What even is a nipple?

My partner and I were getting ready for bed one night. As she was getting out of that day's clothes, she pulls up her shirt and starts yelling, "I want my Jerry beads!" We both thought it was hilarious. Between the laughing, I told her that, as a child, I thought it was so cool that womyn would show their breasts on T.V. for some beads. I even wanted to go on the Jerry Springer Show and get myself some beads! And my partner expressed she had the same desire as a child.

And then it hit us--what a horrible thing for a child to want to do when they got older! As the daughter of a single mother who was also a Catholic Mexican immigrant, pulling my shirt up to show the world my "chi chis" was not something I should have wanted to do, especially not for some beads my mom could have gotten at me from the 99 Cent Store. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with pulling up your shirt and showing the world your boobs. It was problematic for a seven-year-old girl to believe that was what she should do for attention.

I can think of so many more ideas I had as a child that involved me trying to be "sexy" so that boys would like me. Some people will point to my mother and say she should have monitored what I watched more closely. As many low-income people of color know, our immigrant parents were preoccupied working and worrying about feeding us and not missing our rent payments.

Additionally, this problem goes beyond monitoring what I watched as a child. Why did I think it was cool to pull up your shirt and show off your boobs? My brain had already been wired to sexually objectify my own body. But how?

I am especially surprised that my partner wanted Jerry beads as a child because, from a very early age, she knew she was masculine-of-center and had identified with her brother's clothes and toys more so than what her mother would buy her.

There are obviously many reasons as to why young girls objectify their bodies (i.e., media, society, cultural norms). Whatever the reasons are, this cultural norm is a lose-lose situation for womyn. Womyn are encouraged to behave like this (Jerry beads, spring break wet T-shirt contests, mud fights), but once they do, they are seen as hoes, easy, whores or immoral. Additionally, although men don't want an "easy" woman, they do want a woman who attracts attention. But how do you attract attention without doing  the things that consider a woman easy?

These questions lead me back to wanting Jerry beads. Although this behavior is encouraged, female nipples generally have to be censored on television and social media, with a few exceptions. This would not be upsetting if male nipples also had to be censored. This has fueled the #FreeTheNipple movement. When looking at photos that have been altered to show male nipples in place of female nipples, we can appreciate how similar male and female nipples are and conclude that body censorship really is about sexually objectifying female bodies.

For instance, take Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl. People were so upset about what happened that Janet Jackson issued a public apology even though it was Justin Timberlake who exposed her breast. The aftermath of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show brings to light the sexism surrounding body censorship. Not only was Janet Jackson's career affected by this choice, Justin Timberlake's was not affected negatively, and if anything, was affected positively. Since Justin Timberlake did not share the responsibility in 2004, people were upset he was invited to perform for the 2018 Super Bowl halftime show.

At the end of the day, male and female nipples are the same. So what's the problem? The only thing I can think of is that the more censored a womxn is, the sexier society finds her. But, that's society's problem to deal with, not ours.

Unveiling and dismantling the taboos around menstruation through film

On February 24, 2019, Period. End of Sentence, won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject at the 91st Academy Awards. Iranian-American director Rayka Zehtabhi and Oakwood School teacher Melissa Berton, the visionaries behind this documentary, graciously accepted the award and delivered an insightful speech to the audience. Overwhelmed with emotion during the speech, Zehtabhi stated “I’m not crying because I’m on my period or anything. I can’t believe a film about menstruation just won an Oscar!”

Zehtabhi’s surprised reaction to the Oscar recognition her menstruation film received only affirmed the pressing need to foster dialogue and dismantle the deeply rooted stigma associated with menstruation.

Period. End of Sentence embarked on a journey to address this need by showcasing the menstruation-related experiences of women in the rural Kathikhera village of Hapur, located 60 kilometers outside of India’s national capital Delhi.

Although the Kathikhera village women knew that sanitary pads existed from watching television and seeing them in local stores, cultural and socioeconomic barriers prevented them from ever purchasing the pads. Instead, for many generations, women of the Kathikhera village utilized any discarded rags, cloths, ashes, leaves, and newspapers they could find to absorb the blood from menstruation. The unhygienic and dangerous nature of these items caused the Kathikhera village women to experience severe health problems.

In addition, the constant presence of men and their prying judgmental gaze resulting from their misinformed notions about menstruation constituting a “disease which mostly affects women” only exacerbated the difficulties these women faced. Specifically, it adversely impacted the ability of Kathikhera village women to periodically change the items used to absorb menstruation blood and ultimately barred most of them from completing their education.

For example, the producers interviewed a young girl who described how menstruating forced her to drop out once she reached middle school. She highlighted the challenges she faced in finding nearby private places to change her clothes and stated that the “looks and comments surrounding men ushered at her made her feel ashamed.” This harsh reality only emphasizes the importance of Berton’s closing remarks in her Oscars acceptance speech, which called for action and declared that, “a period should end a sentence, not a girl’s education.”

The extreme discomfort and painful shame these women endured in dealing with menstruation persisted even throughout other scenes of the film. For example, the film opened with a scene of two pre-teenage girls “melting into giggles of embarrassment from having to discuss their period.” In a subsequent scene, a teacher asked a 15-year-old female student to tell the class about menstruation. The female student “stood up completely petrified, remained in stone cold silence for roughly three minutes, and looked like she was about to faint.” Even older women of Kathikhera village echoed similar sentiments when interviewed about menstruation. Elderly women expressed strong resentment towards having to remain in seclusion when on their period and deemed their period “dirty blood and a mysterious illness.”

After witnessing the plight of the Kathikhera village women, The Pad Project, a non-profit organization started by the producers of this film, collaborated with Action India, a grassroots feminist organization, to raise money and provide the village with a low-cost sanitary pad making machine.

What proves to be most astonishing about this pad making machine is the fact that a man pioneered its invention, despite the prevalence of a radical male dominance culture in India. Arunachalam Muruganantham spent nine years of his life inventing this low-cost sanitary pad making machine based on a desire “to create a good sanitary napkin for his wife” and a shocking realization that “a lack of proper sanitary napkins restricted a woman’s mobility, stifled her confidence, and negatively affected her health.”

Muruganantham played an integral role in the Period. End of Sentence narrative by personally going to the Kathikhera village to install the machine and teach the women how to operate it. Initially, the machine instilled both fear and eagerness in the Kathikhera village women and puzzled the Kathikhera village men who thought it served as a “diaper making machine.”

However, as Poorna Jagannathan, an Indian-American producer involved in the film aptly noted, “a simple product can give birth to a revolution.” Installation of pad generating machines ultimately transformed the Kathikhera village women who experienced “crippling shame at their own menstrual cycles” into empowered women who worked and earned money for the very first time in a thriving microeconomy. Within six months, the Kathikhera village women manufactured, marketed, and sold over 18,000 pads under the brand name “Fly.” The women specifically chose the brand name “Fly” to encourage other women to “rise and soar” above the perils of the patriarchy and break the cultural taboos surrounding menstruation.

In addition, installing the sanitary pad generating machines disrupted the traditional public-private divide in the Kathikhera village by granting its women economic independence and purpose beyond domesticity and marriage. For example, Sneha, one of pivotal sanitary pad makers in the film’s narrative and an aspiring police officer, discussed how she planned to use the money she earned from sanitary pad sales to escape marriage and fund her training for joining the Delhi Police. Beaming with positivity and optimism, Sneha articulated her hope of selling “Fly” sanitary pads nationwide and making it easier for women in rural villages to access sanitary pads.

Moreover, giving these women the opportunity to sell sanitary pads facilitated more candid and open conversations about women’s menstrual needs. It served as a concrete first step in dismantling menstruation taboos by providing a forum where it became socially acceptable to discuss it with their female friends and relatives, people who ultimately became their biggest customers.

However, as Suman, one of the sanitary pad makers in the film, aptly acknowledges that “when there’s patriarchy things take time.” Destroying the stigma around menstruation completely requires examining it through an intersectional perspective that accounts for racial and cultural nuances and inspires men to be proactive like Muruganantham and knowledgeable about menstruation being a “natural phenomena” rather than a “disease.”

Notes on The Bachelor, Part 2: Justice for Tayshia

Congratulations, friends! We've made it through another season where the titular "Bachelor" decided to forgo choosing a woman who loved him or was actually ready for marriage, and instead chose the blonde he thought was hottest, despite the fact that she lacked the aforementioned qualities and maybe just liked being on reality shows. As much fun as that phenomenon is to dissect, this post is dedicated to another one of The Bachelor's many problems: Race.

For those who have not kept up with this riveting season, here is a quick recap of what truly may have been the most dramatic ending ever. As even those who don't watch the show know, Colton jumped a fence in a fit of emotion. We were teased with this fence jump all season, and it became somewhat of a running joke on social media each Monday night as we all anxiously awaited Colton's reasoning. Well, it turns out that his reason was Cassie Randolph. After about 5 other women warned Colton that Cassie might not be "ready for marriage," it turned out that Cassie was in fact, not ready to get engaged at the end of the show. Colton pleaded for her to stay and told her he was going to choose her, she stood her ground, he went back to his hotel to sulk, but soon left and gave Bachelor Nation what it had been waiting for all season.  After calming down, he decided that Cassie was still the one, and he would fight for her. But first, he needed to dump his two remaining ladies - Tayshia and Hannah G. (Cassie eventually acquiesced to Colton's pleas for a second chance, and now they are happily dating, I guess?)

Both Cassie and Hannah G. are very typical of women that make it to the final three on The Bachelor - pretty, blonde, thin, honestly somewhat innocuous. Tayshia, however, is black. Black women, as well as other women of color, do not typically fare well on this series. Sure, most of time, they aren't all eliminated on night one. But Tayshia's place in the final three women is only the second time out of 23 seasons where a black woman has made it that far. Further, no black woman has ever progressed past the final 3. This can likely be attributed to a lack of diversity in the cast generally, as well as the implicit biases of the Bachelor(ette)s themselves. As a woman of color, I like to root for the non-white contestants, even knowing their chances of winning the show are slim, and that is easy to do when given contestants like Tayshia. I didn't expect Tayshia to win, but there are two things about the way her storyline ended that trouble me: 1) the way she felt she needed to handle herself when Colton broke up with her and; 2) that she wasn't chosen to be the next Bachelorette.

Tayshia's trajectory on the show was typical of a frontrunner. She went bungee-jumping on her first date with Colton, and he seemed to genuinely like her and want to spend time with her. Tayshia seemed smart, down to earth, and sincere. She stayed out of drama for most of the season, until she felt she needed to warn Colton about Cassie's intentions. (After that episode, there was some backlash against her, though she was vindicated in the end when Cassie tried to quit the show.)  When confronted by Caelynn, she stayed calm and did not resort to name calling. Caelynn on the other hand felt entitled to swear, and even called Tayshia a "stupid bitch" in an interview with a producer. Tayshia likely felt that she could not do either, lest she embody the problematic reality television trope of the "angry black woman." She kept her cool again when Colton blindsided her with the news he was breaking up with her for Cassie. In fact, at least from what we saw, she seemed to be the one comforting him (at 4:09) - a really annoying phenomenon many straight women have experienced. She kept her composure through her meeting with Colton at the finale as well, and she was lauded in the comments sections of YouTube videos as well as other social media sites as being "classy," "beautiful," and "too good for Colton." Hannah G. was much more confrontational with Colton, choosing to use both the break-up itself and the interview at the finale to ask the questions she needed to gain closure, and was firm about making her disappointment in him known. She too, was showered with praise and similarly told by the internet that she was "too good for Colton." Hannah G. was pretty quiet this season - we didn't get a lot from her substantively, as the edit was focused on her and Colton's physical chemistry. However, in the final two episodes she came out, guns blazing. She didn't have to worry whether she would be branded aggressive, she could talk to Colton as indignantly as she felt the situation warranted. Tayshia didn't have that luxury, which, given the situation, feels unfair to her.

As much as the ladies this season spent a lot of time questioning the other girls' motive for coming on the show, every season of this franchise is an audition for the next Bachelor(ette) and Bachelor in Paradise. As long as a contestant is somewhat interesting or memorable (in the broadest possible terms), they will end up on Bachelor in Paradise. That is not a bad thing - from just four seasons, two couples are married with kids, and at least three more are still in committed relationships. As such, BiP actually has a pretty good track record.  Still, if it doesn't seem like a contestant is going to win, you can bet one of their other goals is to be the new Bachelor(ette). The title position is typically chosen from the previous season's final 4 men or women. Thus, this year's pool of eligible women should have been: Caelynn, Tayshia, and Hannah G. Instead, the powers that be chose Hannah B., who finished in 7th place, who while sometimes delightful enough, seemed to struggle at times in front of the camera. Caelynn was implicated in the Cassie "not here for the right reasons" drama, and, as mentioned before, we didn't see enough of Hannah G's personality to imagine her carrying a show. So what about Tayshia? The last time that a black woman, Rachel Lindsay made it this far on the Bachelor, she was chosen as the Bachelorette. I thought it was an enjoyable season - Lindsay is smart, vibrant, and was not afraid to ask the men (a few) difficult questions about race, and they brought in more men of color for the occasion. The franchise appears to like Lindsay, but given another opportunity to produce another season with a black woman in the lead role, they balked and chose a woman who finished in 7th place. ABC seems to have felt they have done enough with respect to diversity and race when it cast Lindsay in the role, but it appears to be hesitant to cast a another person of color.

In conclusion, ABC missed an opportunity to cast another black woman as the Bachelorette, despite how carefully she policed herself on the show. At least we'll be seeing her again in Paradise!

"Dear Mr. Foland": Addressing male domination of the legal profession

Dear Mr. Foland,
We are in receipt of your application materials ... Thank you for your interest in our office.

The above is an excerpt from an email I received the other day after sending in my application materials for a fall externship. It represents the typical response I get from potential employers; it is polite, informative, and most importantly, the respondent presumes that I am a man.

When I apply for jobs, a majority of the responses I get address a Mr. Taylor Foland. As someone with a gender neutral name, I obviously understand why this happens. Taylors come in all shapes, sizes, and genders, and my application materials do not include any gender indicators such as Mr., Ms., or preferred pronouns. But, before I came to law school, this didn't happen at all...not even once. And, it happens often. About 70-80% of the responses I get address Mr. Foland. So, what is it about the legal profession that makes my resume read male?

First of all, let's talk about my resume. I've spent a lot of time crafting my resume over the years, but for the majority of law school my resume has included one or more of the following positions: museum educator at two different history museums, law clerk at the Children's Law Centre, and Law Clerk at the Sacramento City Attorney's Office. In addition to my professional obligations I also list: President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, Co-Chair of the Women's Law Association, and Member of Law Review. And for a fun little twist to the resume, I've also included a "Personal Interests" section which includes (beware: it's a little cringe): bread and pastry baking (hit me up if you want some baked goods!), aerial dance (a PC way to say pole dancing...it's great exercise for the body and mind!), clothing design (a nod to the sewing machine I break out every now and again), and soccer.

That is, more or less, the sum total of my resume. Again, there are no obvious gender markers such as name prefixes or preferred pronouns. My name "Taylor Foland" is on the top of the page in larger text than anything else. That's about it. So, what is it about that information that leads employers to address me as Mr. Foland?

What strikes me as odd right off the bat is that a lot of the things on my resume indicate a female identity per societal standards and norms. For example, education is a field typically occupied by women and family law is largely comprised of female attorneys. If that wasn't enough, surely most people would think that leadership roles in a reproductive justice society and a women's law club screams, "female!", or that clothing design and dance are extracurriculars associated more often with women. Are the people reading my resume just progressive? Are the people reading my resume even reading it at all??

My experiences as "Mr. Foland" have lead me to consider the ways in which the entire legal system is dominated by men. Male-domination occurs at almost every stage in the process to becoming a lawyer: getting to law school, law school itself, and the legal profession. In such an environment, it is no surprise that an applicant with a gender-neutral name, regardless of the content of their resume, will be presumed male. I will focus on the final stage of domination: the legal profession.

To quickly comment on the first two, barriers often discourage women from applying to law school, and/or lead to "poorer" performances by women in law school, among other things. Some of those barriers include the lack of female law school professors and mentors, emotional labour responsibilities that women often take on in addition to their academic, financial, and personal responsibilities, and systemic sexism that expects certain behaviours of women (agreeable, smiling, pleasant) and pushes women into certain professions (aka "pink-collared jobs" such as nursing, waitressing, and teaching).

But, relevant to Mr. Foland are the barriers in the professional realm of the law, where "his" resume gets read and analyzed. Because although women enrollees have surpassed men enrollees in American law schools for the past three years, female representation in leadership positions (partners and equity partners) and retention rates of female employees demonstrate persisting inequalities.

Why do these inequalities exist? Interpretations of a 2018 Law Society survey suggest some reasons:

In an international survey of over 7,500 women lawyers conducted by the Law Society, the top three barriers to women’s career progression were reported to be unconscious bias on the part of senior colleagues (52% of respondents), an unacceptable work/life balance (48%), and a belief that the traditional networks and routes to promotion in law are male orientated (46%).

Another key factor that others writing on the topic have suggested is the "focus on presenteeism" in the legal profession, or the requirement that lawyers be present in the workplace at all times to conduct their work. This approach disproportionately turns women away from the legal profession after a while, because women often rely on flexible work schedules once starting a family (Note: there is a discussion to be had here about why women have to become more flexible, while their male partners - in heterosexual relationships - often do not).

All of these factors contribute to the male domination of the legal profession. Not only is the build up to becoming a lawyer inaccessible to women, but the profession itself is not conducive to female involvement. When it is men who typically succeed in a profession, it is not surprising that an applicant with a name sometimes given to men is presumed to be one.

Having identified that male-domination exists in the legal field, which is probably not a surprising realization, the question remains: what do we do about it? And, what do I do about my alter-ego, Mr. Foland?

In my opinion, flexibility in all workplaces for both men and women alleviates gender-based pressure to be present/perform at work in ways that go against other commitments. Next, the legal profession must ensure that there are women in senior positions, both at law schools and law firms. Up and coming female lawyers also need greater access to mentoring and sponsorship from those already in the field (e.g. breaking down gender-barriers with respect to networking events). Finally, men need to engage more directly with the equality debate in all aspects of life. 

As to what I, Mr./Ms. Foland should do, I admit that it is something I still grapple with. On the one hand, misgendering has provided me a unique advantage in interviews. Surprising (or correcting in an email) an interviewer with my true gender identity often puts me in a better position in an interview. In a weird way, I have a slight upper hand because they made a mistake.

On the other hand, I recognize the problems associated with this method, which I have followed up until this point. First, misgendering is a real problem for trans and nonbinary individuals. As a cis-female, is my capitalization of misgendering disrespectful and trivializing of trans/nonbinary issues? I think it probably is. Secondly, by failing to put gender markers on my resume, am I taking advantage of male domination by knowing I may pass as male and thus get a (potential) leg up in the application process? To what extent does feeding into the current state perpetuate it? These are all questions I have that I have not figured out the answer to. But, they are questions I will keep asking myself as I edit and submit my resume in the future.

That's all that Ms. Foland has to say about the matter for now. 

Law and sexual repression in China

Li Yinhe, the famous sociologist, sexologist, and activist for LGBT rights in the People's Republic of China claimed in an interview with Phoenix Net Culture (IFENG. COM) on December 24, 2014, that Chinese sexual repression is the highest in the world and only North Korea’s sexual repression is higher than China. It is worth mentioning that on December 12, 2014, cankaoxiaoxi.com published an article: the Chinese are the most sexually “repressed”? The article indicated that people in China watch pornography as the highest in the world and have surpassed the United States in pornography usage.

For thousands of year, Chinese culture promoted the belief that sex before marriage is unacceptable. Women should abide by “the women's morality” and maintain their loyalty to their husbands before marriage. The purpose of sex is not enjoyment, but to produce offspring and to let the husband release his sexual desires. Fortunately, with the advent of family planning policies in the 20th century, the purpose of sexual behavior has changed. The family can only have one child. So sexual behavior between a husband and wife is no longer just for childbirth but to enjoy sexual pleasure. However, in an interview, Li Yinhe, I mentioned at the first paragraph, said, “There was a national sex survey in 2004; twenty-eight percent of Chinese women between 60 and 64 years old had never experienced sexual pleasure in their lives.” she also stated that “ There are also surveys about other countries’ people. Sometimes women can’t enjoy sexual pleasure because of physical limitations or personal dislikes, but that does not exceed more than 10% of the female population.”

The key reason for feeling no pleasure from sex is probably due to long-term sexual repression based on cultural norms. Women are shamed and prevented from expressing their sexual desires. However, the law also plays an important role in shaping a woman’s perspective and behavior. The law relating to sex absorbs plenty of traditional moral theory. The law in any country reflects the cultural values of that country; the law can also shape the values of individuals within the country.

There are two typical laws in China that exemplify this. According to Article 301 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, group licentiousness is a crime based on the view that assembling a crowd to engage in sexual promiscuity reflects public contempt for state law and social morality. Specifically, it refers to a gathering of three or more people (men and/or women) engaging in sexual activity and other promiscuous activities. The activity of the participants must be voluntary. The state views such behavior as violating the public order. Those who gather for promiscuous activities shall experience criminal detention or public surveillance or imprisonment for not more than fives years.

There has been much talk of the law being repealed. Legal experts argue that there are no victims from voluntary group sex which generally takes place in private and hidden places and does not endanger public order. Why, then, should the law punish such harmless acts? There are opposing voices say that these group sex acts can’t match the traditional Chinese morality. In my opinion, law is the lowest standard of morality. We can require the public to respect the law and use the standard of law. But we can not ask the public to act following all the traditional morality whatever it is correct or decadent. Because it is difficult to distinguish whether the standard of traditional morality is appropriate in this new era. If we use morality as the bottom line of law, then morality will kidnap all the people to comply with the strictest “law” which may cause the mess. Also, freedom will become nonsense.

The goal in punishing group licentiousness is to curb sexual openness and freedom. The present Chinese law doesn’t accept sexual openness in its citizens and uses stringent criminal laws to imprison people for what the state considers immoral and unlawful behavior. Criminal laws serve to warn people that sex can only take place between two people, a husband and wife, in private. Sex intercourse should occur in a “proper way”. Citizens can't follow their own inclinations. Sex is a private act, but the law wants to control this kind of behavior in a way that completely violates the individual's privacy and sexual freedom. It is unreasonable to treat sexual acts in private as sins when they are done freely and do not harm others.

Then people began to accept that sex was not completely free. Once again the ancient tradition came to mind that sex was not something to be played with, but rather a tool for procreation within rules and regulations. Even if you want to enjoy it, be careful and sneaky.

Another law that promotes the sexual repression of citizens is the People's Republic of China criminal law, Article 363 (amended in 2015)：

Whoever for the purpose of making profits, produces, duplicates, publishes, sells or disseminates pornographic articles for profit shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of no more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance and shall also be fined. If the circumstances are serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of no less than three years but no more than 10 years and shall also be fined; If the circumstances are especially serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years or fixed-term imprisonment, and shall also be fined or have his property confiscated.

Criminal law, Article 364, claims that whoever disseminates pornographic books, periodicals, films, audio-visual materials, pictures or other pornographic materials, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years, criminal detention or public surveillance.

Whether making a profit or not, it is a crime to disseminate obscene material. According to the law, the spread of obscene materials in the society will harm the physical and mental health of the Chinese people, especially teenagers, and also easily induce illegal and criminal activities. From the criminal law perspective, cracking down on the spread of obscene articles in society according to law is critical to maintaining public security, protecting people's physical and mental health and promoting spiritual civilization.

When I asked my close male friends, all of them have seen pornographic movies. When I asked my female friends, almost half of them have seen pornographic movies. Since the law wants to combat the spread of obscene materials, why does the law can tolerate everyone watching porn at home? There is an old saying in China that sex and food are life. In other words, the two most important things in life are eating and having sex. The demand for porn is a normal human physiological desire. It is oppressive and against human nature to prohibit people from satisfying their sexual and physical needs.

If the law wants to prohibit the impact of such films on minors, it can learn from the United States to create a film classification system and child protection mode for television. Blindly banning the spread and production of pornographic films will only result in the boom of the pornographic materials market. In the present Chinese system, protecting teenagers from porn can’t be achieved. Worse yet, people can make more money from the dissemination of pornography because it is illegal.

The booming porn market in China is inseparable from sexual repression. Chinese students do not receive sex education as children and teenagers. Teachers keep silent on the topic of sexual behavior and sexual health. Normal minors are full of curiosity and desire as their bodies develop and change. So boys and many girls under the age of 18 have been exposed to porn and they acquire their sexual knowledge and sexual behavior from pornography. Porn is the sex education for Chinese boys. However, girls are more confused about sex because they have no resource to understand sex and sexual behavior. Teachers do not carry out positive sex education in school and parents are too shy to speak to their children about sexual knowledge. Pornography has become the key way for minors to acquire sexual knowledge before they experience sex.

However, pornographic materials are prohibited by law. Minors and adults must close the curtains and watch pornography secretly and quietly. As a result, the public believes that pornography is bad and harmful. More importantly, people are influenced by the anti-pornography laws. Since pornography isn’t supposed to be seen and masturbation is regarded as depraved thing, sexual behavior seems even more shameful. People suppress their desires because the law tells us that it is against the law to spread pornography to help people enjoy sex. Sex, then, should not be treated as a natural pleasure to be enjoyed.

Chinese minors and adults, generation after generation, grow up in this sexually confused and repressive environment. When they first come into contact with sexual behavior, they will doubt themselves: should I feel happy? Should I be ashamed? Morality and law tell me that I should not enjoy sex. Sexual repression is sprouting and developing in China.

The extraordinary influence of laws on the public is so great that legislators should be extremely careful to find ways to deal with the problem since the current laws force people to accept conflicted and negative values towards sex. Laws are meant to protect people's relative freedom, not to limit their innate needs.
x

The fight for LGBT-inclusive K-8 curriculum in Elk Grove Unified School District

I am the Vice President of a the local LGBTQ Democratic club called the Stonewall Democrats of Greater Sacramento. Several months ago in December 2018 I got an email suggesting that Stonewall get involved in a local school board matter. 

The Elk Grove Unified School District (EGUSD), the fifth largest school district in California, was in the process of adopting new K-8 Social Science and History textbooks. The proposed textbooks would comply with CA state law called the FAIR Act which requires K-8 History and Social Science to be LGBTQ-inclusive. The School Board had only received public comments opposed to the adoption of the textbooks because of its LGBT-inclusiveness. 

I worked with a former board member to draft an email to EGUSD Board Members to show the club's support for the proposed curriculum and the importance of seeing members of the LGBT community reflected in textbooks.

The day after I send the emails, Board Member Nancy Chaires Espinoza responded thanking Stonewall for our advocacy and indicating that the comments she had heard thus far at largely been in opposition to the proposed curriculum.

In January 2019 following a Stonewall Board meeting discussion of the issue, I emailed Nancy to ask if she was available to talk with our members about the issues EGUSD is facing. Nancy was unavailable but suggested we invite Board Member Bobbie Singh-Allen, an ally of the LGBTQ community to come talk.

On January 14, 2019 EGUSD Bobbie spoke at the January Stonewall meeting. She said that our advocacy was needed, asked members to send letters and to attend EGUSD board meetings to speak during the public comment period in support of the proposed curriculum. At the time of the January meeting it was unclear when the board would be voting on whether or not to adopt the curriculum because agendas are posted just 72 hours in advance.

Later that night I took the tips and information shared by Bobbie and created resources such as template emails to board members, email addresses for board members, and information about the issue.

Stonewall members responded by sending emails expressing their support to EGUSD board members. The Sacramento Area Rainbow Families and other LGBT groups shared the resources provided by Stonewall.

On Tuesday February 5th the Stonewall board got notice that EGUSD would be voting that night. We sent out emails and spread the work on social media about the upcoming vote and encouraged as many people as possible to show up in person.

The EGUSD board meeting began at 6:00pm in a large room with a dais on one side of the room and lines of tables filing the room. Many people were standing around the edges of the room because there weren’t enough seats for everyone. Stonewall members and other LGBTQ community members that I recognized where there. There were several news cameras and reporters.

Over the course of the regular board meeting, people spoke on the proposed curriculum change during the general public comment period near the beginning of the meeting as well as during the comment period when the curriculum agenda item was called. When it came up on the agenda after what already seemed like a long meeting, EGUSD staff did a presentation about proposed curriculum and recommended adoption.

Public comment on the textbooks took hours. Each speaker had 2 minutes to talk, but many went over the time limit. It was an incredibly emotional and tense environment. There were likely approximately 100 people there to talk, and at least half of the people spoke in opposition. The people speaking in opposition talked about how they didn’t want their kids learning about gay sex and advocated for an opt-out option like with sex education. The amount of hostility and misinformation was staggering. Whenever a speaker would say something in opposition the crowd would erupt in applause and cheering.

When it was my turn to speak I was admittedly nervous. I had not expected the room to be filled with such hostility and hatred masked by people saying “I’m not homophobic but…” I read my notes, shared my personal story of struggling with my sexuality at 13 years old, and tried not to cry so much that I couldn’t get the words out.

When I had finished speaking I stepped out of the room to get a break from the hostility. Friends and strangers came up to me to support me and make sure that I was ok. Two strangers talked with me and hugged me.

Once all of the public comments were heard Board Members spoke, and each gave statements about their decision and the issues. Both Nancy and Bobbie were ardently in support of the proposed curriculum. When the final vote was called at around 9:50pm, the EGUSD Board voted unanimously to adopt the proposed curriculum which is LGBT-inclusive.

With the number of students and young people openly claiming LGBTQ and non-binary identities, I had hoped that parents and community members would be more understanding of the need to talk about role models and historical figures in the LGBTQ community. It was distressing to see how wrong I was, and how little has changed since I was in school. 

This experience showed me how very important having LGBTQ people and allies in public office is, and how important it is to make sure your voice is heard. 

The San Antonio Four: The conviction and exoneration of four Latina lesbians in Texas

**Trigger warning: mentions child sexual abuse and rape**

In the summer of 1994, the community of San Antonio, Texas was in shock following the violent and brutal allegations brought by two sisters aged 7 and 10. The sisters alleged that their aunt, 22-year-old Elizabeth Ramirez, and her friends Anna Vasquez, Kristie Mayhugh, and Cassandra Rivera viciously raped them during their week-long visit at Ramirez’s apartment.

The allegations against the women, all of whom were openly gay, were bizarre and constantly changing. The girls claimed one of the women had put a weapon to their heads – a knife in one telling, but later a gun, then two guns. The story also changed with each interview regarding which women did what, who was in the apartment, and whether other children were ever present. Additionally, it wasn’t just the girls’ story that was changing, but the story their grandmother, the outcry witness, gave fluctuated as well regarding how and what the girls told her.

However, these allegations by the girls were supported by the testimony of child abuse expert Dr. Nancy Kellogg, who frequently testified for prosecutors. Kellogg testified that a mark she observed on the hymen of one of the girls was a scar likely caused by painful penetration. Further, Kellogg wrote in her report and told authorities she believed the attack was “satanic.”

The problem with this testimony, as the American Academy of Pediatrics explained in a 2007 report, is that “torn or injured hymens do not leave scars as a matter of scientific fact.” Variations like the ones Dr. Kellogg claimed were evidence of traumatic injury are, in fact, normal. Also, there has never been any evidence to connect Satanism to any of the four women. However, this issue was never addressed, and the testimony became a crucial piece of evidence against the women.

Elizabeth Ramirez was the first to be brought to trial in 1997. During her trial, her defense attorney was able to keep the jury from hearing speculation that the alleged attacks were “satanic-related,” but prosecutor Philip Kazen got the message across nonetheless with language about Ramirez having “sacrificed” her niece on “the altar of lust,” and told the jury she had “held a 9-year-old girl up as a sacrificial lamb to her friends.”

Kazen went farther than just mentioning satanic abuse. During his closing statements, Kazen relied on the women’s sexuality to prove motive for the assault. He also told the jury he wasn’t asking them to convict Ramirez because she’s gay, but that being a lesbian was consistent with her abusing girls.

Ramirez was convicted and sentenced to 37 years in prison.

Vasquez, Mayhugh, and Rivera were all tried together after Ramirez’s conviction. Again, the prosecutors relied on the women's sexual orientation as motive evidence to explain to the jury why these women would want to sexually assault girls in their closing arguments.

All three women were convicted and each sentenced to 15 years.

However, the convictions against the women began to unravel in early 2012 when one of Ramirez's two nieces, now in her twenties, stepped forward to say she had lied.

Stephanie Limon, the younger of the two sisters, called journalist Debbie Nathan and told her none of the abuse happened. Limon went on to explain that her family members coached her on what to tell the police because of their anger toward Ramirez's sexual orientation.

She explained her father, Javier Limon, was the one who came up with the idea and forced her to do it. In the months leading up to the allegations, Javier Limon, who had just broken up with Ramirez’s sister Rosemary, had made many unsuccessful attempts to court Elizabeth Ramirez, including asking for her hand in marriage on several occasions despite Ramirez’s consistent rejection.

In an interview for the documentary Southwest of Salem, Stephanie Limon explained:

I remember everything [Javier] coached me to say, as well as my grandmother. I’m sorry it has taken this long for me to know what truly happened. You must understand I was threatened, and I was told that if I did tell the truth that I would end up in prison, taken away, and even get my ass beat.

Javier Limon went on to have another bitter custody battle with his next partner, Carina Hooper. Hooper described Javier Limon in an interview as a “hurtful, mean, a sociopath.” Javier Limon also accused Hooper’s son of sexually abusing their daughter, and reported Hooper for neglect to Child Protective Services. Her son took a plea deal and is now a registered sex offender.

Soon after Stephanie Limon recanted her testimony, Dr. Kellogg’s testimony regarding the scar on one of the girl’s hymen was brought into focus and discredited. Kellogg herself came forward and stated she would not give the same testimony today.

Further, as media attention on the case grew, it was realized that while the sisters testified all four women were in the apartment at the same time during the sexual assault, if investigators for the prosecutor's office had actually checked the work records of the women during that time frame, they would have realized some of the women couldn’t possibly have been at Ramirez’s apartment during the assault.

With this new evidence coming to light, defense attorney Mike Ware and the Innocence Project of Texas filed for post-conviction relief to have the four women’s verdicts overturned.

Ware explained in an interview with CNN why he believes justice was not done in these women’s trials, stating:

I think the only reason that the investigation was seriously pursued, why there wasn't more skepticism about the preposterous allegations in the first place, was because these four women had recently come out as gay, that they were openly gay.

Finally, in November 2016, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that, “no rational juror could find any of the four Applicants guilty of any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” and exonerated Elizabeth Ramirez, Anna Vasquez, Kristie Mayhugh, and Cassandra Rivera of all crimes.

The San Antonio Four demonstrate how homophobia and bias works within our justice system to cloud the judgement of the police, prosecution, and community. The fact that these women were Latina and lesbian was actively used against them during their persecution. In fact, the jury foreman on Ramirez’s trial, Lonnie Gentry, was a minister who admitted during voir dire he believed homosexuality to be a sin. There is no way that, along with prosecutor Philip Kazen telling the jury that lesbians were more likely to sexually assault young girls than straight women, did not sway the jury.

These women spent decades of their lives in prison because Philip Kazan blatantly and unapologetically capitalized on the persistent and thoroughly incorrect notion that LGBTQ people are predisposed to sexually harming children in order to win his case. And, not only did he get away with doing this, but he went on to become a judge and ran for District Attorney in 2014.

While there is a happy ending in that all four women have now been exonerated, there shouldn’t have been a story requiring an ending in the first place.

Captain Marvel (Part II): Feminist-Adjacent Themes Galore

This is the second part of my review of Captain Marvel, I encourage you to read the first part before reading this second part: Captain Marvel (Part I): The Role Model We Need. The first post dealt with the issues that most people see as implicating feminism, such as sexism in the military, getting back up after getting knocked down, and my personal favorite, women being too emotional. This post discusses issues that, while not necessarily implicating feminism at first glance, are clearly a part of feminism, such as creating your own family, first impressions, and how we as a society and as individuals treat refugees.

A SPOLIER ALERT IS NOW IN EFFECT. If you have not seen Captain Marvel, this serves as a warning that spoilers lie ahead.

One of the themes that the film tackles is creating your own family. The movie depicts Carol as this headstrong, emotional, courageous woman, from her childhood into adulthood. Her father did not like Carol's recklessness, and he seemed to almost forbid her from behaving like that. Dialogue and plot suggest that Carol had left her father, and started a new family with Maria. Maria is a single mother raising a daughter that Carol affectionately called "Lieutenant Danger". Maria was also in the Airforce and worked closely with Carol, becoming her best friend. Numerous pictures show them spending holidays together as a family unit, and Maria's daughter even refers to Carol as "Auntie Carol". A huge part of trying to defy gender expectations is having people leave your life that do not support your choice to live as your authentic self. It was great to see a new family form, and one that seemed supportive and genuinely happy. Such families are not often portrayed, and when they are portrayed, the depictions are seldom happy.

Next, first impressions drove the entire plotline of the film. Throughout the first half of the movie, we are led to believe that the Kree, a society led by an artificial intelligence (AI) and one that Carol is initially a part of, are trying to protect planets from the Skrull. The viewer is led to believe that the Skrull are the ones attaching the Kree. However, in a Pride and Prejudice-esq twist, we learn halfway through the movie that the Kree is not just an empire, but colonial in nature. Further, we learn and that the Skrull refused to submit to their rule. Because of this, the Kree essentially destroyed the Skrulls’ home planet. The Skrulls that are left are scattered throughout the galaxy and are all refugees. Thus, Carol is forced to question everything she believed, and makes the tough decision to help the Skrull.

While this may not seem directly related to feminism, I believe it very much is. Most feminist theories are based on the presumption that we should question societal norms and attitudes, especially in terms of power structures. For as far back as she can remember, Carol has believed that the Skrulls were not refugees, but rather were terrorists and aggressors. She had to re-evaluate everything she knew about the Skrulls and the Kree while choosing which side to take. In doing so, Carol shows a great example of how to be a proper feminist and how to be a good ally to marginalized groups.
Because Carol's re-evaluation is what we ask feminism and feminist to do every day. We ask everyone to re-evaluate societal norms and perceptions and ask why those norms are in place and whether they are just and correct. Feminism as movement has done the same as well. Originally focused on getting upper- and middle-class white women rights while using rather reductive and racist talking points, feminism was not all that inclusive. Bell Hooks accuses the movement of not being completely honest with itself, its origins or its focus, and encourages it to continue to reevaluate itself. And I believe the movement has continued to do so, becoming more and more inclusive towards all women, regardless of race, sexual orientation, economic status, and many other factors. That being said, this inner reflection needs to continue to ensure that all women are heard and are having their rights fought for.

Finally, the film asks us to re-evaluate the way we see refugees. The Skrull themselves are shapeshifters, and their forms, while not ugly, are also not aesthetically pleasing. The Kree tend to look more human. This symbolism is not lost on the audience. We were told the Skrull were bad, that they change their shape to assimilate into the population, and then they take over the planet. Because the Skrull look bad, the audience is more susceptible to believing the narrative the Kree give about the Skrull's actions. This is extremely relevant today when talking about refugees and the politics surrounding those seeking asylum, or even those seeking to immigrate into our country. They often just want to find a safe place to live and be accepted into their new society. And, just like the Skrull, most, if not all, refugees pose no great threat to society or those in the society unless they are threatened. It was great to see this portrayed in such a nuanced and non-preachy way.

Again, not all would see this as a facially or explicitly feminist message, but I see feminist thinking in it. The Skrull are just trying to live their lives as best they can, and they ask Carol to judge them based on their actions, and not on stereotypes or narratives she has heard about them. Most feminists want the same thing; they want to be judged on their actions, and not on the basis of stereotypes based on their sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic a person cannot change.

Overall, I loved the movie because it embedded so many themes in such a great story, all while managing to not get preachy about it. There were probably a couple other overt themes I did not explore in Part I or here, I encourage you to leave a comment on other themes you saw in the movie as well!

Captain Marvel (Part I): The Role Model We Need

I recently watched Captain Marvel. Going into the movie, I had low expectations. The reviews had not been great. And although I was excited to see a woman in the leading role of a super hero movie, I also was getting bored of the almost exclusively white genre. So, with mixed emotions, I entered the movie theater.

A SPOLIER ALERT IS NOW IN EFFECT. If you have not seen Captain Marvel, this serves as a warning that spoilers lie ahead.

Boy, was I thrilled with the movie. It touched on so many different issues, all important in feminist theory. And even though it was set in the '90s, it tackled issues that are still relevant and, indeed, hot topics today. Because it tackled so many amazing themes, I will write two separate posts about "Captain Marvel". This post will deal with the issues that most people see as implicating feminism, such as sexism in the military, getting back up after getting knocked down, and my personal favorite, women being too emotional. The second post will deal with issues that, while not necessarily implicating feminism at first glance, are clearly a part of feminism, such as creating your own family, first impressions, and how we as a society and as individuals treat refugees.

First, the movies portrayal of women in the military was brief, but excellently done. The movie did not try to sugarcoat any of the history of the military and its treatment of women, including women of color. It specifically stated and showed that both Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel) and Maria Rambeau, a woman of color and Carol's best friend, were not allowed to fly in combat because they are female. It was also heavily implied that Maria Rambeau, a black woman, had a much harder time getting any flying time, but that Carol kept supporting her, and Maria kept supporting Carol. This type of portrayal is just as important now as it was then. With the high level of sexual violence in the military-and given that it is still considered a boy’s club-it was amazing to see two strong women support each other and learn to thrive an environment that is hostile towards women.

The next major theme I noticed was getting back up after being knocked down. In the film, and throughout her life, there were numerous times where someone or something knocked Carol down. The Kree AI, one of the main antagonists in the movie, when trying to break Carol, remind her of all the times she has fallen down. The Kree AI tries to show her how flawed and week she is. And the Kree AI stop the memory right there. And for a minute, we see Carol believe it. But then she remembers what happens after all those times she fell. She gets up. With no tears, with no sign of pain, with no hesitation, she gets up. She does not consider her falling a flaw, because every time she fell, she got back up, stronger and more determined than ever. While most Marvel movies push this (Black Panther being the other clear example), this was by far the clearest message of it in any superhero movie thus far. To fall is human. We are imperfect beings. It is not how we fall, but how we choose to get back up. It is not our flaws or are mistakes that define us, it is how we learn and grow from them. This message was so well done, and it was great to see it being done through the lens of a smart, strong, courageous woman for once.

The last theme, and my personal favorite theme in the movie, is the stereotype of women being too emotional. Two scenes on this theme come to mind. Both involve Carol and Yon-Rog, her captain who is portrayed by Jude Law. In the beginning, Carol and Yon-Rog are training together. Yon-Rog tells Carol that she can never best him because she is too emotional, so she cannot think clearly. This was a clear use of the trope "women are too emotional to think rationally." And Yon-Rog said this while Carol was being no more emotive than an average person, male or female, in a hand-to-hand combat situation. And while the scene itself is not significant, it sets up second scene perfectly. At the end of the movie, Carol has clearly won, and Yon-Rog has lost. Knowing that he cannot beat her if she uses her powers, he tries to bait her. He says that she never was able to beat him at hand-to-hand combat, and because of that, she will never know true victory until she does. Yon-Rog wants her to fight him using only hand-to-hand combat because he knows he can beat her, but if she uses her powers, he would not stand a chance. Carol's response: she uses her powers to blast him hundreds  yards across the desert, flies over to him and pronounces "I have nothing to prove to you."

Yon-Rog tried to rely on Carol being "overly emotional" to win the argument. The issue: Carol was never "overly emotional." Having feelings and showing them does not make you overly emotional, at least not in the way that Yon-Rog thought Carol was. Carol cared about people, but her instincts to protect those and serve the greater good were always there. And in that moment, she was thinking logically. She may have or may not have been able to beat Yon-Rog in hand-to-hand combat, but she did not need to risk those odds. She was infinitely more powerful than him, so why risk it? These two scenes turn the emotional female trope on its head; they show that just because you care about people, does not mean that you are overly emotional.

Overall, "Captain Marvel"was a fantastic movie with a lot of positive messages, and I would highly recommend the movie for those seeking strong female representation.

Intimate partner violence, is it black and white?

Next Monday, I will be presenting “youth intimate partner violence” to a group of Sacramento high schoolers at Planned Parenthood. My goal is to educate teens on intimate partner violence (IPV), so they can recognize the red flags in theirs and others’ relationships and understand their legal and non-legal options. While I am probably the least qualified to discuss teen dating (since I barely indulged in it), I think it’s an important conversation to have with our youth because statistics show the younger you are, the more likely it is you’ll be a victim of IPV.

So first off, what is IPV? It's violence used as a means to control the other partner in the relationship. It includes various forms of abuse - physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse, and psychological abuse - between two people who maybe just started dating to those who have been married for 20+ years. It also includes the exes that aren't really exes, the friend with benefits, and the “it’s complicated” type of relationships. Regardless of relationship status, IPV is more common than you’d think.

According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, more than 1 in 3 women and more than 1 in 4 men in the United States have experienced IPV through physical violence and/or stalking. Prior to these experiences, many experienced some form of IPV between ages 11 and 17. Love is Respect, a teen domestic violence hotline, reported that females between the ages of 16 and 24 experience the highest rate of IPV - 94 percent of those ages 16 to 19 and 70 percent of those ages 20 to 24. Teens are especially susceptible because of their inexperience and lack of exposure to healthy and unhealthy relationships.

Think about it. The adult, intimate relationship you were around most during your youth probably taught you how to interact with your partner. Their form of communication, romance, and expectations from one another probably rubbed off on you, and you took these into your relationship without even realizing it. They showed you how an intimate relationship should be - healthy or not - and it’s only natural for it to have had the greatest influence on you moving forward.

Personally, I could tell you that it wasn’t until my mother remarried that I realized what I thought was “normal” wasn’t so normal after all. This is the area of my presentation that I struggled with the most: What does a normal, healthy intimate relationship even look like?

It’s different for everyone. Our exposures shaped what a healthy relationship is for us. For instance, my ex-partner watched his father joke with his mother to the point where it got offensive and hurtful. He brought that behavior into our relationship, and it definitely took a toll on us. Don’t get me wrong, there are certain, obvious lines that we shouldn’t cross (e.g. striking or belittling a partner), but I don’t think IPV, in general, is that black and white. What I think is healthy may not be anything like what you think is healthy.

For instance, Kim Kardashian told W Magazine that her husband, Kanye West, often gives her fashion advice:

I always thought I had really good style until I met my husband and he told me that I had the worst style. He was really nice about it and cleaned out my whole closet.

Fifteen-year-old (and still hopeful) Nicolette might’ve thought that’s incredibly generous and sweet of Mr. West, but today, that’s a red flag - an obvious sign of exerting power and control over a partner. However, I understand that others may see it differently or that even if they view it similarly, they may not perceive it as a form of IPV.

Let me pause and ask, did anyone talk to you about your upbringing and how that influenced your intimate relationships, or did you have to figure that out on your own? I bet it was the latter. Same for me, which is why I appreciate Planned Parenthood for creating the space for us to discuss such a sensitive issue that pervades our lives. We don’t talk about IPV enough, let alone teen IPV. As isolated as victims already are, we leave it to them to figure it out on their own. I’m hoping that this presentation, as well as this post, will encourage adults to have these conversations with our youth, even if our versions of a "healthy relationship" differ. Let's use this opportunity to keep our teens aware, safe, and supported as we continue to strive for a culture where IPV is not tolerated.

Sexual entitlement, supreme gentlemen, and "You"

As many likely know, “You” is a 2018 TV series which has recently risen to popularity on Netflix. It follows the story of a bookstore manager, Joe, as he obsessively pursues his love interest, Beck (often without her knowledge). While it is primarily a psychological thriller, the series exposes the dark side of the “nice guy” trope, specifically illuminating how it is rooted in sexual entitlement.

Joe has the classic “nice guy” image. He is bookish, modestly dressed, witty and respectful (as far as Beck knows). Throughout the course of the series we are lulled by his calm, rational narration as he justifies each of his increasingly malevolent acts by his love for Beck.

The “nice guy” is a popular trope, reinforced by many storylines in the media. Joe seems to realize this too. For example, he narrates as he hides in Beck’s apartment that he isn’t worried about being caught because he has “seen enough romantic comedies to know that guys like [him] are always getting in jams like this.”

This indeed echoes a scene from a popular romantic comedy, “10 Things I Hate About You.” There, a male character sneaks into a girl’s bedroom searching for personal information about her to relay to his friend. Removed from the comforting backdrop of a lighthearted comedy, we see the truly sinister quality of this behavior.

Joe’s foil is Beck’s initial romantic interest, Benji: a wealthy, arrogant, heroin-addicted former frat boy. He cheats on Beck, ignores her calls, and shows up on her doorstep late at night expecting sex. After spying on the two together, Joe resolves that Benji is not worthy of Beck. He then takes it upon himself to bludgeon, kidnap and eventually murder Benji (all for Beck’s own good, of course).

Joe’s violence is not altogether unforeseen or surprising considering his other beliefs, namely, his thinly veiled misogyny. In the opening scene when he first sees Beck in the bookstore, he notes that she is not “the standard insecure nymph hunting for Faulkner [she’ll] never finish.” This paraphrases another common pseudo-compliment: “you’re not like other girls.” This is the first of many red flags.

Next, it is immediately apparent that Joe hates Beck’s friends, for reasons colored by their gender. He scoffs at their careers (e.g., body-positive Instagram influencer), wealth, and personal lives (slut-shaming galore). He is irritated that Beck spends so much time with them, and is critical of everything from their “girly” cocktails to their weekly viewings of “The Bachelor.” He believes that “self-respecting women” should not have these interests, adding that he is the only “real feminist” whom Beck knows.

Throughout the series, this line struck me most, as it nails the toxic rationale of the “nice guy.” He is a “woke misogynist.” He thinks he is educated. He thinks he knows best, and that he is doing the right thing. These comments, littered throughout Joe's meandering narration, form the bridge between his apparently benign demeanor and his occasional violent actions. However lovingly disguised, the toxicity of this brand of masculinity inevitably seeps through.

Initially, the trope seems relatively harmless, particularly because the idea behind “nice guys” is that they are, in fact, nice. They are not threatening; they are the threatened. They are the band geek, the math nerd, whoever happens to be the antithesis to the bully and/or jock.

In classic romantic comedy narratives, these men are overlooked for the majority of the story until their love interest realizes the error of her ways and comes running to them. Examples include “13 Going on 30,” “The Lizzie McGuire Movie,” “The Princess Diaries,” and “10 Things I Hate About You” (just off the top of my head). Yet, at the root of this idea is sexual entitlement. Because a man is “nice” (i.e., not a “bro”), he is deserving of women’s attention and affection.

This idea spawns misogynistic movements, such as the uprising of self-proclaimed “pickup artists” and involuntary celibates (“incels”). These men troll online forums, demeaning women and sharing methods of manipulating women into sleeping with them. It can be easy to poke fun at these men, stereotypically donning fedoras and waxing poetic about chivalry, but their ideas still manifest in tragic ways.

In 2014, a man named Eliot Rodger went on a shooting spree in Isla Vista, California, killing six people and injuring fourteen. In particular, he attempted to target sorority houses because he felt sexually rejected by those women. He was active on pickup artist and incel sites and had posted several YouTube videos in the weeks preceding the attack, detailing his plans to murder women for their refusal to have sex with him. In his final video post, he called it “an injustice” that women were not attracted to him, referring to himself as “the supreme gentleman.”

Although Rodger’s parents reported these videos, law enforcement declined to pursue the matter or even search his apartment for weapons. Apparently, his threats did not meet the criteria for an involuntary psychiatric hold. Anyway, failure to prevent gun violence is a discussion for another time.

The point is that men who see themselves as “nice guys,” “gentlemen,” or otherwise deserving of love and sex from women, are not only problematic, but dangerous. Either predictably or in a shocking plot twist, depending on how you see it, “You” concludes with Beck’s death at Joe’s hands. He wouldn’t allow her to leave him. However he may have romanticized the story up to that point, the ending makes it clear that entitlement is not love.

Ultimately, violence underlies the culture of sexual entitlement, whether it escapes through micro-aggressions, sexual assault, or murder. Rather than downplaying or romanticizing this reality, “You” illustrates how these ideas thread together, culminating in extremes. Its haunting story underscores that violence is never a far leap from casual misogyny and entitlement.

Built-in bathroom bias

The patriarchy is so deeply entrenched in our lives that it has followed us to our bathrooms.

When architects design and create separate bathrooms for men and women, they include features in each bathroom that account for sex. For example, the women’s restroom typically includes a tampon and pad dispenser, and the men’s restroom typically includes urinals. Interestingly, one design feature that does not account for sex but appears in women’s restrooms and is missing in men’s restrooms is a diaper changing table. Diaper changing tables are supposed to provide parents and guardians a safe and hygienic place to change their baby's diaper, yet these tables are – more often than not – accessible to only one sex.

This disparity came to the national forefront when Donte Palmer's picture of himself changing his son’s diaper went viral. Faced without a diaper changing station, Palmer squatted on the floor of the men's restroom to change his son's diaper. This phenomenon is not uncommon as a number of fathers reported to changing their child's diaper in a restroom sink or directly on the floor because a diaper changing table was not accessible to them. Not only does this design choice and/or oversight not serve single fathers and gay parents, but it denies fathers the ability to serve as fully engaged partners when it comes to performing a basic parental function in a public setting.

In response to the picture, Palmer stated that “[i]n society, we have this thing where men are supposed to be macho providers and protectors, while women are the nurturing and caring ones. I'm trying to shred that.” Palmer’s sentiment reflects how this seemingly innocent design choice and/or oversight feeds into gender inequality by reinforcing traditional gender roles.

As explained by the separate spheres doctrine, these traditional gender roles involve women primarily serving as their family’s caretaker and homemaker. Conversely, men are considered to serve as their family's breadwinner. In relation to the design choice and/or oversight to include diaper changing tables in women’s bathrooms, women have been relegated to diaper duty, while their “breadwinner” husbands have been relieved of such responsibility.

This antiquated separate spheres notion does not account for the fact that domestic responsibilities have shifted dramatically in the past few decades. According to a Pew Research Center study, men were found to spend more time with their child (almost three times more!) in 2016 compared to 1965. Further, women "constitute fully half of the American workforce and serve as breadwinners for [forty] percent of households."

Yet, while these statistics illustrate that domestic responsibilities have shifted, our patriarchal institutions still expect women to be relegated to the role of “caretaker” – especially when it comes to childcare. As a previous blogger on this forum has noted, this phenomenon is known as the “second shift” where “[e]ven though today’s women spend more time in the paid economy, they are still expected to complete most of the domestic responsibilities and chores.”

Many thought-pieces have noted that one solution to tackling the second shift phenomenon would involve co-parenting where responsibilities are divided and shared equally between domestic partners.

Shared parenting has been long-championed as a vital element of gender equality in two-parent families, and is now emerging as equally important for separated and divorced families. It is neither desirable nor viable that mothers work a “double shift” as full-time wage earners and parents; fathers’ assumption of responsibility to share the care of children in dual-earner households in particular is an important concern of women.

In light of this solution, I hope to engage in this form of co-parenting where domestic responsibilities are divided equally with my future partner. But how can I ensure that these responsibilities are truly divided equally when public spheres design roadblocks that reinforce into gender inequality?

Luckily, progress has been created towards achieving "potty parity". In 2016, President Barack Obama signed the Bathrooms Accessible in Every Situation ("BABIES") Act into law. This Act requires federal buildings to install baby changing tables in both men's and women's restrooms. California followed suit in 2017 with Assembly Bill 1127. This law requires "baby diaper changing stations to be installed in men's and women's restrooms in publicly owned state and local buildings and private businesses." Most recently, New York enacted a law that requires "all new and renovated buildings with public bathrooms to include changing tables in men's restrooms."

While these laws have been a step in the right direction towards tackling gender inequality and stereotypes, their impact has been stymied by slow compliance. This, coupled with the fact that few states have enacted similar laws, means we are still far from eliminating the disparity.

If national, statewide, and local change has been slow, we can still achieve "potty parity" on an individual level. To do so, we should recruit our male allies who come across public and private facilities that lack diaper changing tables to speak to managers to remedy this exclusion. Hopefully these private complaints can build into a movement where we begin dismantling the patriarchy one diaper changing station at a time.