Is God a woman?

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven. . . 

For many people, Christian or not, the Lord's Prayer is instantly recognizable. As a child of a Christian household, it is one of the first things I remember memorizing, and despite my distance from the faith for several years, I still know every word. The prayer, which promotes devotion to and reliance on God, starts out with two very important words that will be focus of this post: "Our Father."

Christians repeat these two words frequently and instinctually. Like I mentioned before, I memorized this prayer at a very young age. I recited it often and without much thought (although admittedly the pastor would always direct us to savour every word. . . oops). But this practice, bolstered by language throughout the Bible, leads Christians to think of God as a man.

Assuming God's gender as male has sweeping ramifications for women in religion, and specifically Christian women. In short, characterizing God as a man imbues male dominance into every aspect of the religion. While some women in the Bible are lauded for their faith and character, ultimately a man is at the top of the hierarchy. It is a man that occupies the highest two positions of the faith - God the Father and His Son. Naturally, it follows that a man in the world today is most equipped to occupy the highest position as well. Women, although they may be virtuous, can never come close to the top precisely because of their gender.

But is language as influential as I posit? What if we took Ariana Grande's pop hit seriously? What if God was a woman?

Language plays a pivotal role in how people think and act. Thoughts not only shape our language, but language often shapes our thoughts. Gendered language in particular has a significant impact on how societies treat men and women, and those who identify elsewhere on the gender spectrum. In fact, "languages in which nouns are given male or female status are linked to gender inequality" across the globe. Psychology Professor Jennifer Prewitt-Freilano who conducted the research on the relationship between language and gender inequality asserted:

Not only is language a source for conveying current systems of hierarchy, but (it) might also be a way of reproducing them . . .

If gendered language is integral to thoughts, actions, and hierarchies, then God the Mother, hallowed be Her name might be essential to reversing the deeply ingrained inequality present in Christianity. If we regularly thought of God as a woman, then we might change thought-processes in such a way where women are equally accepted as having the potential to occupy positions of power and holiness. Language can be used to subvert the male hierarchy after thousands of years of it being used to reproduce it.

While I agree with many Christian feminist articles that changing God's gender may make Christianity more inclusive and more equal among the sexes, part of me still wonders why we are gendering God in the first place? The Bible features one predominant "description" of what God is in Genesis 1:27, but is otherwise silent as to who or what God is and what God's visage may be. For the record, Genesis 1:27 reads:

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He create him; male and female He created them.

This passage can be read in many ways. Most often it is read to mean that males were created in God's image, thus God must also be a male. However, alternative interpretations do exist, including one where both men and women were made in God's image, accordingly God may display characteristics of both men and women. Regardless of the textual interpretation, the fact remains that we know very little about God. We cannot say for certain that God is a man, a woman, somewhere in between, or even human; and yet, we insist on gendering God. So maybe removing gender altogether is the way to go?

There are movements within Christian spheres to adopt more universal language for God. This includes substituting male words and pronouns, like "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", with inclusive language like "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer." However, gender-neutrality also presents its fair share of problems. What surprised me the most in my research was that languages with no gender at all - where different genders are represented by the same words - still reflect high levels of gender inequality. Analysts suggest this is because when faced with gender-neutrality, people automatically categorize the un-gendered as male.

So what do we do with God?

Personally, I think each follower of God should choose what or who they want God to be for them - be it a human male, a female angel, an agendered peacock, you name it. However, I recognize this does not do much for fixing the gender inequality issue in Christianity. To that end, I encourage followers of faiths that characterise God as male to start referring to God with female pronouns and female words. I do believe that language influences thoughts. If hearing God, the Mother, more often switches the tune even a little bit, then I think it is worthwhile. This is something I have actively been working on in a secular context. When speaking about hypothetical Presidents, Congresspeople, business owners, etc., I try and default to female pronouns. Maybe this only comforts me and impacts no one else, but I think it is good training for my brain, which has been taught to think in terms of men.

While there is no one solution to gender inequality in religious spheres, something so essential to religion as language may be an excellent place to start.

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.

"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. 

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.

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.

On co-ed sports teams and the lack of respect for female athletes

Sports have long been a space that exacerbates, and even celebrates, the gender divide. From recreational youth leagues to the Olympic circuit, men and women are separated into their respective teams. Women and men often practice separately, compete separately, and in some cases, there are even modified rules within a sport depending on gender (e.g. baseball versus softball, men's versus women's lacrosse, and even the differing events in mens and women's gymnastics). While a few sports have become more co-ed (e.g. curling, mixed doubles tennis), the fact of the matter is, when it comes to sports, we are comfortable with keeping men and women apart.

On both the professional and the recreation level, however, this is beginning to change. In the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, the International Olympic Committee has approved several new mixed-gender events including mixed doubles table tennis, mixed swimming relays, a mixed triathlon relay, and mixed athletics (track) relays. At the recreational level, intramural college teams more often than not have a mixed league, as do adult sports leagues. While older players seem to have gotten on-board with coed sports, a proliferation of mixed gender teams has yet to arise among children and youths. Co-ed sports teams are often lauded as movement toward gender equality (by news outlets, and by some vocal male athletes that have spoken to me on the subject).

But while co-ed sports may facially promote gender equality, in practice, they are not as equal as they appear. In my experience - as a competitive soccer player who played from age four through to college - co-ed sports aren't all that they're cracked up to be in terms of gender equality.

I distinctly remember playing for a weekend co-ed team in college (an additional team I played for on top of being a starter for the university's women's team). I started the game as our left midfielder (largely because there always had to be at least one girl on the field at any given time, a stipulation I will delve into later in this post). I was the only girl on the field. Right before the game started, a player from the other team yelled out, "No need to defend her, guys!". Everyone, even my own teammates, laughed.

On another occasion while playing for an adult league in Davis, which also had a minimum number of girls on the field rule, I played the full 90-minute game and intentionally received the ball from my teammates maybe two or three times despite being open on countless occasions. Instead of passing me the ball, my teammates took on two, three, sometimes even four defenders on their own. Apparently one guy against four defenders has a better chance of succeeding than one girl in open space.

These are just two of my experiences on co-ed soccer teams, although I have plenty more. In reality, co-ed sports teams for women aren't as "co" as advertised. More often it feels as though women are there to meet the quota. Once we're on the field and accounted for, it becomes a guy's only game.

Co-ed sports presents the quintessential backdrop for the sameness/different frameworks of feminism. Under a sameness analysis, mixing men and women on teams embraces the idea that women are just as talented and capable as men. We can "keep up with the boys"! This in itself is problematic because it promotes male athleticism as the ideal standard of play, but I digress. But, it is true. There are incredibly talented women in every sport that rival the skills, speed, and athletic intelligence of a male athlete. But, no matter how good a woman is, she can still walk onto a pitch and immediately be discounted because of her status as a woman, like what happened to me.

But, the difference framework does little more to help solve this problem. In emphasizing the differences between the sexes - men's general advantage in strength and speed - women again are marginalised as athletes. Furthermore, rules meant to offset or account for the differences either (1) are inherently belittling, or (2) do not help at all. Some examples of these rules are, as previously mentioned, requiring a certain number of women on the field (and forcing teams to play with less players if they cannot field enough women), and mandating that women be involved in a play in some way before scoring (or the point does not count). Neither rule integrates women into the game. In fact, the rules are premised on the fact that we need to somehow "find the space" for women to fit into a man's game. Both rules are unsuccessful at promoting equality in sports.

Neither the sameness nor difference framework support women in sports. What is lacking from co-ed sports are not rules mandating female involvement, or opportunities for women to play at the same level as men with men (again, this is inherently problematic - why are male athletes our benchmark?). What is lacking is respect from male athletes. In my experience, male athletes simply do not look at female athletes as their equal. While I may be able to "impress" them by making a decent play every now and again, my actions are just that, a one-off fluke. My participation on the field is dependent on men agreeing to give me chance.

So what are the solutions to this problem?

For one, men can start supporting female athletes on and off the playing field. More men need to support the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team as they play this summer in the World Cup. This shouldn't be too hard considering the Women's Team is the U.S.'s only hope at World Cup success this cycle because the Men's Team failed to qualify. But outside of soccer (which I have selfishly focused on because it is my sport of choice), men need to witness the incredible athleticism displayed by women in all sports at the same frequency as they consume men's sports.

Secondly, and this goes hand in hand with increased viewership, female athletes need to be paid the same as male athletes of the same sport. The pay disparity reflects how we value women in sports versus men in sports. If we want to garner greater respect for female athletes, we have to start compensating them equally for their athleticism. Although this focuses on professional athletes, I believe the impact of mutual respect will be felt at all skill levels.

I'm not confident these two suggestions will fix everything, but they are a start towards ameliorating the lack of respect given to incredibly talented, capable women. Until then, I will seek comfort in all- female teams. I continue to be wow-ed, inspired, and strengthened - physically and personally - by the women I have been honoured to call my teammates over the years. My all-female teams and leagues have been a source of intense competition and challenge as well as friendship for me. I will continue to play and celebrate within my gendered sphere. And when I'm feeling up to the challenge, I will get back on the field with the boys, ignore them shouting, "No need to defend her!", and go and score a goal anyways. That's exactly what I did the day I played left-midfield for my college co-ed team, and I will do it again.

Sexual Assault and Identity Revised, Part 2: Identity Subversion

This is a continuation of my last post. Here I will be examining more in-depth the situations introduced there. Again, I begin with a trigger warning. In this post I recount graphic jokes involving sexual assault and rape that will be dissected for their unintentional contribution to a discussion on how people subvert parts of their identities to better help communities of which they are a part, and some structural fixes to help survivors of sexual assault.

I pass no judgement about the experiences of those talked about in this piece; they were all put into an impossible situation and did what they thought was best at the time. I cannot fathom what I would do in that situation.

The first situation Kathrine Ryan addresses discusses actors who were relatively unknown (here meaning not famous), black, and female, in the context of their sexual assault by a famous, black, male actor, Bill Cosby. These assaults occurred in the 80s and 90s, a time when sexual assault victims were less likely to be believed. Because they were rarely believed, many did not report, and the two phenomena were in a feedback loop. drastically aggravating each other.

In this situation, multiple identities are at issue, and some were subverted for the benefit of others. Bill Cosby exerting his power over women ties into his identities as both famous and male, while the sexual assault he inflicts ties into the survivor's identities as unknown actors and as women. Additionally, these women said that they did not want to hinder Cosby's career because he was paving a way for black actors. These women essentially saw their identities as women as being at odds with their black identities. So, they subverted their identities as women to better serve their other identities, to benefit other constituencies. These victims did not want to feel like they were betraying the black community. That became a factor in them deciding not to report. Another prominent factor was the time the women were living in.

The second situation Kathrine Ryan addresses is an imaginary one that involves herself, a comedian who is famous, white, and female, and Tina Fey and Amy Schumer, two comedians who are both white, female, and arguably much more famous than Katherine. Fey and Schumer have also likely trailblazed the way for more women to be invited into comedic community.

This situation does not have the same race implications as the first situation, and also does not feature a subversion of identity. But, Ryan, albeit jokingly, says that she would keep quiet about a sexual assault by one of these women because of all they have done and are doing for women. In her hypothetical, she still seems willing to subvert her individual trauma for the betterment of her community, which is here aspiring female comics.

The last assault involves Kesha, a musician who is a white woman, and the trauma she experienced at the hands of Doctor Luke, a music producer who is white and a man. While this is mentioned only in passing (“Free Kesha”), it evokes a well-documented assault and legal fight involving Kesha and Dr. Luke. Kesha’s incident is completely different from the first two for two reasons.

First, Kesha reported her assault, in contrast to the first two situations I have described. Kesha even and even sued Dr. Luke for the harm he had caused her.

Second, Kesha was willing to give up her music career in order to get justice for her assault. She was willing to subvert her identity, her career, as a musician in order to try, with no guarantee, to get justice for the sexual assault she experienced because she was a woman. She was willing to subvert her needs as a musician to seek justice. This is the only situation where the assaulted survivor gave her identity as a woman primacy over her other identities.

So, what can we learn from this thought experiment? No one should be forced to choose between parts of their identity. We as a society should be doing everything in our power to remove the barriers to reporting sexual assault. If we do that, women will not be forced to subvert their needs to help others, for some apparent greater good. Two possible solutions could help.

First, in the first and second situations, better racial and gender representation on television would have given the attackers less power. In the first situation, if Bill Cosby had not been one of only a handful of black actors on television, his career and reputation would not have been as important to the black community. In the second situation, if the dearth of female-driven comedies and writer’s rooms did not exist, Kathrine would not have felt the need to make the joke about her not to be willing to report her imaginary sexual assault. Both instances show the real-world impact of diversity in media. The more diverse we make television and entertainment industries more broadly, the less power those in that industry wield.

Second, in the first and second situations, social stigma was cited as a barrier for survivors deciding not not to report. We can remove this barrier by believing survivors when they come forward. This would lessen the stigma surrounding the experience of surviving a sexual assault, and that would surely empower survivors.

If we look at both these issues, the first being cultural and the second being structural, then we can make it less likely sexual assault will occur. When it does occur, we will have made it easier for survivors of sexual assault to report their assault and get justice.

Sexual Assault and Identity Revised, Part 1: A Tale of Two (C/K)atherines

I want begin with a trigger warning. I recount graphic jokes involving sexual assault and rape, and I will dissect these in relation to their unintentional contribution to a discussion on how people subvert parts of their identities to better help communities they are part of, and some structural fixes to help survivors of sexual assault.

I pass no judgement about the experiences of those discussed in this piece; they were all put into an impossible situation and did what they thought was best at the time, and I cannot fathom what I would do in that situation.

This analysis will be split into two posts. The first post will go over the comedic piece and why the piece pairs nicely with Catherine MacKinnon’s theory of dominance feminism. The second post will look separately at the three events Katherine Ryan describes in her stand-up special It will also show that deciding whether or not to report sexual assault often involves multiple parts of a person’s identities, and a difficult decision to prioritize one or more over others.

Recently, to blow off some steam, I was recently watching Kathrine Ryan’s 2015 stand-up special. She is a white woman, born in Canada, who now resides as a single-mother in the United Kingdom. I have been struggling with a joke I heard on the special that went:

But on a serious note, a lot of women who were allegedly assaulted by Mr. Cosby were strong, power beautiful black women like me. And when asked, ‘Why didn’t you say anything?’ Ha! In addition to the many reasons why victims don’t come forward, these women were, like, ‘Hang on a minute. Look at the times.’ Because it didn’t happen today. Though it still happens today. Free Kesha. They were, like, ‘it happened a very long time ago,’ when these were struggling, young black actresses in America, and Mr. Cosby, a black man in the ‘80s there, was dominating television. They said, ‘I didn’t really feel like it was in my greater interest to bring that man down.’ And I have to tell you, on some level, as a female comedian, I kind of get that. Tina Fey could be raping me now, and I would tell no one. Amy Schumer could be wearing me like a watch, and I would just be like thank you for everything that you do for women in our industry.

While the jokes themselves are extremely crass and many would take offense at them, they accidentally stumble into a weird analysis of intersectional feminism and subverting identities that seem to address three completely different experiences of sexual assault.

Katherine Ryan accidentally stumbled into a Catherine MacKinnon feminist critique. Catherine MacKinnon idea of feminism has been labeled dominance or radical feminism. This strand of feminism stresses that the differences between men and women has become institutionalized in our government, laws, and even our thoughts. Further this difference gives men the dominant position in society and subordinates the women.

People even start to rationalize these differences, which gives the impression that the differences occur naturally. That in turn just reinforces people’s beliefs of why these difference should be codified or institutionalized.

So, what does Catherine MacKinnon dominance feminism have to do with Katherine Ryan’s stand up? Catherine MacKinnon describes sexual assault and rape as forms of discrimination on the basis of sex. MacKinnon believes that any time a man has sexual contact with a woman, even when it is consensual, he is exerting his sex over the women. MacKinnon states that the power dynamic between the two does not allow the woman to give full consent. This is especially heightened, however, when the woman declines sexual contact, but it is forced upon her. Therefore, MacKinnon believes, that any time there is unwanted sexual contact in the form of sexual assault or rape, this contact is a form of sex discrimination, and she believes that courts and legislatures should treat it as such.

This means, that in the three situations Katherine Ryan describes, two are forms of discrimination on the basis of sex.

In the first scenario, when Bill Cosby assaulted those two women, he was asserting himself over them, and was saying that he, as a male, was entitled to them as women, because they are worth less than them. He asserted what he perceived as his dominant position in society over their subordinate position. Catherine MacKinnon would qualify this as a form of sex discrimination.

In the third scenario, when Dr. Luke assaulted and tormented Kesha, he was also asserting himself over Kesha. Dr. Luke also saying that he, as a male, was entitled to do whatever he pleased to Kesha, because she, as a woman, is worth less than he is. He asserted what he perceived as his dominant position in society over her subordinate position. Catherine MacKinnon would also classify this as a form of sex discrimination.

However, the second scenario runs into a snag. When two women are committing sexual violence against another woman, how can they be asserting their dominance over her via their sex as women?

MacKinnon is familiar with this critique. She has often been accused of articulating a feminist vision that is heteronormative with her feminism. This depiction of sexual force does not explain why men assault other men, nor why women assault other women.

But I do agree with MacKinnon that heterosexual sexual assault is a form of dominance of the male sex over the female sex.

Anti-Blackness in the Panjabi community

Kala shah kala, mera kala hai sardar, goreyan nu daffa karo

Dark-skinned, dark-skinned, my beloved is dark-skinned, the fair-skinned can get lost

These are the lyrics to a popular Panjabi folk song traditionally sung at weddings and other such celebrations. Although the song itself is progressive and encourages society to change its views around colourism, this month, a Panjabi language film entitled Kala Shah Kala is being released and features the main lead in blackface. The character is shown to be struggling to find love due to his kala rang (dark colour).

This is not the first time the Panjabi film industry has done this to tell stories about the issues dark-skinned Panjabis face. The 2016 film Bambukat featured the female lead in blackface to tell the story of how her family treats her differently than her fair-skinned sister. Countless Panjabi songs speak of the ideal woman being slim, shy, and above all fair-skinned. Some singers even sing of their “progressive values” saying they would be okay with dating or marrying a girl with a dark complexion. Beauty is synonymous with fairness.

So, we need to talk about anti-blackness in non-black communities of colour. Today, I will be speaking specifically about the Panjabi community.

Many South Asian communities struggle with what is referred to as the “colonial hangover”- an obsession with fairness and whiteness, a desire to increase their proximity to whiteness in whichever way possible. This is also referred to as a desire to continue ghulami (slavery) for the white man even after the British left South Asia. The Panjabi community is no different.

Young children (mostly girls) are stopped from playing in the sun lest they get too dark, and are told that no one will marry them if they are not fair. Fairness creams and skin bleaching products are consumed in enormous amounts to satisfy this obsession with white skin. My grandmother’s sister is in her 70s and still uses a skin lightening cream called “Fair and Lovely” daily. She recently sent some to my 80 year old grandmother and encouraged her to begin using it as well so that she would look less dark. Dark skin is considered so ugly and undesirable that even in old age people actively try to get rid of it.

In the diaspora in North America parents tell their children to stay away from black children in school because they think those children are a bad influence and will corrupt their own children. By refusing to associate with black people, many first generation Panjabi immigrants try to appeal to white people and increase their proximity to whiteness to gain social power. Under white supremacist systems, it benefits people to assimilate and act as much like the ruling class as possible.

Many non-black people of color take advantage of the model minority narrative to show mainstream society (white people) that although they are not white, they are better than black people because they are better at serving whiteness. The stereotypes that Asian children are good at math and computer science are embraced because it makes the communities look productive and non-threatening to white supremacist systems.  

On the other hand, second generation children born in North America are engaging in more and more appropriation of black culture. While their parents wanted to gain social power in the land they immigrated to, the children grew up seeing and experiencing racism and violence from their white peers and became alienated from mainstream society. They learned to identify more with black culture than white culture, and quickly began to convince themselves that they too were black. Panjabi kids in North America began to consume rap music, dressing styles, wearing their hair in corn rows, and appropriating African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Many have convinced themselves so strongly of their own blackness that they see no problem with saying the “N word.”

Perhaps one of the most visible examples of this appropriation is Lilly Singh, also known as Superwoman, the YouTube sensation from Scarborough, Ontario, Canada. As others have mentioned, although she is of Panjabi heritage, she frequently wears her hair in corn rows, uses AAVE, and mimics the accents of people from Trinidad and Tobago to promote her own brand and make money. It is important to note that once she is no longer creating content to profit from, she can stop “being black.” When it is more profitable for her to look white, she does so. When making appearances on television shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, and Chelsea, the cornrows, clothes and accent are gone. Instead, we see straightened hair, mainstream clothing and her Canadian accent.

None of this is remotely acceptable. While on one hand people pretend to be black to gain cultural capital, this same group is able to stop being black whenever they want and many times perpetuate the same sort of racism upon black communities that white people do by perpetuating stereotypes. I have heard Panjabi men often talk about how they want to date black girls but they would never marry a black woman. They participate in the hypersexualization and dehumanization of black bodies the same way as others.

Following the death of Trayvon Martin and the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement, many second generation Panjabi children sat down and talked to their families about the anti-blackness in their community for the first time. For some, it helped change minds. But it was not enough. Anti-blackness not only still exists in Panjabi communities, it is thriving. We have to call it out every time we see it, no matter how uncomfortable the conversation is and how many people are offended.

In my own family, when my grandmother describes a beautiful girl, she will always mention that the girl was fair-skinned. It seems fairness is a prerequisite for beauty. This is where I began calling her out some years ago. Each time she says it, she looks at me and stops herself now that I’ve done it more than a few dozen times.

It is imperative for Panjabi communities to realize that we are all hurt by white supremacy. Instead of knocking others down, we need to get better at showing solidarity and using our privilege to advocate for black people and black causes. To start doing that, we all need to take the responsibility of calling out our family and friends when they participate in anti-blackness.

Exposing the race and privilege shield in college sexual assault and rape cases

Brock Turner, Jacob Anderson, Cory Batey, and Tevin Elliott are young American men commonly associated with sexual assault and rape. Despite committing the same heinous and despicable crime, these men faced drastically different punishments, apparently because of their race and respective privileges.

Brock Turner, a 19-year-old white male and Stanford University swimmer, faced multiple felony charges, including assault with the intent to rape an intoxicated woman. Numerous eyewitnesses corroborated the victim’s allegations and testified that they saw Turner forcibly penetrate the unconscious victim behind a dumpster.

Although a jury found Turner guilty of multiple felony rape offenses that typically carry a lengthy prison sentence, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Perksy sentenced Turner to six months in the local county jail, with the possibility of release within three months. In issuing the sentence, Judge Perksy viewed Turner’s alcohol impairment, character references, and lack of prior criminal record as mitigating factors. Moreover, Judge Perksy further justified his decision to award a lighter sentence by expressing his concern around the “severe impact that state prison could have on someone Turner’s age and the adverse collateral consequences on Turner’s life from a felony conviction.”

Similarly, Jacob Anderson, a white male and Baylor University fraternity president, faced charges of drugging and raping a 19-year-old female student. Ironically, this despicable act occurred in Waco, Texas, a city commonly known as “the buckle of the Bible Belt” and at a university with a sexual assault policy that prides itself on “expecting its students, faculty, and staff to engage in behaviors consistent with a Biblical understanding that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity.”

However, as James C. Moore of CNN News aptly noted, “the Bible Belt seems often to be unbuckled.” Despite the city and university’s alleged adoption of these noble Biblical ideals, the court showed lenience when punishing Anderson. 

A Texas district judge allowed Anderson to plead to a lesser charge of unlawful restraint. Under this lesser charge, the court only required Anderson to pay a $400 fine and attend substance abuse and psychological treatment sessions. Anderson faced no prison time and escaped being publicly listed as sex offender, much to the general public’s dismay.

When looking at Turner and Anderson's cases in isolation, the race and privilege undertones behind their sentences may not be readily apparent. However, when comparing their sentences to other sentences for similar crimes, the role of race and privilege becomes painstakingly obvious.

For example, consider Tevin Elliott, a 20-year-old African American male and Baylor University football player. Elliott faced charges of sexual assault and rape, charges that were practically identical to the ones fellow Baylor student Jacob Anderson faced. However, their sentences differed significantly, as the judge sentenced Elliott to the 20 year maximum. Unlike Anderson, the judge gave Elliot no opportunity to plead to a lesser charge and denied his request for probation to raise his sons.

Similarly, Corey Batey, a 19-year-old African American male and Vanderbilt University football player, faced charges of sexually assaulting and raping an unconscious woman. Although the charges and evidence provided in Batey’s case closely resembled those against Turner, the outcomes varied starkly. While Turner was convicted of multiple felony charges and sentenced to only six months in a local prison, Batey was found guilty of three felony counts of rape and aggravated sexual battery. He was sentenced to 15-to-25 years in prison.

Shaun King of The New York Daily News highlights that Batey’s sentence was “3,000 percent longer than what Brock Turner was a given for a comparable crime.” King further emphasizes this harsh racialized reality by stating that “One man is black and the other is white. I won’t even ask you to guess which is which. This is America.” Unlike Turner’s case, the judge in Batey's case failed to consider the potential impact of incarceration on Batey’s future or the presence of any other mitigating factors.

While the racial implications of these sentences are themselves deeply troubling, what is even more unsettling and under-appreciated is their negative impact on female victims. Failing to hold these men equally accountable merely because of the color of their skin and socioeconomic status atrociously devalues the pain and trauma of their victims. 

Failing to hold these male perpetrators accountable diverts the focus away from obtaining justice for the victim to crafting arbitrary distinctions between perpetrators based on characteristics completely unrelated to the crimes they commit. The disparity in treatment of perpetrators ultimately disservices the victims of rape and sexual assault by resting their violators fate on their appearance and respective wealth rather than solely focusing on the nature and circumstances of the atrocities they commit.

These sentencing inequalities build a system where victims will only receive protection and justice if their perpetrators are people of color because those perpetrators are held to a higher standard and face harsher punishments for their actions. As the Sentencing Project’s 2013 report articulated, African-American males are six times more likely to go to prison than white males. 

But the question still remains: Why should a white male be treated any differently than an African-American male if their actions are virtually identical? Why should race and privilege shield some perpetrators while condemning others to a life sentence?

If a white male’s actions are equivalent in nature to those of an African-American male, they should be equally scrutinized and held accountable to the same high standard. Treating perpetrators differently is extremely unfair to victims, especially those of white male perpetrators. It forces these victims to live in a world where their violators potentially get off scot free. 

As the victim in Jacob Anderson's case described it, “[my perpetrator] is now free to roam society, stalk women, and no one will know that he is a sex offender.” Without perpetrators of similar crimes experiencing equivalent negative consequences, how can we expect victims to experience redemption?

Bitter Flowers: Chinese street girls in Paris

In the late 1990’s, China’s economy underwent rapid growth. The Northeast region of China became the frontier of this industrial transformation. Traditional manufacturing became obsolete and as a result, the rate of unemployment became very high. Unfortunately, most of the laid-off workers were women. Many of these women flocked to Paris hoping to make their fortunes, but hunger and homelessness forced them to work as prostitutes. In 2013, French director Nael Marandin wanted to tell the story of these Chinese prostitutes in Paris. Marandin had been volunteering with the World Health Organization for more than seven years, and he regularly provides medical and legal services to sex workers in Paris. Marandin’s 2015 film, She Walks(La Marchevse), surprised many audiences because it reveals the real life of the Chinese street girls.

According to the report of Le Parisien, on December 13, 2016, Paris police found a 39-year-old Chinese female corpse in an apartment in the Notre-Dame-de-Nazareth district. The deceased woman was recognized as a Chinese sex worker. She had been beaten before she was killed. This situation is not rare in France. By 2016, the number of Chinese ‘registered’ sex workers had reached 1,300 or more in Paris. But Government records indicate that the total number of Parisian sex workers consists of between 5,000 to 8,000. Chinese sex workers take up a big part of them.

During this period, an increasing number of Chinese women went to Paris because prostitution in France was legal until April, 2016. Many of these women came to France because they and their families were poor and believed that they could make a big fortune quickly. What's more, some women are making money for a luxurious life through prostitution. Whatever the purpose, Chinese sex workers are all trapped in the same dilemma. Eighty-six percent of Chinese sex workers admitted that they suffered at least one violent act from a customer. Most violence occurred when a sex worker insisted that the client should wear a condom.

Many cases are similar to the report in Le Parisien. On August 2, 2012, a sex worker from Jiangxi, China was strangled by a Palestinian young man after he refused to pay her. Besides physical harm, Chinese sex workers' property is also in danger. It is easy for customers to rob Chinese sex workers because these women exist in very fragile circumstances in France and it is difficult for them to protect themselves.

The primary issue is that almost all of the sex workers are without a required legal residence permit and, thus, cannot call the police or contact officials to ask for help . Second, local Chinese people distain the Chinese sex workers. Even if they beg for help, it is very possible that no one is willing to intervene. As a result, sex workers are forced to bear and digest the harm that they experience from society. What they believe is that they must endure pain and sorrow because they need money for their families or themselves. No matter what happens to their bodies or their hearts, Chinese girls will bite the bullet.

Prostitution is a topic relate to many fields of law including immigration law, administrative law and criminal law. From the angle of criminal law, Chinese sex workers are exposed to sexual assault, robbery and murder every day. French law punishes pimps and customers. The regulation of la penalisation des clients stipulates that the penalty for sex worker clients can reach 1500 euros, while the 'recidivism' of repeated transactions can be fined by up to 3750 euros. But punishing pimps and customers doesn't solve the problem. Sex workers have held demonstrations to protest the government's decision because they are losing customers.

In order to maintain their livelihoods, they have no choice but to cut prices, even to as low as 10 euros per trick. Occasionally, they are forced to engage in sex without condoms. What they express is that their desire for money is greater than their desire for legal protection. However, helping sex workers make money is not the duty of law. Another way of caring for sex workers that has emerged is 'Lotus Bus' in Paris. Lotus Bus regularly sends out free condoms to sex workers. Also, this organization holds AIDS prevention activities and other helpful programs for sex workers.

Besides France’s efforts, what are other ways to deal with Chinese sex workers’ problems regarding their livelihoods and the need to keep them away from the constant threat of danger. We need to address the root of the question. The source of this story goes back to human trafficking. More resources and money need to be put into preventing and punishing human trafficking. Another problem is the conflict between legalization of sex workers and punishment for their clients. Governments can assist sex workers by setting up career training programs to improve their professional skills. Courts are able to seal or eliminate records of sex workers if they stay in the training programs for a specific period of time. Another area for consideration is legalizing the contractual relationship between sex workers and customers as has occurred in Germany. This provides a means for sex workers to sue customers who refuse to pay for their services.

Bitter Flowers, which came out in 2017, is the latest movie regarding Chinese sex workers in Paris and was featured at various film festivals, such as Busan International Film Festival. Just like the name of the film, Chinese sex workers in Paris are living with sorrow and in darkness. Meanwhile, they dress like flowers to attract the attention of potential customers. Their difficulties push them to become stronger in the frigid Paris winter, but bitter flowers also need love and care to thrive.

Sexual assault and identity

I want begin with a trigger warning at the beginning of this post. I recount  graphic jokes involving sexual assault and rape that will be dissected for their unintentional contribution to a discussion on how people subvert parts of their identities to better help communities they are part of, and some structural fixes to help survivors of sexual assault.

I pass no judgement about the experiences of those talked about in this piece; they were all put into an impossible situation and did what they thought was best at the time, and I cannot fathom what I would do in that situation.

I was recently watching Kathrine Ryan’s 2015 stand-up special to blow off some steam. She is a white woman, born in Canada, who now resides as a single-mother in the United Kingdom. I have been struggling with a joke I heard on the special that went:

But on a serious note, a lot of women who were allegedly assaulted by Mr. Cosby were strong, power beautiful black women like me. And when asked, ‘Why didn’t you say anything?’ Ha! In addition to the many reasons why victims don’t come forward, these women were, like, ‘Hang on a minute. Look at the times.’ Because it didn’t happen today. Though it still happens today. Free Kesha. They were, like, ‘it happened a very long time ago,’ when these were struggling, young black actresses in America, and Mr. Cosby, a black man in the ‘80s there, was dominating television. They said, ‘I didn’t really feel like it was in my greater interest to bring that man down.’ And I have to tell you, on some level, as a female comedian, I kind of get that. Tina Fey could be raping me now, and I would tell no one. Amy Schumer could be wearing me like a watch, and I would just be like thank you for everything that you do for women in our industry.

While the jokes themselves are extremely crass and many would take offense at them, they accidentally stumble into a weird analysis of intersectional feminism and subverting identities that seem to address three completely different experiences of sexual assault.

The first situation Kathrine Ryan addresses discusses actors who were relatively unknown (here meaning not famous), black, and female, in the context of their sexual assault by a famous, black, male actor, Bill Cosby. These assaults occurred in the 80s and 90s, a time when sexual assault victims were less likely to be believed. This lack of belief then led to a lack of reporting, and the two functioned in a feedback loop. drastically aggravating each other.

In this situation, multiple identities are at issue, and some were subverted for the benefit of others. Bill Cosby exerting his power over women ties into his identities as both famous and male, while the sexual assault he inflicts ties into the survivor's identities as unknown actors and as women. Additionally, these women said that they did not want to hinder his career because he was paving a way for black actors. These women essentially saw their identities as women as being at odds with their black identities. So, they subverted their identities as women to better serve their other identities, benefiting other aspects of their communities. They did not want to feel like they were betraying the black community. That became a factor in them deciding not to report. Another prominent factor was the time the women were living in.

The second situation Kathrine Ryan addresses is an imaginary one that involves herself, a comedian who is famous, white, and female, and Tina Fey and Amy Schumer, two comedians who are both white, female, and arguably much more famous than Katherine. Fey and Schumer have also likely trailblazed the way for more women to be invited into comedic community than Ryan has.

This situation does not have the same race implications as the first situation, and also does not feature a subversion of identity. But, Ryan, even though jokingly, says that she would keep quiet about a sexual assault by one of these women because of all they have done and are doing for women. In her hypothetical, she still seems willing to subvert her individual trauma for the betterment of her community, which is here aspiring female comics.

The last assault involves Kesha, a musician who is a white woman, and the trauma she experienced at the hands of Doctor Luke, a music producer who is white and a man. While this is mentioned only in passing (“Free Kesha”), it evokes a well-documented assault and legal fight involving Kesha and Dr. Luke. Kesha’s incident is completely different from the first two for two reasons.

First, Kesha reported her assault and even sued Dr. Luke for the harm he had caused her. In the first two situations, the survivors did not report.

Second, Kesha was willing to give up her music career in order to get justice for her assault. She was willing to lose her identity, her career, as a musician in order to try, with no guarantee, to get justice for the sexual assault she experienced because she was a woman. She was willing to subvert her needs as a musician to seek justice. This is the only situation where the assaulted survivor gave her identity as a woman primacy over her other identities.

So, what can we learn from this thought experiment? No one should be forced to choose between parts of their identity. We as a society should be doing everything in our power to remove the barriers to reporting sexual assault. If we do that, women will not be forced to subvert their needs to help others, for some apparent greater good. Two possible solutions could help in these situations.

First, in the first and second situations, better racial and gender representation on television would have given the attackers less power. In the first situation, if Bill Cosby had not been one of only a handful of black actors on television, his career and reputation would not have been as important to the black community. In the second situation, if the dearth of female-driven comedies and writer’s rooms did not exist, Kathrine would not have felt the need to make the joke about her not to be willing to report her imaginary sexual assault. Both instances show the real-world impact of diversity in media. The more diverse we make television and entertainment industries more broadly, the less power those in that industry wield.

Second, in the first and third situations, social stigma was cited as a barrier for survivors deciding not not to reporting. We can remove this barrier by believe survivors when they come forward. This would lessen the stigma surrounding the experience of surviving a sexual assault would be less.

If we look at both these issues, the first being cultural and the second being structural, then we can make it less likely that there will be sexual assault, and when there is, then we can make it easier for survivors of sexual assault to report their assault and get justice.