audience.”

L: “What do you mean sensitive audience? Just because I don’t think you should call people fat doesn’t mean I’m especially sensitive.”

R: “No I just mean… I get it… women and their weight, its sensitive, I get it.

L: “Women and their weight? Me finding your comments on the way that woman looks offensive has nothing to do with being female. It’s just plain rude. Not to mention that insinuating that I have a problem with your comments because I’m a woman and therefore sensitive about my weight is not only cliché but kind of sexist.”

R: “Sexist?! I’m not sexist. You’re blowing this whole thing way out of proportion. Wow, way to make it a gender thing. I cannot believe you just called me sexist. You know, I’m not even hungry anymore. Let’s just go home.”

And just like that Ron cuts off the conversation. Once the dreaded term “sexist” comes out, the conversation is pretty much dead. Sexist is just about one of the worst terms you can call someone (add to that racist, homophobe, among others). No one wants to be associated with a manner of thinking or behavior that is largely considered offensive and outdated. Once that term in uttered from one person to another, all conversation around the issue that caused the term to be brought up in the first place is over. In this case Ron, who made the “sexist” remark, no longer wants to discuss the issue just as Leslie really wants to make her point.

And that’s a shame. The reality of the world many people live in is that sexism (and other isms) no longer linger out in the open, easily identifiable and agreed upon by all, but rather sexism lives in the shadows, ingrained in certain behaviors and thought patterns. It’s ironic that as more work has been done to bring about the equality of women and men, it has become harder to have honest conversations about those issues and attitudes that continue to promote misogynistic and sexist thought. It’s almost impossible to have an open and honest conversation about the problems that continue to plague the fight for gender equality without someone feeling defensive and wanting to wish it away.

A similar issue can be seen around the birther movement in the United States. Many people believe that the push for Barack Obama to release his birth certificate is born out of racism, a desire to attribute an otherness to the first African American president. Yet if you read any comment sections on the numerous opinion pieces that have been written on the subject, you have many individuals who are quick to assert that racism no longer exists, that black people are trying to make an issue out of nothing and that blacks are really the ones that are racist against whites. The validity of those arguments are inconsequential. The problem is that by being so quick to make those arguments, the conversation is being shut down and those who feel marginalized are being told to keep their opinions to themselves, echoing a history of being silenced.

Honestly in the above situation, both Leslie and Ron are limiting the possibility of open dialogue. Ron is defensive and therefore not willing to listen while Leslie has thrown out labels rather than creating a space for conversation to flow.

In situations of perceived racism and sexism, we aren’t all going to agree on the specifics of the case, but we have to be able to discuss it. If we’re trying to create a world in which the oppressive and domineering forces that have for so long plagued human history become a thing of the past, then we have to be able to understand each other. One way of doing this is by listening to other people’s experiences. In doing so, we have to allow people to feel their feelings – this way we validate their reality. It’s only through the process of listening to others’ sorrows and experiences that we can create a common foundation; that we begin to see reality and truth as one. And perhaps once voices can be heard we can move past these labels which so often gloss over the full weight of the situation and only create greater distinction where there could, in fact, be inclusion.

Interested in sharing your experience promoting the equality of women and men? write a post and send it to engenderingequality@gmail.com

The other day I watched an interview of a famous female pop star talking about the release of her latest album.  She mentioned how proud she was of the newest installment of the artistic expression of [INSERT NAME] and described her music as “empowering”.   Three tracks into the album, the only distinguishing feature between one song and the next was the timing of heavy-drum-beat-set-to-slightly- dissimilar-but-always-salacious lyrics being crooned out by the electronically altered, over-the-top girlish yet obnoxiously-sexualized voice of the 30-year-old star. 

“Look who’s binging on the girls-are-sex-objects Kool Aid—once again,” I thought.  But then I felt a twinge of guilt at my judgmental, thinly veiled, holier-than-thou attitude towards this woman (because 30 is no longer a girl, let’s be honest).  I mean, is it possible, I asked myself, that she actually thinks her music is empowering?

I guess if you grow up in a social matrix that tells you to be equal to a man is to be a man, and that to be a [cool, manly] man is to be sexually active with as many partners as find you appealing, to be callous with your heart, to use people for your personal gain, then sure, her music was super empowering!

This made me think about the importance of premises.  The fact that most people, I earnestly believe, are good.  In their hearts, most people want to do what is right and what is honorable and what will lead to happiness.  But our ideas of what is right, and what is conducive to joy are so distorted that you end up in this mess of a world where women think their worth can mostly be measured in the inches of their waist, and their value lies in the way they can successfully fulfill a man’s lewdest daydreams, and their esteem is firmly ensconced in the fold of their brassiere. 

The modern twist, of course, the thing that makes being the object of a man’s desire empowerment, is that at the end of the night you can walk away and choose your next bed buddy.  Just like a man, you don’t have to get emotionally attached.  The tables are turned.  Now women can prey on men.  Use them and leave them.

How enlightened, right? 

This attitude is based on faulty conceptions of what it means to be good, what it means to be empowered, and ultimately, what it means to be human. 

So when my good friend May asked me what I do in my daily life to promote gender equality I realized that one of the only ways I know how to counteract the forces in society that tell us women are this and men are that is through an educational process that helps us to understand our true identity as human beings. 

Men and women are different?  Maybe.  Men and women are the same? Perhaps.  I’m not overly concerned with which one is right because I think these are the wrong questions.

What does it mean to be human?  What is the purpose of our life on this planet? How do we make the most of the handful of days we’ve been given on this earthly plane to make something of ourselves and of our society?

In answering these questions, issues of femininity and masculinity, superiority and inferiority, are somewhat resolved.  At least to my mind, this is the case.

I don’t mean to oversimplify and I apologize if I have done so.  I realize that women everywhere are subject to oppression of various forms:  be it the traditional deprivation of basic rights like the freedom to receive an education, to vote, to show your face in public, to have a voice; or to the more subtle forms of oppression like the ones described above that basically tell you your worth is intimately tied with your physical appearance and ability to make a man “want you”. 

But I also think that the oppression of women is the oppression of men.  Men who are raised by mothers who had no access to education; who are forced to play mind games with girls that have been conditioned to think it is only through mischief and manipulation that they can nab a partner; who deprive themselves of the opportunity to acquire the virtues of justice and honor because they’re too busy being sleazy with women; and, ultimately, to have the bar for excellence set at such a pathetically low level that the days of their lives are mostly misspent.

I have been raised to believe that true loss consists in ignorance of our own selves, and that wasting the precious and limited time we have in the pursuit of idle fancies is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies we can impose upon ourselves. 

So when I think of promoting the equality of women and men, my mind immediately turns back to these questions of, who are we and why are we here?  More importantly, what do we do while we’re here? 

I hope to be able to dedicate my life to the development and promotion of curriculum that emphasizes the latent nobility of each human being; the idea that we all have a twofold moral purpose in life—to transform ourselves individually by acquiring virtues whilst simultaneously contributing to the betterment of society and our fellow human beings; by shedding the forces of lethargy that urge us to remain quiet and complacent, instead of nurturing our natural thirst for knowledge and desire to be agents of change; and to develop the perception that would allow us to recognize the positive and negative forces in society so that we can align ourselves with the former and battle the latter.

I’ve had the chance to participate in seminars based around educational content that helps young people question the purpose of their lives and answer important questions about who they are and what they do.  During these seminars, I’ve been able to witness the way these young men and women interact, never overstepping the bounds of respect and modesty, yet infinitely tender and loving in their regard of and approach towards one another.

They have offered me a glimpse of what this world can be like when we really learn how to behave in ways that are befitting of our noble stations as human beings.

Interested in sharing your experience promoting the equality of women and men? write a post and send it to engenderingequality@gmail.com

O Ye People Who Have Minds to Know and Ears to Hear!

Tell me: What do you know about beauty?

What does it mean to be beautiful?

.

Is it the way I dress myself, stress myself, obsess myself, invest myself

In caring what you, he, she, we, they think?

If I curl my hair, shorten my dress, paint my face, and bat my eyes,

If I act the rudest, crudest, imprudence until every eye is on me,

Then will I be beautiful? Now am I attractive?

.

O Ye People Who Have Minds to Know and Ears to Hear!

Tell me: If I cover every anomaly, hide every freckle, conceal every pimple; pluck, tweeze, wax, strip every unwanted hair;

If I pull, tighten, whiten, straighten, bleach all my far from pearly white, teeth, to brighten my smile-

Then have I found beauty? Now am I perfect?

.

You know they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but is it really my beauty when I’m told what to behold?

.

So, please, tell me. What do you know about beauty?

.

Oh, lost soul in search of Beauty. Let me tell you. Listen to these guiding lights.

.

Beauty is found in an idea, an art, a lesson, progression.

When we sing, shout, dance, mold, create.

It allows us to seek, find, wonder, decide

It inspires us to search for order and meaning; investigation of truth.

.

Beauty is the Nobility you feel inside when you open your mind; when you see the majesty and diversity in the stars and the flowers; when you enjoy the fruits of your creative showers.

.

Beauty is found in your expression, your question, suggestion. Your confession: I am a beautiful soul

.

Beauty is what your soul yearns for, burns for, concerns for.

Beauty is the Creator.

.

Beauty is my Creator. The one Greater and Greater than all this.

The one who puts light in darkness

Who challenges my inner thought process

Beauty’s what’s inside of me.

What inspires me to be brighter

Than before.

.

Beauty is guidance, reliance, providence

Beauty is all things intimate, intricate, legitimate — my greatest fulfillment.

Beauty is me, soaring on the wings of my soul into the

Infinite.

To appreciate what’s within.

Interested in sharing your experience promoting the equality of women and men? write a post and send it to engenderingequality@gmail.com