How LGBTQ Politics are Shaping Alabama’s Gubernatorial Race


With the 2018 election now in full swing, the Ms. Blog is excited to bring you content presented in conjunction with Gender Watch 2018 , a project of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation and the Center for American Women and Politics. They’ll be tracking, analyzing and illuminating gender dynamics during election season—so check back with us regularly!

Opinions expressed here are the author’s own. Ms. is published by Feminist Majority Foundation, a 501(c)3 organization, and does not endorse candidates.

The chain of events over the past week that led to the septuagenarian governor’s denunciation of claims that she was a closeted lesbian have injected some turmoil into an otherwise sleepy Republican primary in Alabama.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey at the Alabama Emergency Management Operations Center in 2017. (Alabama EMA / Creative Commons)

In the only recent public poll, incumbent Kay Ivey—who ascended to the governorship in 2017 when then-Governor Robert Bentley resigned after pleading guilty to charges related to campaign finance violations—was 36 points ahead of her nearest challenger and just three points shy of the 50 percent needed to avoid a run-off in next month’s primary election. With 30 percent of the primary electorate undecided, she looked all but certain to do so and cruise to a relatively easy win in the general election.

Then, last Tuesday, one of Ivey’s primary opponents criticized her for allowing funding to go to a local LGBTQ non-profit. She responded to evangelist Scott Dawson’s comments mostly with an eye-roll, claiming he was “getting desperate” in response to low polling numbers and noting that the funding was federally mandated. She also mentioned that she “certainly [doesn’t] agree with the agenda or the values of that organization.” While this may all seem fairly standard for a Republican primary in Alabama, one retiring State Representative took exception to Ivey’s comment on the values of Free2Be. Patricia Todd, a Democrat who recently received a standing ovation from her colleagues upon announcing her retirement after 12 years in office, and who also happens to be an out lesbian, reacted publicly—and outrageously.

“Will someone out her for God’s sake,” Todd posted on both her Facebook and Twitter accounts. “I have heard for years that she is gay and moved her girlfriend out of her house when she became Gov. I am sick of closeted elected officials.”  In each post, she linked to the article containing Ivey’s rebuttal to Dawson.

Count mine among the jaws that had to be scooped off of the floor after reading Todd’s tweet. Several years ago, Todd did warn in a Facebook post that she would expose hypocrites in Alabama politics, specifically mentioning legislators who “talk about ‘family values’ when they have affairs” and those “elected officials who want to hide in the closet.” Still, the comments were entirely unexpected, and much of Alabama’s political establishment reacted quickly and firmly.

In a statement posted to her social media accounts, Governor Ivey managed in just 66 words to call Todd’s claim “disgraceful,” “a disgusting lie,” “false,” “wrong,” “a bald-faced lie” and “everything that’s wrong with politics today.” She further reiterated in a TV interview that her “biblically-based faith definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman.” Ivey’s fellow Republican primary candidates largely steered clear of the commotion, denouncing the focus on the Governor’s personal life and calling for a return to a discussion of the issues most important to Alabama. Terry Lathan, the chair of the state Republican Party, called Todd’s comments “shameful rumor mongering;” Republican State Representative Phil Williams told AL.com that he “took it as one of the meanest things I’ve ever heard her say.”

Todd, the first out gay lawmaker in Alabama, has faced backlash from the LGBT community as well. Some advocates in the community accused her of “weaponizing queerness” and “psychic and emotional violence.” The One Orlando Alliance, the umbrella organization of LGBT groups for which Todd was set to serve as Executive Director, rescinded her job offer on the grounds that involuntarily outing a person, regardless of perceived hypocrisy, is against their values.

Todd, for her part, is refusing to back down. During a radio interview on Friday, she apologized for “the inappropriate way” she delivered her message and conceded she should have commented on the Governor’s remarks rather than her personal life. Still, when asked if she thought Ivey would identify as gay, Todd dug in her heels. “There’s a lot of men who have sex with men,” she responded, “who don’t identify as gay.”

If Kay Ivey was hoping for an apology or recantation from Todd, it certainly did not come during that appearance. Instead, this was the political equivalent of a mic drop—and the reverberations are being felt throughout Alabama.

Scholarship concerning out LGBT political officeholders and candidates is under-developed, though a study by David Niven suggested that a gay or lesbian candidate’s sexual orientation no longer poses a political disadvantage. In fact, he finds that such an orientation may even help the candidate win office. Such findings contradict those of other academic work that has shown that downplaying traits traditionally associated with LGBT people—“tells” that might give away someone’s sexual orientation—is the best strategy for success. Doan and Haider-Markel found that gay and lesbian candidates are perceived as less honest, weaker and amoral—especially among male, Evangelical, less educated, conservative, Republican and older respondents, a veritable cross-section of the Alabama Republican primary electorate. Jerry Harvey found through experimental research that candidates identified as being gay or lesbian lose support compared to otherwise identical non-LGBT candidates, and Billy Kluttz argued that out candidates often “mute” their sexuality during their campaigns so that, even if elected, voters may never have even known they identify as LGBT.

Ewa Golebiowska found that context is key for gay and lesbian candidates: They do better when they disclose their sexual orientation after they are well-known to voters for their positions on issues. And the context of place matters as well. In the UK, for example, Magni and Reynolds found that LGBT candidates perform at least as well as their straight counterparts, even in more conservative areas, and in some more progressive locales, an LGBT identity may even help a candidate, as David Niven suggests. In Palm Springs, California, as an anecdotal example, the mayor, city manager and entire city council identify as part of the LGBT community; in fact, Councilwoman Christy Holstege, who is married to a man and identifies as bisexual, was accused of inventing her bisexuality for political gain and was often asked to somehow “prove” her sexual orientation.

While identifying as LGBT may be a boon in some places, this is unlikely to be the case in Alabama, suggesting that Todd’s comments would amount to the weaponization of queerness that some critics have claimed. A recent Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) study found Alabama to be the only state in the nation with a majority of residents who still oppose same-sex marriage, and one of just six where the issue garners less than 50 percent support. Alabama also registered the second-lowest level of support for legally protecting LGBT people from discrimination, and the state does not have any such statewide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Gov. Ivey herself signed a bill in May 2017 that allows religious-based adoption agencies to refuse placement of children with LGBT parents. Roy Moore was famously removed as the state’s Chief Justice, for the second time, for instructing his probate judges to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in direct violation of the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. And as of June 2017, at least eight Alabama counties still refuse to issue any marriage license , asserting that by denying all couples marriage licenses they are not treating same-sex couples in a disparate manner.

Regardless of the Gov. Ivey’s actual sexual orientation, the accusations levied against her by Todd have shone a spotlight on the darker side of identity politics. Dawson, Ivey and Todd have all been criticized for their roles and responses to the developments, though it remains to be seen whether the episode will have any tangible effect on the Governor’s race. Ivey is still highly favored to win her primary, though the allegations and fallout could prevent her from winning the 50 percent of the vote necessary to avoid a run-off election.

Perhaps the major takeaway from the incident should not center around the accusations themselves, but instead the reactions to them. The statements and actions of the principal players in this story, regardless of party or politics, were all widely panned as insensitive, unnecessary and even bigoted. In their disagreement, however, lies a reminder that the politics of candidate sexual orientation and gender identity remain unsettled—not only in Alabama, but nationwide.

That won’t be resolved in any one election cycle—but, for Governor Ivey at least, the effect these claims regarding her personal life will be revealed by voters’ choices at the ballot box during the primary on June 5.

Rick Kavin is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Rutgers-New Brunswick and a research assistant at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers. 

ms. blog digest banner

The post How LGBTQ Politics are Shaping Alabama’s Gubernatorial Race appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link

Reflections in Oshun’s Mirror: Beyoncé Mass, the Royal Wedding and Highly Visible Black Girl Magic


Days before waking up in the wee hours to watch the wedding of American actor Meghan Markle and British royal Prince Harry, I was already pondering the meaning of a different service: “Beyoncé Mass,” held at the Grace Cathedral Church in San Francisco and presided over by Reverend Yolanda Norton and Reverend Jude Harmon.

Before I watched the video, I was ready to dismiss it as yet another example of literal celebrity worship—but it was clear from the integration of the pop star’s empowering songs in the service that Reverend Norton found strategic ways to utilize the symbolism of Beyoncé for theological and spiritual purposes in her construction of black feminist/womanist-based worship.

Women like Beyoncé and our American duchess understand that symbols can be mobilized for change and uplift. And in a year that brought us the celebrated record-breaking superhero film, Black Panther, in which black audiences worldwide showed our devotion to African stories steeped in royal traditions, it was more than fitting to watch a real-life royal wedding featuring the daughter of an African American woman.

Whether one is a royalist or anti-monarchist or still indulging the remnants of a colonialist mentality or elitist aspirations, it was easy to be moved by the efforts made to blend elements of British royal culture with Markle’s own African American heritage. The wedding featured a reading from the sexiest book in the Bible—Song of Solomon, a scripture that includes the words of the “Beloved” narrator describing herself as “black and beautiful.” The exuberant sermon of African American Bishop Michael Curry expanded on the biblical themes of romantic love and challenged us all to move towards agape love with quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr. and slave spirituals. An Afro-British gospel choir sanctified the union with a rendition of Ben E. King’s classic ballad, “Stand By Me.” The young Afro-British celloist Sheku Kanneh-Mason displayed his prowess by performing from the classical musical canon while also sporting an afro.

And then there was the quiet and regal presence of Markle’s black mother, Doria Ragland, sitting opposite Queen Elizabeth in a similar yet more demure shade of green while proudly donning dreadlocks and a nose ring. That she was also accompanied on the bride’s side by wedding guests like tennis champion Serena Williams, sporting elaborately long braids while seated next to her husband, and America’s media “queen” herself, Oprah Winfrey, in a traditional church hat, signaled that we were not only not watching your typical English royal wedding, but that we had entered a new era of representations of black womanhood. Even judging by the natural hairstyles of the women in the Kingdom Choir, or the close-cropped hair of Rose Hudson-Wilkin, chaplain to the queen who led the congregants in prayer for the bride and groom, it was clear that black women’s natural hair movement had expanded and triumphed in the Diaspora.

Such hairstyles on black women in the presence of white British royalty would have been unthinkable decades ago, and yet, here we are—with Markle’s mother taking the lead. Even Markle’s choice to wear a bun—and a “messy bun” at that—does subversive work in challenging the white hegemony surrounding the beauty and femininity of long, flowing straight hair or a neat and tidy bun. We saw black women entering white space and power and being fully themselves. Markle’s minimalist make-up and gown—the latter of which E Kehinde Thurman noted bears a striking resemblance to the one worn by black Panamanian Princess Angela of Liechtenstein when she had married into European royalty in 2000—suggests a naturalness and willingness to come to the table with a certain sense of authenticity.

But do these representations matter? We may debate ad nausea the racial politics of feeling validated when a biracial person is given “a seat at the table” and being viewed as “lifting as they climb,” carrying the entire black race with them—not unlike our own celebrations ten years ago when another biracial person, Barack Obama, became the first black president of the United States. Neither a black president nor a black princess is likely to change race relations, not in this era of anti-immigration Brexit struggles or the rise of a violent white extremist movement in the U.S., but neither should we ignore the significance of a popular British prince with tremendous global influence gazing with love upon his beloved, biting his lip after saying, “you look amazing,” and addressing such words of adoration to an American woman of color. The traditionalists who had looked to the British royal family as the last vestige of racial purity in the midst of a rapidly-changing multicultural social landscape must now feel under siege.

As Bishop Curry proclaimed, in ways that would shock the segregationists: “When love is the way, we actually treat each other, well… like we are actually family.”

I am quite certain Prince Harry made it easier for those white men and men of color out there to boldly own up to their interracial and intra-racial unions. I am sure that every black woman who has had to battle workplace and military rules prohibiting dreadlocks, braids, twist outs and other natural hairstyles can now point to Doria Ragland and say: “If she can wear dreadlocks to a royal wedding, I can wear this on the job!” Ragland just made acceptable what even our own Supreme Court would not. Such changes can only help to ease racial tensions, even if they are not a cure-all.

Considering these symbolic changes, some black church folks have said in response to the global event: “Look at God!” Even here, I would like to complicate this expression. For which God are we referring to here? This, of course, was the question I also pondered when watching Beyoncé Mass.

While Reverend Norton was clearly invoking the Judeo-Christian deity, I wonder if it is not time to expand our cosmologies to encompass our African orishas, as Beyoncé had done when she made manifest the beauty, glamour and power of Oshun, a Yoruba/Santeria/Candomble goddess of love, beauty, wealth and fertility. She had first invoked this orisha in her critically acclaimed visual album Lemonade, which managed to highlight the glorious beauty of black womanhood and to feminize the body of Williams, in defiance against some black men and white dominant media’s constant attempts at erasures of her womanhood. She did so, during the segment “Sorry,” in the space of a plantation home where their ancestors had been brutally oppressed. I cannot help but view this bold reclamation of white spaces, disrupted by sexualized black vernacular dancing, such as the twerk—another manifestation of Oshun’s sexual power—as well as images of Beyoncé eventually burning down the house before we cut to the terrain where the enslaved in Louisiana once rebelled against their oppression, as work inspired by an African-themed god.

As Beyoncé declared on the album: “When you love me, you love yourself… love God herself.”

When I participated in a Lemonade seminar with other scholars, organized by black feminists Kinitra Brooks and Kameelah L. Martin, one of the participants, Nicholas Jones, who is also an Obá Oriaté—a high priest in the Santeria religion—suggested that we view the Lemonade project as an initiation ceremony to Oshun. Whether Beyoncé unwittingly or deliberately unleashed the power of this goddess, known for holding up her mirror so we can all truly see ourselves, we might imagine that this orisha revealed herself through the vehicles of hypervisible black women on the global stage.

After flaunting their sexiness and posing as if they were the queens of the universe in Lemonade, both Beyoncé and Williams appeared in the same vicinity again when the pop star, in stunning braids and white outfit, attended the Wimbledon women’s final months after her album’s premiere to support the tennis champion as she claimed her seventh Wimbledon and 22nd grand slam title. Interestingly, days before this dramatic win, another friend of Williams’ went unnoticed while sitting not too far from the Royal box at the Wimbledon games. Unbeknownst to the public, the Suits actor had just gone on that fateful blind date with a British prince set up by a mutual friend while she was in town to see Williams play.

A then-globally unknown Markle may not have predicted how, two years later, she would come to rival two of the most highly visible black women for the world’s attention when she married her prince in a globally televised event. However, in that moment at the Wimbledon games, in the wake of post-Lemonade black feminist awakenings, we might imagine a divinity like Oshun showing up and showing out—as she demonstrated later in the year when she blessed both Williams and Beyoncé with pregnancy (of twins, no less!), Williams with an engagement and Markle with a prince—one who issued an unprecedented statement against racist and sexist media coverage which essentially announced to the world his romantic involvement with a woman of color.

Beyoncé quite literally doubled down on her homage to the African goddess when highlighting her pregnancy on Instagram and in an ethereal and jaw-dropping Grammy performance. Despite the resurgence of conservative white male supremacy in the world, black women are finding themselves in highly visible spaces and bringing unapologetic black girl magic into the spheres of cultural and political influence. This visibility now encompasses a celebration of  their beauty and choices in love—the domains of Oshun—be it interracial in the case of Markle and Williams, black love in the case of Beyoncé or queer love, as Janelle Monae recently demonstrated with her album Dirty Computer.

These changes may only be symbolic, but representations still hold the potential to transform our social realities.

Special thanks to Kinitra Brooks, who provided helpful feedback on this piece.

Janell Hobson is associate professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies at the University at Albany, State University of New York. She is the author of Body as Evidence: Mediating Race, Globalizing Gender.

ms. blog digest banner

The post Reflections in Oshun’s Mirror: Beyoncé Mass, the Royal Wedding and Highly Visible Black Girl Magic appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link

Reflections in Oshun’s Mirror: Beyoncé Mass, the Royal Wedding and Highly Visible Black Girl Magic


Days before waking up in the wee hours to watch the wedding of American actor Meghan Markle and British royal Prince Harry, I was already pondering the meaning of a different service: “Beyoncé Mass,” held at the Grace Cathedral Church in San Francisco and presided over by Reverend Yolanda Norton and Reverend Jude Harmon.

Before I watched the video, I was ready to dismiss it as yet another example of literal celebrity worship—but it was clear from the integration of the pop star’s empowering songs in the service that Reverend Norton found strategic ways to utilize the symbolism of Beyoncé for theological and spiritual purposes in her construction of black feminist/womanist-based worship.

Women like Beyoncé and our American duchess understand that symbols can be mobilized for change and uplift. And in a year that brought us the celebrated record-breaking superhero film, Black Panther, in which black audiences worldwide showed our devotion to African stories steeped in royal traditions, it was more than fitting to watch a real-life royal wedding featuring the daughter of an African American woman.

Whether one is a royalist or anti-monarchist or still indulging the remnants of a colonialist mentality or elitist aspirations, it was easy to be moved by the efforts made to blend elements of British royal culture with Markle’s own African American heritage. The wedding featured a reading from the sexiest book in the Bible—Song of Solomon, a scripture that includes the words of the “Beloved” narrator describing herself as “black and beautiful.” The exuberant sermon of African American Bishop Michael Curry expanded on the biblical themes of romantic love and challenged us all to move towards agape love with quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr. and slave spirituals. An Afro-British gospel choir sanctified the union with a rendition of Ben E. King’s classic ballad, “Stand By Me.” The young Afro-British celloist Sheku Kanneh-Mason displayed his prowess by performing from the classical musical canon while also sporting an afro.

And then there was the quiet and regal presence of Markle’s black mother, Doria Ragland, sitting opposite Queen Elizabeth in a similar yet more demure shade of green while proudly donning dreadlocks and a nose ring. That she was also accompanied on the bride’s side by wedding guests like tennis champion Serena Williams, sporting elaborately long braids while seated next to her husband, and America’s media “queen” herself, Oprah Winfrey, in a traditional church hat, signaled that we were not only not watching your typical English royal wedding, but that we had entered a new era of representations of black womanhood. Even judging by the natural hairstyles of the women in the Kingdom Choir, or the close-cropped hair of Rose Hudson-Wilkin, chaplain to the queen who led the congregants in prayer for the bride and groom, it was clear that black women’s natural hair movement had expanded and triumphed in the Diaspora.

Such hairstyles on black women in the presence of white British royalty would have been unthinkable decades ago, and yet, here we are—with Markle’s mother taking the lead. Even Markle’s choice to wear a bun—and a “messy bun” at that—does subversive work in challenging the white hegemony surrounding the beauty and femininity of long, flowing straight hair or a neat and tidy bun. We saw black women entering white space and power and being fully themselves. Markle’s minimalist make-up and gown—the latter of which E Kehinde Thurman noted bears a striking resemblance to the one worn by black Panamanian Princess Angela of Liechtenstein when she had married into European royalty in 2000—suggests a naturalness and willingness to come to the table with a certain sense of authenticity.

But do these representations matter? We may debate ad nausea the racial politics of feeling validated when a biracial person is given “a seat at the table” and being viewed as “lifting as they climb,” carrying the entire black race with them—not unlike our own celebrations ten years ago when another biracial person, Barack Obama, became the first black president of the United States. Neither a black president nor a black princess is likely to change race relations, not in this era of anti-immigration Brexit struggles or the rise of a violent white extremist movement in the U.S., but neither should we ignore the significance of a popular British prince with tremendous global influence gazing with love upon his beloved, biting his lip after saying, “you look amazing,” and addressing such words of adoration to an American woman of color. The traditionalists who had looked to the British royal family as the last vestige of racial purity in the midst of a rapidly-changing multicultural social landscape must now feel under siege.

As Bishop Curry proclaimed, in ways that would shock the segregationists: “When love is the way, we actually treat each other, well… like we are actually family.”

I am quite certain Prince Harry made it easier for those white men and men of color out there to boldly own up to their interracial and intra-racial unions. I am sure that every black woman who has had to battle workplace and military rules prohibiting dreadlocks, braids, twist outs and other natural hairstyles can now point to Doria Ragland and say: “If she can wear dreadlocks to a royal wedding, I can wear this on the job!” Ragland just made acceptable what even our own Supreme Court would not. Such changes can only help to ease racial tensions, even if they are not a cure-all.

Considering these symbolic changes, some black church folks have said in response to the global event: “Look at God!” Even here, I would like to complicate this expression. For which God are we referring to here? This, of course, was the question I also pondered when watching Beyoncé Mass.

While Reverend Norton was clearly invoking the Judeo-Christian deity, I wonder if it is not time to expand our cosmologies to encompass our African orishas, as Beyoncé had done when she made manifest the beauty, glamour and power of Oshun, a Yoruba/Santeria/Candomble goddess of love, beauty, wealth and fertility. She had first invoked this orisha in her critically acclaimed visual album Lemonade, which managed to highlight the glorious beauty of black womanhood and to feminize the body of Williams, in defiance against some black men and white dominant media’s constant attempts at erasures of her womanhood. She did so, during the segment “Sorry,” in the space of a plantation home where their ancestors had been brutally oppressed. I cannot help but view this bold reclamation of white spaces, disrupted by sexualized black vernacular dancing, such as the twerk—another manifestation of Oshun’s sexual power—as well as images of Beyoncé eventually burning down the house before we cut to the terrain where the enslaved in Louisiana once rebelled against their oppression, as work inspired by an African-themed god.

As Beyoncé declared on the album: “When you love me, you love yourself… love God herself.”

When I participated in a Lemonade seminar with other scholars, organized by black feminists Kinitra Brooks and Kameelah L. Martin, one of the participants, Nicholas Jones, who is also an Obá Oriaté—a high priest in the Santeria religion—suggested that we view the Lemonade project as an initiation ceremony to Oshun. Whether Beyoncé unwittingly or deliberately unleashed the power of this goddess, known for holding up her mirror so we can all truly see ourselves, we might imagine that this orisha revealed herself through the vehicles of hypervisible black women on the global stage.

After flaunting their sexiness and posing as if they were the queens of the universe in Lemonade, both Beyoncé and Williams appeared in the same vicinity again when the pop star, in stunning braids and white outfit, attended the Wimbledon women’s final months after her album’s premiere to support the tennis champion as she claimed her seventh Wimbledon and 22nd grand slam title. Interestingly, days before this dramatic win, another friend of Williams’ went unnoticed while sitting not too far from the Royal box at the Wimbledon games. Unbeknownst to the public, the Suits actor had just gone on that fateful blind date with a British prince set up by a mutual friend while she was in town to see Williams play.

A then-globally unknown Markle may not have predicted how, two years later, she would come to rival two of the most highly visible black women for the world’s attention when she married her prince in a globally televised event. However, in that moment at the Wimbledon games, in the wake of post-Lemonade black feminist awakenings, we might imagine a divinity like Oshun showing up and showing out—as she demonstrated later in the year when she blessed both Williams and Beyoncé with pregnancy (of twins, no less!), Williams with an engagement and Markle with a prince—one who issued an unprecedented statement against racist and sexist media coverage which essentially announced to the world his romantic involvement with a woman of color.

Beyoncé quite literally doubled down on her homage to the African goddess when highlighting her pregnancy on Instagram and in an ethereal and jaw-dropping Grammy performance. Despite the resurgence of conservative white male supremacy in the world, black women are finding themselves in highly visible spaces and bringing unapologetic black girl magic into the spheres of cultural and political influence. This visibility now encompasses a celebration of  their beauty and choices in love—the domains of Oshun—be it interracial in the case of Markle and Williams, black love in the case of Beyoncé or queer love, as Janelle Monae recently demonstrated with her album Dirty Computer.

These changes may only be symbolic, but representations still hold the potential to transform our social realities.

Special thanks to Kinitra Brooks, who provided helpful feedback on this piece.

Janell Hobson is associate professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies at the University at Albany, State University of New York. She is the author of Body as Evidence: Mediating Race, Globalizing Gender.

ms. blog digest banner

The post Reflections in Oshun’s Mirror: Beyoncé Mass, the Royal Wedding and Highly Visible Black Girl Magic appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link

We Were Lawyers Once


Brigitte, Jan and I started as summer associates on the same day. We met over a group orientation lecture at nine and by noon were having an exclusive tell-all lunch. We went to different law schools, but were about the same amount pretty. We hoped to have successful summers, return after our third year of law school and make partner in seven years. We had high expectations, despite the low odds.

Wikimedia Commons

Brigitte was French. She had silky black hair cut in sharp ledges. She had a lean body, a decisive manner and a plush accent. She wore stylish dresses and pointy shoes. She had cat-eye glasses she didn’t need and a pocket pup she never saw. To relax, she sprinted on treadmills and skimmed gossip magazines. She went to Columbia Law School and was married to a nice banker from a rural family in Kentucky.

But Brigitte didn’t like Kentucky, and she didn’t like rural. Within a few weeks, she told us she didn’t like her husband, either.

Jan and I were single, and we didn’t like being single. Jan grew up in hallowed circles which bored her. She had a socialite mother and a reclusive father; she wintered in New York City and summered in Maine. She disappointed her mother because she didn’t care about parties, and she disappointed her father because she didn’t make valedictorian. She devoured her first book in kindergarten and her first kiss in college.

I was a farm girl from the Midwest who was allergic to animals. I came to New York City to till a more fertile soil. I browsed the dictionary for fun and found going to bars hard. I had five brothers and craved a sister. I had a subscription to the New Yorker by middle school and wrote bad poetry about the bad boys I worshipped from afar in high school. I was good at close textual analysis but found summarizing cases hard. I was adept at painstakingly looking for clues. I favored navy and voted Democrat—but occasionally Republican—and my name is Margaret, but people called me Meg.

We learned the ways of the firm quickly. We billed our hours. We billed our dinners. We billed our rides home in dark cars along the dark river, glittering with bright lights. We were type A to a tee. We worked in a tall building with a marble lobby. Our conference room walls held sepia photographs of costumed conquerors: a helmeted Ghenkis Khan, a curly-headed Alexander the Great, a one-handed Napoleon.

We let our other lives dwindle away. We lived only for ourselves, our firm and our clients. We knew our clients by number, each by each. We lost ourselves in our work. We delighted in losing ourselves, for in that, we sometimes imagined we found ourselves.

We watched lawyers flirt with other lawyers, date other lawyers, marry other lawyers and have affairs with other lawyers. We heard lawyers say bad things about other lawyers. We bragged about which partners worked us the hardest. We bragged about which partners were called off of yachts in order to return to work alongside us. Vacations were expendable. We believed we weren’t.

This was in 1989, after the first wave of feminists had paved the way. We felt our way was clear: We knew that making partner was part luck; we had to peer into the crystal ball of business and predict which practice areas would be harried in the future. We were banking on a frenzy of work so ferocious and fierce that it could include us.

Brigitte figured out the finances first. Our firm had a strict hierarchy—the partners were paid in lock step, so first-year partners made two million dollars, second-year partners made two million and change, and so on. First-year associates could boss secretaries and paralegals and no one else; second-year associates could boss first year associates plus secretaries and paralegals. Paralegals could boss new paralegals. Secretaries could leave at five.

Our offices had windows that looked out at other windows. The partners had more of these windows. The most senior partners had corners of windows. We had doors that led to halls. We had doors that we could close but that everyone left open.

Jan, like all skinny women, fixated on our cafeteria. It served food from around the world on our fortieth floor. I, like all tired women, focused on places to sleep: The firm had built cubbies for napping, like in Japanese train stations, but no one was caught dead in those cubbies.

We arrived late. We left late. We were on time to meetings. We watched suns set, moons rise, stars fall. Out of the ashes of other companies, our bank account balances rose. We had lovely friends whom we rarely saw. We made plans we always cancelled. We stopped making plans.

We could see the trajectory of our lives, how we would rise in the ranks because we had what it took. Actually, we weren’t sure we had what it took. The thing was, we loved the work. We complained. We grumbled. We gnashed our teeth. But deep down, we loved opening boxes. We loved sorting files. We loved solving other people’s problems. Sometimes, we imagined that we could apply the same rigorous logic to our own problems. Better yet, when fully immersed in the problems of others, we imagined we had no problems. Tethered to our clients, we floated free.

We envied and scorned the paralegals. We handed them the boring work that we didn’t want. They stamped papers and kept lists, but they had deep friendships born of shallow occupations. They had a camaraderie we envied. Theirs was a one-year job, two years at most—then they would be released to travel wherever they pleased. Some of them went to law school; many of them did not. They had been cured of the legal bug by being given the most boring work. They had no idea how exciting the difficult work was. We shielded them from the excitement.

Our job was more like swimming down an ever-narrowing channel, where we watched other people gasp and head for the shore along the way. Only a few of us would be hardy enough to handle the work, the stress, the late hours, the early mornings, the lack of outside friendships and inner love, the excesses, the deprivations and the expectations—our own expectations most of all.

Some lawyers told war stories about how they had been summer associates in the lean years. They’d been channeled into departments instead of sampling them all like ice cream. They were told to curb their interests for the sake of the firm’s interests. They were to tighten their belts and fix their eyes on the shiniest prizes. They worked inside and didn’t go out.

We had the good fortune to be summer associates during a fat year. We had a happiness committee whose sole job was to lure us with merriment. The happiness committee bought us box seats at the Met and the Open. It organized jubilant dinners at upmarket restaurants where we ate cured fluke and skewered shrimp.

The committee hosted cocktail parties at partners’ gracious Upper East Side apartments. We reached these dwellings by giving our names to doormen who wore uniforms that struck us as vaguely military. We swilled our drinks and milled about, chatting casually as if we had grown up in formal homes with Stark carpets and opulent fabrics.

Even Jan, whose home sported five Stark carpets, seemed caught up in our whispered admiration. Brigitte turned the bone china upside down to check its provenance.

We heard loudly the silent message: if we worked hard enough we, too, could make partner, buy these apartments and eat in these restaurants. It was a package deal.

We were entranced and ironic. We mocked and yearned. Afterwards, when we returned to our walk-up apartments, we saw that our windows needed treatments. Blinds no longer satisfied us. Our eyes were opened.

We knew everything there was to know about our partners. We knew their middle names. We knew their children’s middle names. We knew where they bought their first Porsches and their second homes.

Sometimes, we were left open mouthed about the expansiveness of other lawyer’s brains. We could tell within minutes which of us would make partners in seven years, in a bright line. We repeated stories about our partners’ quirks. We hoped that one day people would tell such tales about us, but we doubted it—for to become partner, we had to suppress our louder laughs and our most peculiar peccadillos. Once we made partner, we knew we could let rip. But we worried that if we suppressed something too long, we’d never get it back.

We remembered with misgiving the stories in our biology textbooks about the kittens whose eyes were sewn shut at birth by curious heartless scientists. After six weeks, when the kittens’ eyes were finally released from their stitches, they were blind. They had lost their chance to learn to see, poor kittens.

Here are some of our partner stories.

Jeremy Gilmartin was said to have taught himself to read upside down so that he could spy on the notes of the opposition. We wondered how hard it could be to read upside down. We tried it and failed.

James Peapoint took to rollerblading down the firm’s long halls. James was good at law but not so good at rollerblading. We flattened ourselves against the walls when we caught sight of him, his dark suit jacket flapping and his elbows jabbing at the air. The secretaries laughed politely into their headsets when he creaked by.

Freddy Smith the Fourth gave all the firm speeches. Freddy Smith the Fourth was first rate funny. He gave off the cuff sounding talks which he practiced for hours. Those of us who worked for Freddy Smith the Fourth loved him. He got leaping-out-of-his-shiny-shoes excited if someone else did a good job. He had enough confidence to go around. He praised us for excellent work. It made us do our best. We loved him. We praised him back. Praise and love was in the air for any of us lucky enough to work for Freddy Smith the Fourth. He napped in his office every afternoon. His secretary warded off visitors. She loved him, too, in that platonic way Freddy inspired so generously. Freddy had a good wife whom he loved. We loved him most of all for loving his wife despite the feminine bright-eyed adulation. It gave us hope.

Freddy Smith the Fourth always settled his cases. He told us there was too much risk in litigation, because he couldn’t control the outcome. Sometimes Freddy Smith the Fourth said racist things under the guise of telling us what his grandmother used to say. Sometimes he said sexist things under the guise of telling us what his grandfather used to say. We shifted in our shallow seats. But Freddy was a senior partner and smart and his clients loved him, too. We wondered which of these qualities protected him most.

Whenever he had a speech to make, he would skip his afternoon nap. We heard him practicing his jokes aloud behind closed doors. We heard his pregnant pauses. We heard his calls and his responses. We learned more from minutes spent listening in at Freddy Smith the Fourth’s closed door than from hours opening gilded cumbersome volumes in the law library. Even the smartest funniest lawyers had to practice and pretend they didn’t. We learned that being the best wasn’t natural.

A partner named Jack Tripper married first a fellow partner, then an associate, then a paralegal, and finally his secretary. We saw the trajectory of the Tripper’s choices, how he climbed his way down the firm’s ladder. A partner named Jerry Jones dated first a paralegal, then a partner, then an associate. Unlike the Tripper, we who were expert pattern detectors could see no pattern to Jerry’s dating choices. Jerry seemed blind to hierarchy or decorum and had eyes only for beauty. Jerry was good at making women fall in love with him. He told every woman he dated that he wanted to marry them. It was his signature sexy move.

One evening, under the glaring lights of a cheerful conference room get together, Jerry moved close to Jan. Brigitte and I backed off, while Jerry told Jan that his wife had never understood him. Then he offered to lend Jan novels. A week later, Jan told us, breathless and blushing, that she was in love with Jerry. Brigitte and I said we knew. We didn’t tell her that everyone knew. Jan told us that two days after sleeping with her, Jerry told Jan that he wanted to marry her. But Jan didn’t know yet that Jerry hadn’t finished finishing his first marriage. He was only separated from his first wife. By the end of June, he let this choice morsel drop. By July, Jan discovered—and not from Jerry—that his current wife was actually his second wife.

Jan was mad at Jerry.; she didn’t understand how you could forget a marriage. Jerry didn’t like to date women who were mad at him, not when there were so many other beautiful smart women in the firm for Jerry to date, so by August, Jerry dumped Jan and started dating an associate.

In September, Brigitte, Jan and I hugged each other good-bye and returned to our separate law schools. But Jan wasn’t over Jerry. Every morning, she got out of bed and attended class in the humidity of Virginia, gripping her slick notebooks. By noon, she broke down and called Jerry, clutching the pay phone. Jerry spoke to Jan in a low seductive voice. Overcome by how male and sexy Jerry was, and how much more grizzled he was than any of the male law students, Jan had to take a depression nap after speaking to him. She missed constitutional law lectures for an entire month because of these naps. But Jan got an A+ in constitutional law. Now, years later, Jan has forgotten what it felt like to be in love with Jerry, but she still remembers that A+. She wonders what it says that she got the best grade in the class she taught herself.

After graduating, Jan, Brigitte and I returned to the firm. Jan now avoided Jerry. He had a way of looking at her like he still wanted to date her. It unsettled her. It tricked her into thinking Jerry pined after her. But Jerry had forgotten her. He just wanted her to think well of him. He liked everyone to think well of him. Jan complained to Brigitte and I about Jerry, and we agreed. We always agreed.

A female partner took us on as mentor. She coddled us and fed us lavender tea and purple-prosed slogans. Her name was Esmerelda White, but her nickname was Tappy because of her legendary speed at the keyboard. Tappy told us to resist the urge to tend to relationships at the firm. She told us the men wouldn’t respect us if we let them funnel us into administrative work. She said that the men respected only legal work. She said that if we wanted to make partner we had to bring in business. She said we had to make money. We had to work harder than the men. And we had to dress like ladies.

Together, trying to see Tappy past the stacks of documents on her desk, we laughed at those aging feminists, the ones who had so courageously carved the way for us. Those women had worn man suits and tied floppy bows around their necks. They’d tried to win in a man’s world by out-manning the men. We were determined to outman men by being women. We wore dresses and heels and pearls and, sometimes, pant suits. We walked to work in our sneakers and kept two pairs of dress shoes in our desk drawers—one navy, one black. Those shoes went with everything.

The junior male lawyers had their own outfit battles to wage. They biked to work in clip-on shoes and Spandex shorts. They kept dress shoes in their backpacks and suit jackets and ties behind their office doors. They changed when they arrived, but the sweat remained. We could smell it, but we never mentioned it. We never mentioned anything. It was a white shoe firm. A shoe polisher made the rounds once a week and bent over the lawyers while they worked. It was efficient. The lawyers tipped him well.

We kept toothbrushes and toothpaste and hairbrushes in our desk drawers. We groomed at work. We found our groove at work. We were often unhappy unless we were at work. We were often unhappy when we were at work. We were also happy at work. We had a love hate relationship with work. We loved the work. We hated that we loved the work. We told other people not to become lawyers. But we weren’t credible. We could have left law at any time but didn’t. We were like high school kids who said we didn’t study and pulled all-nighters.

We made a lot of puns. We had punny brains. We saw the potential in words. We could always hear what would happen if we twisted just one letter. Puns were revered by us, even as we mocked them. We couldn’t help ourselves. It was how we were wired.

We who were litigators wove plausible narratives to explain our clients’ more dubious decisions. Sometimes our clients turned blind eyes to the traders who made the most money. The bosses forgot to ask questions about how their junior traders managed to make exponentially more money than anyone else. The bosses ignored the security systems we had put in place for them. It wasn’t normal to make that much money. Those junior traders were cheaters. This was their downfall and our making.

One day, Brigitte let slip that Jerry had lent her a novel. Jan stopped wanting to have lunch with Brigitte. I had to see each of them alone. Jan wanted to talk about how nice Brigitte’s almost-ex was. Brigitte wanted to talk about anything but her almost-ex. I didn’t want to talk to either of them. We were tired of work and of each other.

The relationship became public. Brigitte finished divorcing her nice husband and married wicked Jerry. Brigitte and Jerry moved into a nice big apartment where Jerry’s nice six children came for nice short visits. Jerry said he didn’t want any more children. Brigitte said she didn’t want any, either. She ran faster on treadmills and her clothes became looser.

One day, one of the female partners, Magda, had a nervous breakdown. She was carted out of her home under cover of night. By daylight everyone knew. We knew because we were connected like an organism. A breakdown in one part of our firm meant a breakdown in all of us. We felt her cry as if it were our own.

Within a week, Magda recovered. She returned to her office and her workload. But we could see new twitches in the corners of her mouth. She couldn’t seem to control these twitches. Watching her, we felt our own mouths burn. Some of us, chastened by Magda’s breakdown, took meds and breaks. We made time to visit counselors, who told us that we needed to play more. So we stopped seeing counselors and worked more. We sensed we needed to spend time with people we didn’t have to pay to listen to us. Instead, we spent time with people who paid us to talk.

A few years after marrying Jerry, Brigitte made partner. Jan left the firm and became in-house counsel at a big bank. She married and divorced and moved house and forgot her first husband. She finally understood how you could forgot a marriage. She understood how it was better not to remember.

I stayed on but was passed over for partner. That’s what we called it. Being passed over. It meant I had been left behind. Instead of making me partner, they made me a senior associate. That’s the name for lawyers who were not good enough. Senior associates had two choices. We could leave or we could stay. I stayed.

I married a well-read accountant I met in a rare book store. We had three boisterous children whom we raised in a placid Fifth Avenue apartment. I ran in Central Park in the dark and squeezed an entire week of life into my weekends. I loved my husband. I loved my children. I loved my job. I hated that I wasn’t partner. It hung over me like a shroud. But I only hated it on the days when I thought about it. When I chose to count my blessings and do the work, I felt blessed. I had a choice. I could choose to be happy or to be sad. Every day, this choice confronted me.

Brigitte had a choice, too. She could turn a blind eye to the way Jerry’s eyes lingered over the long legs of the younger lawyers, or she could leave Jerry. But Brigitte thought she had a third choice: She thought she could get angry at Jerry; she thought she could yell. Jan could have told her that this was a bad choice, but Jan had left the state. Last we heard, Jan was living in a yurt in Wyoming with a park ranger. The more Brigitte berated Jerry, the more Jerry started hanging around a paralegal named Bambi.

I decided Bambi was too young to know Jerry’s history. I was wrong. Bambi knew because everyone knew. Bambi was one of us. But Bambi had something Brigitte didn’t have. Bambi didn’t care two hoots about Jerry. Instead, Bambi had an affair with Jerry but flirted with the male paralegals.

They were very cute, those male paralegals. They rolled up their shirtsleeves and loosened their ties. They carried litigation boxes for Bambi as easily as if they were filled with air instead of legal problems. Jerry grew his hair longer and dyed it blonder. He ate chemicals that made his diminishing hairline move backward, lower over his forehead like a time lapse camera. He switched brands of sports car and bought an Aston Martin. He eschewed his fitted Paul Stewart suits in favor of shapeless shiny Armani ones. He joined a gym and pursued the burn and the build and the playground experience.

We could have told Jerry that he was going to lose his battle with the paralegals. They were always younger than Jerry, every single year. And Bambi had no intention of marrying Jerry. Bambi was too smart to trust a man who’d an affair with her. She had a logical brain.

I was floored by Bambi. She felt like a new breed of woman. She was a fierce, independent woman, free of need, free of love, free of hurt. It hurt me to know there were women like Bambi in our firm. I thought that being hurt by the male lawyers was necessary. Bambi implied that there were choices we hadn’t known about.

One day, Jack the Tripper summoned me and some of the junior associates into his office. He’d lost a case we’d worked on together. “I’m going to call the client and tell them I lost,” he said. “You need to learn how to handle failure.” He called the client on speaker and we listened silently. The Tripper did a good job. The client accepted his loss. The Tripper rose in our estimation.

Brigitte stayed on as partner in our firm even though Jerry, from whom she was now separated, was still dating Bambi. Brigitte watched Jerry hang out with the female paralegals, leaning on their cubicle desks, and her heart grew hard. She decided Jerry was pathetic. It was either that or stay in so much pain that she couldn’t work. For Jerry was smart, sexy, funny and cute and couldn’t help his need for approval. Deep down, Brigitte knew that she suffered from the same need for approval. But Brigitte’s misfortune was that she wanted approval from Jerry, and Jerry kept shifting his targets.

One day, the Tripper called me on his office to staff me on a new case. “I need a warm body,” he said. The Tripper looked at me expectantly from across his leathered partner desk. A smile twitched in the corners of his four-times-married mouth.

My smile froze. I could tell that the Tripper had practiced this line. The Tripper knew that I’d get the joke, even though the Tripper knew that he would never be as funny as Freddy Smith the Fourth. It was an inside joke, after all. We were all warm bodies. We went where the need was greatest. We were interchangeable.

I told myself to be a professional. I had to sit down but was already sitting. I took notes and documents. I returned to my desk. But instead of putting together a team, I put on my coat. From the elevator, I called my husband. He told me to calm down and not take it personally. I called Brigitte. She told me that the Tripper only said out loud what everyone thought. I called Jan, but she was unreachable.

I was hurt. I was hurt by my husband and the Tripper, but most of all by Brigitte and Jan. Because always sympathizing, always being reachable, anywhere, anytime, was our mantra.

In midtown, commuters walked uptown with their gazes fixed down. They bumped into me and didn’t slow. I headed to the park in my heels. I’d already run this morning in my sneakers, and I was tired and it wasn’t even ten. Halfway across Fifth Avenue, I decided to leave the firm. It wasn’t because I’d missed my middle child’s school play. It wasn’t because I’d missed my youngest child’s first steps and words. It wasn’t because I’d missed my eldest daughter’s first period. It wasn’t because I missed my husband. I missed all of this, all of them, so much, and I asked myself again if this was why. It wasn’t. It was because the Tripper had spoken from his heart and broken mine.

In the park, I lay down in the grass and looked up at the sky and spoke firming slogans to myself. I wouldn’t quit. I’d return to work. I’d be fine. I wouldn’t feel cold about the Tripper’s request for a warm body. I’d be a nameless cog in the firm’s well-oiled wheel. I got to my feet and trudged along slanting sidewalks. I followed a pigeon. It was a drab grey thing with an iridescent purple sheen. Its head bob-bobbed into the empty space in front of it as it walked. It looked silly, as if it were pecking for food in the air. It couldn’t help seeking with every step something it would never find. It was the fault of its architecture, the way it was made, to peck at nothing like that, over and over, forever and ever, Amen.

I worked on the Tripper’s case. I lasted a little longer. And then I didn’t. Brigitte stopped watching Jerry and became in-house counsel at a bank. I served on boards and did planks. Jan left the ranger, set out her own shingle in Jackson Hole and built her own business.

Now, years later, from the quiet of my apartment, hearing construction noises in the street below, I remember that I loved them all. I loved Brigitte, Jan, Jerry, the Tripper, Freddy Smith the Fourth, Tappy, Bambi—well, not really Bambi—the male paralegals, Jeremy Gilmartin, Magda Fernandez, James Peapoint, the scent of cardboard, the quiet eager tapping of keyboards and the way my heels sank into the carpets unless I walked on my toes. I remember countless cups of bad coffee and my shifting secret crushes and the calm logical discussions of our clients’ irrational choices. I remember each night seeking the warmth of my husband’s soul-cycled body, listening to my children’s heedless high-pitched giggles and being excited that the next morning I would get to dress up as if I, too, were going to a party where I belonged.

Caroline Coleman is the author of LOVING SOREN. She has an English degree from Princeton and a fiction MFA from Brooklyn College: www.carolinecoleman.com

ms. blog digest banner

The post We Were Lawyers Once appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link

From Hope to Destitution: Life Inside Egypt’s Women-Only Village


The village of Al Samaha lies 120 kilometers from the bustling city of Aswan, Egypt, founded by the government as a “project” for divorced and widowed women who are typically ostracized in Egyptian society.

Al Samaha was meant to provide the women residing within it with a rare space to be self-reliant—but an attempt to create a haven for women exiled for their lack of male guardianship has become a prison for its residents.

Egyptian women gathered to rally for equality on International Women’s Day in 2011. (Al Jazeera / Creative Commons)

In Egyptian society, divorced or widowed women are often left with little to no means of financial sustenance. Women make up the majority of the nation’s unemployed population: A 2015 study revealed that 25.8 percent of women are unemployed, and that men are three times less likely to face unemployment. Furthermore, the social stigma surrounding divorce and lack of a male guardianship is deeply embedded in Egyptian culture, which forces divorced women to be looked down on and socially shunned—especially those from villages in Upper Egypt.

In 1998, in an attempt to alleviate government spending on welfare-dependent widows and divorcees, the Ministry of Agriculture created Al Samaha to mitigate government spending, propel women to enter the agricultural realm and provide relief from the negative social backlash these women face.

Instead, Al Samaha is a dead end.

Few interviews with older women in the village allow their true grievances to be expressed—but the residents, when given the chance, have been outspoken about the conditions they face.

Each of the 303 families housed in the village is given a hut-like home subsidized by the government and six acres of land to farm, but many women there say that the land is desolate and barren, making it nearly impossible for most crops to grow.

They complain of a lack of clean running water; one recounted that “the water is so dirty it is making our children’s skin peel.” Children in the village show symptoms of severe skin infections and diseases that they contract from the contaminated water that runs through it. In order to drink clean water, residents must wait for a truck from a neighboring village, which often does not come for weeks. For the duration of the time in-between deliveries, residents remain thirsty.

“If no truck comes for a week and suddenly we see one approaching,” Faiza Ismail, a village elder, explains, “we celebrate and cheer and let the rest of the village know that the vegetables have arrived and for everyone to hurry and collect their own vegetables and water… We don’t have any here.”

There are no health facilities in Al Samaha. Children run to the nearest village when someone falls ill to ask permission to use their trucks; the residents must be driven to Aswan for medical attention. “We need an ambulance,” Ismail declares at a convening of the village’s women one evening, “so if any of us fall ill after a long day of work we have a way to get them to a doctor or the hospital.” Most of the sick residents of Al Samaha do not have the luxury of traveling 120 kilometers for care, and so they are left with no options, even if they are stricken by curable and preventable diseases and illnesses.

The children of Al Samaha, by and large, are illiterate. There are no schools in the village, and they thusly have no means of education. They spend their days working in fields with their mothers.

“My husband passed away when I was 34 years old,” Ismail told Al Jazeera in a video interview. “I stayed here and raised my children and educated them and now two of them are married and the other two are with me. If I have a gallon of water I’ll share it with the other women in the village and if they have some water they share it with the rest of us. If we don’t hear from one of the women in the village we knock on her door to make sure she’s okay to make sure she hasn’t fallen ill or fainted or died from exhaustion.”

Although the living conditions in Al Samaha are extremely difficult, women like Ismail are persistent in their fight to carve out lives for themselves. “We know that one woman is stronger than ten men,” she tells the camera crew, repeating a common Egyptian phrase. “Otherwise we would not have survived here.”

Salma Elakbawy is a political intern at the Feminist Majority Foundation. She currently attends Rutgers University where she studies Political Science and Women’s and Gender Studies.

ms. blog digest banner

The post From Hope to Destitution: Life Inside Egypt’s Women-Only Village appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link

Claiming Public Space for Girls on International Youth Day


Today marks International Youth Day; this year’s theme, “Safe Spaces for Youth,” emphasizes the necessity of places where youth can gather and engage in constructive and meaningful discussions where they are free to express themselves. Citing positive effects of the “availability and accessibility of public spaces to youth such as parks, sporting facilities, cafés and community gardens,” The United Nations (UN) Youth Day program identifies creating public safe spaces as one of their priorities.

In 2015, UN Women declared public space to be “a social good, which should be safe, accessible, inclusive and available for all,” though many youth do not enjoy such accessibility. This is especially true for young women.

A. Warner/ICRW, Liberia

Public spaces are often male-dominated environments where violence against women—especially sexual harassment—is unfortunately far too common.

global report by UN Women states that women face harassment in parks, markets, streets, buses and trains in both urban and rural areas,  and regardless of the country’s level of affluence. The United Nations Population Fund reported that  “parents often keep their daughters inside the house, protected from any contact with males” by taking them out of school, increasing their domestic chores, or beginning to prepare them for marriage. And according to a Population Council report, “for many girls in the developing world, the opportunity to move freely in the community becomes limited at the onset of puberty.” Such restriction on young women’s mobility results in isolation from friends and insufficient social contact, which has negative effects on girls’ health.

By working together to make safe public spaces for girls, communities, youth leaders and local governments can help combat gender-based violence in public. Creating public safe spaces uniquely for female youth is a crucial first step towards transforming all public spaces into areas where women feel safe and towards changing societal beliefs about who should occupy public space and how they should occupy it.

Communities can be extremely effective when they organize to help increase girls mobility in public spaces by creating support groups, establishing facilities, or reserving time solely for girls at an existing community center. The act of reclaiming public spaces in their community that are usually reserved for men and boys is incredibly empowering for young girls, as researchers observed in the International Center for Research on Women’s (ICRW) Parivartan for Girls program.

ICRW, Parivartan for Girls

Parivartan for Girls engaged 12 to 16 year-old girls in a slum community in Mumbai through an 18-month program that combined training session in kabaddi, a traditionally male-only wrestling-like sport popular in South Asia, with empowerment workshops. The program culminated in a kabaddi tournament in front of an audience of over 500 members of the community.

Playing kabaddi publicly helped the girls claim agency over their own bodies and movement. Just as significant is that their parents, who had previously been reluctant to let their daughters out of the home, expressed pride while watching them play.

The United Nations Population Fund strongly recommends that safe spaces for girls are “women and girl-led.” In the Parivartan for Girls program, participants were coached by educated, unmarried 18- to 24-year-old female mentors; they acted as “positive deviants” because they countered cultural gender and marriage norms and set an empowering example for their young mentees. 

The positive impact of female youth leaders was also seen in ICRW’s recent ‘Tikambisane’ intervention, which engaged adolescent, HIV-positive girls in Zambia in six support group sessions that were all co-facilitated by two female peers living with HIV. Participants noted that having peers co-facilitating put them at ease and made them more comfortable discussing their experiences openly, and that their peer mentors “made them feel accepted and fostered a sense of unity.”

Safe spaces for girls are most effective when they are led by young female leaders—both of these programs remind us of the power of connecting girls with mentors from similar backgrounds with common experiences.

Robyne Hayes/ICRW

On a larger scale, to make public areas safe for girls, urban planning needs to be sensitive to and informed by gender. City governments should consider gender in their policies on infrastructure and urban planning. A city that is safe for girls needs to include clean, well-lit public toilets that do not have broken doors. It has well-lit streets and efficient, secure public transportation.

To improve the security of the transit system for women, the cities of Montreal and Toronto in Canada began to allow women traveling at night to get off between stops so that they didn’t have to walk as far to their destination in the dark. In Vienna, Austria, upon observing that, as girls and boys turned ten, the number of girls in public parks “dropped off dramatically,” but the number of boys stayed the same, city planners added areas for sports other than football and footpaths to increase accessibility. City officials noticed an increase in the number of girls using the space “almost immediately.”

Madhumita Das/ICRW, India

As a teenage girl growing up in Washington, D.C., I’ve been fortunate to enjoy broad freedom in my mobility. I generally feel safe while walking to the bus stop, riding on the Metro and traveling around D.C. Thinking of the girls whose parents did not want them to participate in the Parivartan program and play kabaddi, I realized just how lucky I am just to be able to play soccer at the local public park with friends — without fear of harassment.

Everyone plays a role in creating safe spaces for girls. Communities can contribute to this goal by creating empowering, girl-centered programs, and city governments can contribute by factoring women’s needs into their urban planning—but youth voices need to be included in all of these efforts, from project planning and implementation to monitoring and evaluation.

Now is the time to create safe spaces for youth worldwide.

Emma Markus is currently serving as Communications Intern for ICRW and is a Senior in the Communication Arts Program at Montgomery Blair High School. Emma also founded her own charitable organization called Give + Grow (Maa tsi //hoa), which sponsors girl’s education in Tsintsabis, Namibia, and is a writer for Affinity. She serves as the President of her school’s Model United Nations Club and is also a leader in its Girl Up Club.

ms. blog digest banner

The post Claiming Public Space for Girls on International Youth Day appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link

The Ms. Q&A: Therese Shechter and Glynnis MacNicol on Being Child-Free by Choice and Changing the Conversation on Women’s Lives


As filmmaker Therese Shechter approached the age of 40, she decided to create her first documentary, I Was a Teenage Feminist. She is currently working on a new film, My So-Called Selfish Life, which documents the lives of women who are “choosing not to have kids in a culture where motherhood feels mandatory.” Writer Glynnis MacNicol had a similar reaction to turning 40, authoring the recent memoir No One Tells You This, which documents her fortieth year as a single and child-free woman. She also wrote an aptly titled New York Times piece on the subject, asking: “I’m in My 40s, Child-Free and Happy. Why Won’t Anyone Believe Me?”

In both cases, these women felt the need to respond to the lack of narratives that mirrored their own lives. By creating art as a medium of expression, they are effectively adding to the conversation about being child-free with no regrets.

The two women took a moment to answer a couple of questions from Ms. about their work.

Therese, what do you hope to accomplish with My So-Called Selfish Life?

TS: Someone once described my work as disturbing what we’ve come to believe is sacred about womanhood. I’ve taken that on as my mission statement no matter what film I’m working on, from exploring how the power of feminism can transform a life in I Was A Teenage Feminist, to challenging widespread myths about female sexuality in How To Lose Your Virginity. My So-Called Selfish Life is the final film of this trilogy, and in it I want to challenge possibly the most sacred female identity: motherhood.

The first thing I’d like to do is give voice to a community that’s been harassed and stigmatized for making a choice about how to best live their lives—a choice that doesn’t actually affect most people around them. On a larger scale, I want to shift the conversation about women’s roles in the world and challenge the idea that every woman’s greatest accomplishment is childbearing. I’m not making a film about how terrible motherhood is, but about how social structures present women with only one possible script for their lives. With reproductive rights under constant attack and the contents of our uterus seemingly everyone’s business, the right to control our bodies and lives is more important than ever. 

And Glynis, what was your inspiration for writing No One Tells You This?

GM: This book came out of me turning 40, feeling very powerful, and thinking like “why the fuck should I feel bad about myself?” It was this real sort of moment like I couldn’t believe what I’ve been led to believe, that I should feel bad about myself for my life, because all evidence in front of me suggests that I should be feeling pretty great. When I decided to write this book I felt that I was looking to my left and right seeing so many women leading similar lives to me and we didn’t have any stories or narratives around it or anything which felt very frustrating and very suffocating.

Why do you think there is so much stigma in our society about being child-free by choice?

TS: That’s the really the big question I’m exploring in the film. It’s still true that any decision a woman makes that veers from an accepted script of heterosexual marriage and children is suspect. When you give women economic and sexual freedom they start thinking about what they really want from their lives and sometimes the answer is that they don’t want kids. There has been a lot done about the stigma in our society of being child-free, but I want to go past name-calling to look at the reasons that stigma exists.

Also, we as a society cling to the mistaken idea that all women not only want kids, but are natural caregivers, and that anyone who doesn’t feel that way is somehow damaged goods. The directive to multiply is embedded in major religions. So, if you’re challenging centuries of embedded patriarchy, capitalism, religion and nationalism, you’re going to get pushback.

GM: The shame attached to all parts of women’s lives is extraordinary and the real shame is that we’re deeply uncomfortable with the idea of women navigating their own lives.

All stories end with marriage or a baby, we’re very uncomfortable with women on their own. And why is that? Who’s uncomfortable with that idea? Who’s uncomfortable with women out of their place? Who benefits from all of us feeling bad about our lives? We don’t. So I think we’ve all internalized the shame factor and the shame is attached to women being alone, and why is it bad for us to be alone? It is definitely not bad for us. It is bad for a lot of people who are in power and are complaining quite loudly right now about how alarming it is when women seem to take charge.

One recent statistic says that more women in the United States are child-free now more than at any other time. Why do you think that is?

TS: One of the often-cited stats is that one-in-five women now end their childbearing years without having a child, compared with one-in-ten in the 1970s. That’s a big jump, but there are several things going on here. First, there are a lot less teen pregnancies, and a larger percentage of women are putting off starting a family until they’re older, so fertility issues come into play.

But there’s definitely a larger percentage of women who are simply choosing not to have kids, because, frankly, they can. Having children can give a parent a lot of joy, but it also comes with sacrifice and expense and a loss of freedom. Working mothers are penalized for having kids, both in income and advancement, and let’s face it, they still take on the brunt of the work at home. Given the current state of affairs, it’s a choice fewer women want to make.

GM: We’re living in the first generation that has grown up with the possibility of women having some level of financial freedom or independence for the first time in history. And with that independence comes the ability to make choices around your life, that you want, as opposed to choices out of necessity. For most of history women have been required to be in marriage as a means of survival. And of course, without birth control there’s very little you can do about how many children you’re having.

I think that is important to emphasize too, that we are both giving women the means to determine what their lives look like, and not giving them the means to lead a full life with children financially. It’s like we’re punishing women for having children essentially. We’re both financially punishing women for having children and giving them the ability to choose not to have children at the same time. So I don’t think it’s so shocking that the numbers are dropping.


Danielle Bauter has worked as the marketing and events coordinator at an independent bookstore in California for over a decade, and she is also a freelance writer. Her book reviews have been published in Elle Magazine and she currently writes a books column for Coast Magazine. Her short stories have been published in anthologies from Seal Press and Cleis Press. She also documents her travels at Wanderlust Explored.

ms. blog digest banner

The post The Ms. Q&A: Therese Shechter and Glynnis MacNicol on Being Child-Free by Choice and Changing the Conversation on Women’s Lives appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link

Bold Moves to End Sexual Violence: Challenging the Dialogue on Sex and Relationships Facing Gen Z


This year’s National Sexual Assault Conference theme is audacious and inspiring: ending sexual violence in one generation.

It calls out the damaging misperception that sexual assault and gender-based violence is inevitable. It summons us to think and act more creatively and courageously than ever before.

Challenge accepted. Here at EVERFI, our bold move is to dismantle the myth that Gen Z’ers are interested in hook-up culture—and support young adults in their desire to form meaningful, respectful intimate relationships with each other.

Young women at the 2010 SlutWalk in London demand respect—and a departure from rape culture. (Chris Beckett / Creative Commons)

Thankfully, we’re not alone in asserting this challenge. A significant body of research has emerged over the past decade that indicates the majority of young adults do not engage in—or, perhaps more importantly, even desire—no-strings, no expectations sexual encounters. Too often, when parents, educators, and caring adults talk with young people about intimacy and sex, the conversation focuses on what Harvard education researcher Richard Weissbourd calls “disaster mitigation”—a hand-wringing monologue about their likely sexual explorations threaded with vague references to avoiding unplanned pregnancy, asking for and receiving consent and respecting themselves and their partners.

I’ll confess: I’ve done this, even recently. It’s all important stuff, for sure. But these talks don’t do enough to offer what young adults hunger to understand better about relationships. We’re pretty lousy at teaching young people the skills they need to engage in meaningful, emotionally responsible and respectful relationships with each other.

As Weissbourd notes in a recent study on the subject: “We do remarkably little to prepare [young people] specifically for the focused, tender, subtle, generous work of learning how to love and be loved.”

But this is what college students tell us they want.

As the nation’s largest provider of online sexual violence prevention education for college students, we have significant insight on young adults’ beliefs, perceptions and experiences when it comes to relationships and sexual violence. In 2018, we included questions about this issue in our course surveys.

What we learned from nearly 4,000 college students may be surprising: 70 percent identified that they want love and respect in their relationships—and, contrary to the messages we often hear about college students and their fickle hearts (and libidos), 65 percent identified commitment and noted faithfulness as qualities they desire in relationships. Only 14 percent wanted to have casual sex, described in the survey as having “friends with benefits,” and even fewer—only 11 percent—were interested in hook-ups, which were described as “sexual encounters with no expectations attached.”

Yet, while 48 percent of college students desire love and respect for themselves, they don’t think that their peers want the same. When asked what they believed their peers wanted from relationships, 53 percent said “friends with benefits” and nearly half thought that other college students desired “sexual encounters with no expectations attached.”

The distortion these data surface between what young people personally believe about relationships and sexual intimacy and what they perceive their peers to believe is quite troubling. As sexual violence prevention scholars have noted, young adults are more likely to shape their actions based on what they believe their peers think than what they personally feel.

To end sexual violence in one generation, we all must act. Challenging the narrative that pigeonholes young people into unfulfilling sexual dynamics is the first step—and everyone can play a part in making it possible.

Colleges and universities can gather institution-specific data about student relationship choices and values to close the misperception gap when it comes to what students want out of relationships and sexual intimacy, provide parents and other supportive adults with guidance on talking to young people about love and romantic relationships and partner healthy sexuality education and sexual violence prevention efforts on campus by developing shared goals, language and programming efforts that include content related to developing, sustaining and ending emotionally significant relationships.

Parents and caring adults can engage in meaningful conversations about love, intimacy beyond sex and what is important in their own relationships, model healthy and respectful words and actions for young adults and request that schools provide developmentally appropriate and ongoing skills-focused education about healthy relationships and healthy sexuality to their students.

And here at EVERFI, we will invest our organizational creativity and courage in developing and delivering effective, positive education that helps our five million annual learners build healthy relationship skills and take action when someone is at risk of harm. We will continue to gather data about student beliefs and experiences, and deliver data- and research-driven insights to our 1,600 partner schools and to the broader community of prevention practitioners and higher education leaders.

The young adults in all our lives want and deserve respectful, loving, meaningful relationships. It is our work, together, to show them how they’re built.

Editor’s Note: We talked to Holly LIVE at NSAC 2018! Watch the video below to hear more from her on campus sexual assault prevention and find us on Facebook to watch more conversations from the conference.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v3.1’; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

The Ms. LIVE Q&A: Holly Rider-Milkovich on Preventing Rape on Campus

EVERFI's senior director of prevention, Holly Rider-Milkovich, talked to Ms. digital editor Carmen Rios about what it will take to end sexual violence on college campuses—and how administrators and students can work together to make it happen.

Posted by Ms. Magazine on Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Holly Rider-Milkovich is the Senior Director of Prevention at EVERFI. She brings over two decades of experience in sexual violence prevention and response and in higher education to her role. 

ms. blog digest banner

The post Bold Moves to End Sexual Violence: Challenging the Dialogue on Sex and Relationships Facing Gen Z appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link

Bold Moves to End Sexual Violence: Separating Hook-Up Culture from Rape Culture


Ms. is a proud media sponsor of the 2018 National Sexual Assault Conference, co-hosted by the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. This year’s NSAC theme is “Bold Moves: Ending Sexual Violence in One Generation.” Leading up to the event, we’ll be posting pieces by presenters and major speakers highlighting their plans to make those moves right here on the Ms. blog. Click the banner image above or this link for more Bold Moves posts.

What does it mean to be part of a hookup culture—to be sexually active in any way, shape or form, to participate in a system that puts intimacy on the ladder to rape culture? Does hooking up somehow invite the risk for violation?

During their time on campus, chances are that college students will hear casual dating involving any kind of sexual behavior referred to as “hooking up.” We think of hookup culture as one in which we can have the freedom of engaging sexually without the pressure of commitment. But even in a time as supposedly sex-positive as this one, hookup culture can still come off as something to be avoided or ashamed of—especially if you are a woman or belong to the LGBTQ community.

The prevalence of hookup culture as an everyday norm among young people has supposedly skyrocketed, yet there are still a number of stigmas that permeate the ways we think of and refer to casual sex. There are plenty of other terms used widely to describe intimacy, and not all of them are positive: “screwing,” “nailing,” “hammering,” “banging” or “hitting that,” to name just a few. These phrases are used just as readily to insinuate sexual behavior as describing an onslaught or act of aggression; it’s understandable, then, how hooking up can come to be seen as more than a little negative in our minds.

This kind of stigma doesn’t just reap shame for sexual beings—it makes it more difficult to call out rape culture when we see it.

Feminists around the world push back on rape culture at SlutWalks meant to spread sex-positivity. A protestor at the 2012 SlutWalk in Singapore held a sign reading “my dress is not a yes.” (Tamara Craiu / Creative Commons)

All too often, we’re told that rape itself is “hard to define,” because it’s associated with these muddy waters of sexual behavior and hooking up in general. This is especially true when we shame people for enjoying sex. We live in an environment where the act of hooking up—of being sexual with someone else, whether for the first time for the hundredth—is still viewed as a questionable choice, and too frequently leveraged as a defense for perpetrators of sexual assault.

If sex and hooking up are inherently bad, how can we respond when perpetrators “defend” a violent act of sexual assault as “just” a regretted hookup, miscommunication or those muddy waters between sex and violence? The intersection between rape culture and hookup culture—the moment we begin stigmatizing others for the ways in which they’re sexual, the moments where we use shameful, degrading language to describe sexual activity—contribute to a landscape in which perpetrators of sexual assault get away with harming others.

For those of us committed to encouraging healthy, consensual interactions, having hookup culture act as a scapegoat for violent, criminal behavior can be overwhelming and may even lead us to feel powerless. But hooking up doesn’t have to be negative—and it certainly shouldn’t ever be violent.

It’s time to delineate the difference between hookup culture and rape culture (and that harmful, stigmatizing area where the two bleed into each other) once and for all.

At Catharsis Productions, we’re not here to promote or discourage any kind of choice in sexual behavior; that choice is yours, and yours alone. What we are promoting is a hookup culture that respects everyone—one free from negative stereotypes, where choices to participate in any form are respected.

The next time you feel unsure of where your experiences, habits or beliefs fall on this spectrum, consider what hookup culture is supposed to be like—and what rape culture is. It’s the responsibility of everyone—not just sexually active folks—to keep hookup culture positive and ensure that consent and respect are the norm.

We all have the opportunity every day to normalize healthy behavior. We can empower each other, rather than invoking shame and slinging stigma at each other, for the choices we make about sex.

We can use positive language to refer to sexuality. We can involve respectful communication in our dating lives. We can declare and demand consent in our own sex lives. And we can stand up for those who have had their choice taken away.

We can stop something as healthy and empowering as consensual hookups from becoming clouded with something as harmful as rape culture.

Catharsis Productions‘ mission is to change the world by producing innovative, accessible and 
research-supported programming that challenges oppressive attitudes and shifts behavior.

ms. blog digest banner

The post Bold Moves to End Sexual Violence: Separating Hook-Up Culture from Rape Culture appeared first on Ms. Magazine Blog.



Source link