Currently, eighteen (18) people have thrown their hats in the ring to run against Trump in 2020. Eighteen. It's sometimes hard to remember just how crowded the field is when the media really only wants to talk about about a few of these candidates: Joe Biden, Beto O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, and now, Pete Buttigieg. These four men entered the race at different times, yet each has received a similar flood of attention. Biden and Bernie are familiar faces and were among those who people wanted to see run. Beto and Buttigieg are exciting political up-and-comers, who promise to breathe fresh air into Washington. And, of course, they are all white males. By itself, that fact isn't all that surprising. Most politicians are white males. Like the law, the field of politics has been and is still dominated by them. We made progress on that front in 2018, when a record number of women were elected to Congress. However, the top jobs - that of president and vice president - have remained staunchly male, and, at least in this initial coverage, it looks like that will not be changing this cycle.
Hillary Clinton tried her best to change that, and very nearly did. Hillary has always inspired me, and she inspired many of the men and women I was closest to in 2016. Despite that, her campaign was excruciating and frustrating to watch every step of the way due to the sexism of the media, and the general electorate. Apparently, Hillary just isn't likable. She alienates people. She's a war hawk. Her pantsuits. Her emails. And then there was the most irritating line from those who claimed they weren't voting for her: "I'll vote for a woman, just not that woman." The people who were saying that particular line weren't Republicans, who likely weren't trying to vote for a woman, but rather other liberal and independent men and women.
One of the women most cited as one whom the aforementioned group would vote for was Elizabeth Warren. Warren officially entered the 2020 race in January of this year. Despite a good deal of excitement surrounding her announcement, the focus on her has died down in favor of the four men mentioned at the beginning of this blog. Nonetheless, Warren has continued to campaign and release detailed policy plans - my favorite of which has been been her ambitious plan for universal child care. Not only is it a good plan, but it is also one that likely would only be thought of by a woman. Yet, one of the more recent Quinnipiac polls as her well behind Biden, Bernie, and Beto, and tied at 4% with Buttigieg, who entered the race well after she did. Some chalk this up to that whole DNA testing thing. As a person of color, that put me off a little bit too. But, not only did her childcare plan win me over, but I also took care to check any vestiges of internalized misogyny and remember that people, men and women, are imperfect and make mistakes. It isn't fair to dismiss a candidate due to a single judgement error, because everyone makes them.
It has been tough for other female candidates, too. Kamala Harris is polling better than Warren, but still no where near frontrunners Biden and Bernie. Like Warren, Harris' entry into the race was met with excitement. She is a strong woman of color, with a progressive record in Congress. Her background as a prosecutor was no secret, but people dug in anyway, and then came the criticism - as a baby prosecutor she was not progressive enough. I've worked at a public defender's office, I get the general distrust of prosecutors. But, Harris' record here needs to be looked at through an intersectional lens. As a woman of color, she wouldn't have had the power, at the beginning of her career, to have the kind of record and make the kinds of changes progressives want from her. The law is dominated by white males in almost all fields, offices of district attorneys not excluded. As much as Harris likely wanted to keep the needs of her community in mind as a prosecutor, she also needed to ensure that she had a good reputation with her white male bosses. This likely meant she couldn't appear to "go easy" on anyone.
But, in politics and other high-powered positions, women are not allowed to make mistakes or have questionable past opinions or records. The poll referenced above has Joe Biden leading the field with a whopping 29% of people polled. Biden, as much as people loved him as President Obama's Vice President, is not a perfect candidate by any means. One of his biggest flaws is his treatment of women, which has come to light in the past few weeks. Biden's boundary issues with women are well documented in pictures. His actions suggest a pattern rather than an isolated incident. However, he is still in the lead for the nomination, whereas Warren's one mistake may be tanking her chances. The same poll puts Bernie in second place with 19% of the vote, though much ado has been made about his lead in terms of fundraising. But Bernie is not perfect either. He has been dismissive of the concerns of people of color and some of his more rapid supporters are crazy, and he didn't do enough to calm them down. I could run a similar analysis on Beto and Buttigieg, who also have flawed records and are similarly not perfect candidates. People are still more excited about them than Warren or Harris - or at least that is what a quick glance at The New York Times or Twitter would have you believe.
I was hoping that after Trump's election, the double-standard in politics - expecting near perfection from female candidates while forgiving males - would lessen enough to give women a fighting chance at the presidency. It's not like people didn't notice the disparate treatment Hillary received in 2016. We seem to be falling into the same trap again, though. On the progressive side of the aisle, most are just concerned with ensuring that Trump is voted out of office. This is a goal I fully support, and thus I will vote for whoever the democratic candidate ends up being, which may mean voting for another white male. However, we as a society, must do a better job of policing ourselves when it comes to evaluating female candidates in particular. There will never be a perfect candidate - male or female - so evening the playing field necessarily means that we stop holding women to a higher standard. How do we do that? We can start by being truly honest with ourselves about whether we would dismiss our favorite male candidate for the same reason we want to dismiss a female one. If we start making excuses about why it wouldn't take away from the appeal of a man, it's time to start contemplating if internalized sexism is at play.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Tackling the objectification and harassment of women in the airline industry
On March 4, 2019, Virgin Atlantic took a “small but symbolic step” when it eliminated the mandatory makeup requirement imposed on its female flight attendants. Virgin Atlantic’s new company guidelines grant its female flight crew the autonomy to choose whether or not to wear makeup. However, if they choose to wear makeup, some restrictions still apply, such as adherence to the suggested color palette articulated in the company handbook.
Additionally, Virgin Atlantic took their efforts a step further and modified the standard red shirt and skirt uniform to include an option to wear pants provided by the company. Prior to this new company guideline, crew members needed to place special requests for a pant uniform from Virgin Atlantic.
Virgin Atlantic adopted these changes to its styling and grooming policy in light of employees expressed opinions and its desire to foster a more inclusive corporate environment. Virgin Atlantic’s Executive Vice President Mark Anderson stated that “not only do the new guidelines offer an increased level of comfort, but they also provide our team with more choice on how they want to express themselves at work.”
Virgin Atlantic’s new guidelines serve as a breath of fresh air in an industry plagued by a lengthy history of objectification, sexual harassment and sexual assault of its female employees. One study shows that roughly two-thirds of U.S. flight attendants experience some form of harassment or assault during their careers. The Huffington Post article, For flight attendants, sexual assault isn’t just common, it’s almost a given, provides insight into the egregious treatment female flight attendants face from both their co-workers and airline passengers.
The article sheds light on the sexual harassment flight attendant Caroline Bright endured in 2017 at the hands of a pilot she worked with. She recalls noticing how the pilot’s facial features reminded her of her father and showing a picture of her father to the pilot. She told the pilot “You look just like my dad!” The pilot crassly responded by saying “It’s been a long time since a girl like you called me daddy.”
In addition, the article highlights how the industry’s “the customer is always right attitude” and the discouragement of causing inflight delays inherent in the nature of the flight attendant’s job deters female flight attendants from confronting their perpetrators and ultimately drives them out of the industry. Lanelle Henderson, a former flight attendant, describes how an intoxicated male passenger made unwanted sexual advances toward her. The male passenger repeatedly grabbed and rubbed her hands, legs, and butt until another passenger intervened.
In the article, Dawn Arthur, a flight attendant for eight years, articulates sentiments similar to Henderson’s. During her career, male passengers often “pushed her into a corner and felt her up.” She never felt supported by her colleagues in the industry to come forward and cites the failure of airlines to train their employees in handling instances of sexual harassment and assault as exacerbating the problem.
Moreover, Arthur emphasizes how passenger perpetrators face limited to no consequences for their actions because “airlines are on a tight timetable and they’re not going to stop the plane.” She notes that if a flight attendant complains, “everyone’s just going to be mad at [her] because [she’s] not a team player and [she’s] just being difficult.”
The objectification, sexual harassment, and sexual assault of female flight attendants continues to be a rampant issue even in 2019. As recently as two weeks ago, two JetBlue flight attendants filed suit against the airline and two of their pilots for drugging and raping them during a flight layover. The airline failed to take any sort of action when the two flight attendants brought forward their sexual assault and rape claims.
Virgin Atlantic hopes that the modifications it incorporated into its new uniform and makeup policy will help combat this continued objectification, sexual harassment, and sexual assault female airline employees face. The company believes that the policies can serve as a step towards mitigating the toxic masculinity and misogyny inherent in the flight attendant job and airline work environment.
Following Virgin Atlantic’s footsteps, other airlines such as American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and Aer Lingus have eliminated their makeup requirements. They only maintain specifications for the type of makeup flight attendants wear if their flight attendants choose to wear makeup. Airlines such as Southwest and British Airways have also eliminated their skirt requirement and incorporated a pant option into their flight attendant uniforms.
However, not all airlines share the sentiments of those who have undertaken these changes. Despite removing its makeup requirement, United Airlines continues to heavily scrutinize its flight attendant’s attire and grooming choices. In an accidentally leaked internal email, United Airlines “expressed concern for skirts with improper lengths, shirts with wrinkles or stains, visibly worn-out shoes, and other personal grooming issues.”
Moreover, many Middle Eastern and Asian air carriers also continue to uphold their stringent appearance standards. For example, Singapore Airlines’ requires that its flight attendants, commonly known as “Singapore Girls”, wear a skin-tight uniforms, get their hair cut into one of the five approved styles, and apply the approved lipstick, blush and nail polish prior to arriving on the plane. Similarly, airlines such as Malaysia’s AirAsia and Vietnam’s Viet Jet require female flight attendants to wear tight-fitting or revealing clothing while in flight or filming for promotional videos.
With airlines opting to take different approaches, the question still remains: Are changes to styling and grooming policies enough to combat the objectification, sexual harassment, and sexual assault female flight personnel face? On one hand, providing women the autonomy to make clothing and grooming choices that might “deter” objectification or harassment in their workplace may seem empowering. However, on other hand, the choice feels arbitrary because the burden of consequences of their clothing and makeup choices ultimately rests with them in an industry where there is no support or training to stop such conduct.
Without establishing formal training for airline personnel to learn how to constructively deal with instances of objectification, sexual harassment, and sexual assault, the egregious treatment of female flight attendants will persist. Forums must be established to ensure female flight attendants can bring forward claims and airlines must develop in-flight procedures for handling situations as they arise, even if they do cause delays or inconveniences.
Female flight attendants’ safety in the workplace should be of utmost importance to air carriers. Their clothing and grooming decisions should not dictate the treatment they face at the hands of their male colleagues and passengers.
Additionally, Virgin Atlantic took their efforts a step further and modified the standard red shirt and skirt uniform to include an option to wear pants provided by the company. Prior to this new company guideline, crew members needed to place special requests for a pant uniform from Virgin Atlantic.
Virgin Atlantic adopted these changes to its styling and grooming policy in light of employees expressed opinions and its desire to foster a more inclusive corporate environment. Virgin Atlantic’s Executive Vice President Mark Anderson stated that “not only do the new guidelines offer an increased level of comfort, but they also provide our team with more choice on how they want to express themselves at work.”
Virgin Atlantic’s new guidelines serve as a breath of fresh air in an industry plagued by a lengthy history of objectification, sexual harassment and sexual assault of its female employees. One study shows that roughly two-thirds of U.S. flight attendants experience some form of harassment or assault during their careers. The Huffington Post article, For flight attendants, sexual assault isn’t just common, it’s almost a given, provides insight into the egregious treatment female flight attendants face from both their co-workers and airline passengers.
The article sheds light on the sexual harassment flight attendant Caroline Bright endured in 2017 at the hands of a pilot she worked with. She recalls noticing how the pilot’s facial features reminded her of her father and showing a picture of her father to the pilot. She told the pilot “You look just like my dad!” The pilot crassly responded by saying “It’s been a long time since a girl like you called me daddy.”
In addition, the article highlights how the industry’s “the customer is always right attitude” and the discouragement of causing inflight delays inherent in the nature of the flight attendant’s job deters female flight attendants from confronting their perpetrators and ultimately drives them out of the industry. Lanelle Henderson, a former flight attendant, describes how an intoxicated male passenger made unwanted sexual advances toward her. The male passenger repeatedly grabbed and rubbed her hands, legs, and butt until another passenger intervened.
In the article, Dawn Arthur, a flight attendant for eight years, articulates sentiments similar to Henderson’s. During her career, male passengers often “pushed her into a corner and felt her up.” She never felt supported by her colleagues in the industry to come forward and cites the failure of airlines to train their employees in handling instances of sexual harassment and assault as exacerbating the problem.
Moreover, Arthur emphasizes how passenger perpetrators face limited to no consequences for their actions because “airlines are on a tight timetable and they’re not going to stop the plane.” She notes that if a flight attendant complains, “everyone’s just going to be mad at [her] because [she’s] not a team player and [she’s] just being difficult.”
The objectification, sexual harassment, and sexual assault of female flight attendants continues to be a rampant issue even in 2019. As recently as two weeks ago, two JetBlue flight attendants filed suit against the airline and two of their pilots for drugging and raping them during a flight layover. The airline failed to take any sort of action when the two flight attendants brought forward their sexual assault and rape claims.
Virgin Atlantic hopes that the modifications it incorporated into its new uniform and makeup policy will help combat this continued objectification, sexual harassment, and sexual assault female airline employees face. The company believes that the policies can serve as a step towards mitigating the toxic masculinity and misogyny inherent in the flight attendant job and airline work environment.
Following Virgin Atlantic’s footsteps, other airlines such as American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and Aer Lingus have eliminated their makeup requirements. They only maintain specifications for the type of makeup flight attendants wear if their flight attendants choose to wear makeup. Airlines such as Southwest and British Airways have also eliminated their skirt requirement and incorporated a pant option into their flight attendant uniforms.
However, not all airlines share the sentiments of those who have undertaken these changes. Despite removing its makeup requirement, United Airlines continues to heavily scrutinize its flight attendant’s attire and grooming choices. In an accidentally leaked internal email, United Airlines “expressed concern for skirts with improper lengths, shirts with wrinkles or stains, visibly worn-out shoes, and other personal grooming issues.”
Moreover, many Middle Eastern and Asian air carriers also continue to uphold their stringent appearance standards. For example, Singapore Airlines’ requires that its flight attendants, commonly known as “Singapore Girls”, wear a skin-tight uniforms, get their hair cut into one of the five approved styles, and apply the approved lipstick, blush and nail polish prior to arriving on the plane. Similarly, airlines such as Malaysia’s AirAsia and Vietnam’s Viet Jet require female flight attendants to wear tight-fitting or revealing clothing while in flight or filming for promotional videos.
With airlines opting to take different approaches, the question still remains: Are changes to styling and grooming policies enough to combat the objectification, sexual harassment, and sexual assault female flight personnel face? On one hand, providing women the autonomy to make clothing and grooming choices that might “deter” objectification or harassment in their workplace may seem empowering. However, on other hand, the choice feels arbitrary because the burden of consequences of their clothing and makeup choices ultimately rests with them in an industry where there is no support or training to stop such conduct.
Without establishing formal training for airline personnel to learn how to constructively deal with instances of objectification, sexual harassment, and sexual assault, the egregious treatment of female flight attendants will persist. Forums must be established to ensure female flight attendants can bring forward claims and airlines must develop in-flight procedures for handling situations as they arise, even if they do cause delays or inconveniences.
Female flight attendants’ safety in the workplace should be of utmost importance to air carriers. Their clothing and grooming decisions should not dictate the treatment they face at the hands of their male colleagues and passengers.
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Is God a woman?
Our Father, who art 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."
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven. . .
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.
Why I wish my mother a happy Father's Day every year
Growing up, I always knew I didn't have a dad. My mother told me the story early on: She had met the love of her life. He was married and had children but was interested in my mother. My mother decided to have a child to forever be reminded of this great love.
Like many womyn, I don't think my mom truly grasped that there was still a huge possibility I was going to grow up without a dad. Not even a baby will make a man stay. He even told her that he did not want another child because his life was already made and he wasn't going to provide for this new baby. But he caved, and here I am.
For years I was angry with my mother for bringing me into this world knowing she was going to be a single parent. At a very young age I understood that my mother had made the choice to bring me into this world without a father--and that was very hurtful for me. Many of my friends had fathers in their lives and had healthy and loving relationships with them. I felt like I was missing out on something important or like I was at a disadvantage for not having that other half of me in my life.
The older I got, the more upset I became because I felt like my mom had set me up for failure. What exacerbated my feelings was our financial situation. As a janitor, my mom didn't make more than $30,000 a year. Some years she only made around $15,000. I felt like I didn't have much because I didn't have a dad, and I didn't have a dad because my mom made that decision for me.
The closer I got to graduating from high school, the more I realized that my mom set me up for success. I thought to myself, "My mom is an actual badass!" Not only could she make $15,000 last for two people for an entire year, she also kept me pretty happy. She would play Gasolina by Daddy Yankee at red lights so I could show off my choreography. She also let me do her hair and take naps with her. She was my first dance partner who taught me all my cumbia moves. She miraculously even found the time to chaperone some of my field trips and never missed a parent-teacher conference.
Of course, like any relationship, we had our problems. She's not perfect, because no one is. And like the rest of us, my mother carries serious trauma from being a Mexican immigrant in the United States who was physically and emotionally abused as a child and an adult. Not only was she a single mother to me, she was also a single mother to my three siblings. She carried that weight the only way she knew how and made sure she did better than her parents did.
The older I got, the more grateful I was to not have a dad. The person my mom fell in love with was an immigrant from El Salvador who was cheating on his wife with more womyn than just my mom. I realized that having him in my life would probably have made living my life harder. I was never "girly," and my significant other is a butch lesbian. Latinx cultural norms make it hard to exist outside of heteronormative binary roles, and there is a high chance that he would have perpetuated these norms in our household.
Since I realized how much work my mom put in to taking care of me, I decided to wish my mom a happy Father's Day. I wanted to let her know that I appreciated her decision to keep and raise me knowing she was going to do so by herself. And since she had hoped I would have a father, I thought it fitting to let her know that although I didn't grow up with a second parent, she definitely filled both roles and then some.
It is because of her that I can speak up in situations many people from similar backgrounds are not comfortable to do so. As a single mother, my mom had to fight to survive and make sure her kids survived. Nothing was ever handed to her, and she didn't have anyone to lean on. If something needed to get done, she was the one who went out and made it happen.
This was my beginning as a feminist. Having a womxn in my life who played every role (homemaker, mechanic, doctor, cook, seamstress, breadwinner, chauffeur) taught me that I could do whatever I wanted. This was further engrained in me from watching my sisters apply what they learned from my mom (both are 20 years older than me) while raising families of their own (both were cheated on and left to raise their children on their own).
Wishing a single mother a happy Father's Day is not for everyone though. Many people feel it is dismissive of the importance of a father's role. This point of view reminds me of difference feminism (how the two sexes have inherently different qualities and therefore are inherently unequal). It seems like people who feel strongly about not wishing a mother a happy Father's Day believe that a womxn cannot fill the role of a "father" do to the biological, and therefore inherent, differences among the two heteronormative sexes.
However, this idea further perpetuates heteronormativity. Difference feminism leaves queer folks (including those who are polygamous) and individuals who decide to raise a child on their own. And I would like to point out that just because my children will have two moms and no father, they will not miss out on anything because femininity and masculinity are not rooted in any one particular gender.
Although there is controversy surrounding whether or not it is okay to wish a single mother a happy Father's Day, I wish my mom one every year because she persevered through her childhood trauma and her adult trauma to pick up the slack of someone who should have assumed the responsibility of being my father. And every year I say it, she is grateful for the acknowledgment and humbled by the recognition of her 24+ years worth of double duty.
Like many womyn, I don't think my mom truly grasped that there was still a huge possibility I was going to grow up without a dad. Not even a baby will make a man stay. He even told her that he did not want another child because his life was already made and he wasn't going to provide for this new baby. But he caved, and here I am.
For years I was angry with my mother for bringing me into this world knowing she was going to be a single parent. At a very young age I understood that my mother had made the choice to bring me into this world without a father--and that was very hurtful for me. Many of my friends had fathers in their lives and had healthy and loving relationships with them. I felt like I was missing out on something important or like I was at a disadvantage for not having that other half of me in my life.
The older I got, the more upset I became because I felt like my mom had set me up for failure. What exacerbated my feelings was our financial situation. As a janitor, my mom didn't make more than $30,000 a year. Some years she only made around $15,000. I felt like I didn't have much because I didn't have a dad, and I didn't have a dad because my mom made that decision for me.
The closer I got to graduating from high school, the more I realized that my mom set me up for success. I thought to myself, "My mom is an actual badass!" Not only could she make $15,000 last for two people for an entire year, she also kept me pretty happy. She would play Gasolina by Daddy Yankee at red lights so I could show off my choreography. She also let me do her hair and take naps with her. She was my first dance partner who taught me all my cumbia moves. She miraculously even found the time to chaperone some of my field trips and never missed a parent-teacher conference.
Of course, like any relationship, we had our problems. She's not perfect, because no one is. And like the rest of us, my mother carries serious trauma from being a Mexican immigrant in the United States who was physically and emotionally abused as a child and an adult. Not only was she a single mother to me, she was also a single mother to my three siblings. She carried that weight the only way she knew how and made sure she did better than her parents did.
The older I got, the more grateful I was to not have a dad. The person my mom fell in love with was an immigrant from El Salvador who was cheating on his wife with more womyn than just my mom. I realized that having him in my life would probably have made living my life harder. I was never "girly," and my significant other is a butch lesbian. Latinx cultural norms make it hard to exist outside of heteronormative binary roles, and there is a high chance that he would have perpetuated these norms in our household.
Since I realized how much work my mom put in to taking care of me, I decided to wish my mom a happy Father's Day. I wanted to let her know that I appreciated her decision to keep and raise me knowing she was going to do so by herself. And since she had hoped I would have a father, I thought it fitting to let her know that although I didn't grow up with a second parent, she definitely filled both roles and then some.
It is because of her that I can speak up in situations many people from similar backgrounds are not comfortable to do so. As a single mother, my mom had to fight to survive and make sure her kids survived. Nothing was ever handed to her, and she didn't have anyone to lean on. If something needed to get done, she was the one who went out and made it happen.
This was my beginning as a feminist. Having a womxn in my life who played every role (homemaker, mechanic, doctor, cook, seamstress, breadwinner, chauffeur) taught me that I could do whatever I wanted. This was further engrained in me from watching my sisters apply what they learned from my mom (both are 20 years older than me) while raising families of their own (both were cheated on and left to raise their children on their own).
Wishing a single mother a happy Father's Day is not for everyone though. Many people feel it is dismissive of the importance of a father's role. This point of view reminds me of difference feminism (how the two sexes have inherently different qualities and therefore are inherently unequal). It seems like people who feel strongly about not wishing a mother a happy Father's Day believe that a womxn cannot fill the role of a "father" do to the biological, and therefore inherent, differences among the two heteronormative sexes.
However, this idea further perpetuates heteronormativity. Difference feminism leaves queer folks (including those who are polygamous) and individuals who decide to raise a child on their own. And I would like to point out that just because my children will have two moms and no father, they will not miss out on anything because femininity and masculinity are not rooted in any one particular gender.
Although there is controversy surrounding whether or not it is okay to wish a single mother a happy Father's Day, I wish my mom one every year because she persevered through her childhood trauma and her adult trauma to pick up the slack of someone who should have assumed the responsibility of being my father. And every year I say it, she is grateful for the acknowledgment and humbled by the recognition of her 24+ years worth of double duty.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Footloose: Toxic Masculinity Addition
Queer people, especially growing up, have to be especially careful about everything they do. Every action, every word choice, every joke needs to be carefully examined before its executed. For some people, this caution stems from fear of outing themselves before ready. For others, the fear stems from just being seen as an “other,” some misfit who does not belong.
For me, the latter was my main concern. A lot of people say that deep down they had always known they were gay. I, however, was not one of those people. Growing up, I believed I was straight. There was no nagging voice in the back of my head telling me that maybe I liked boys.
My mom was diagnosed with cancer right before I turned 15, and she died less than four months later. I attribute not hearing that voice to just trying to readjust to life and dealing with the trauma after her death. But, at 17, I realized I was gay, and within three weeks, I had come out to everyone in my life. It was a very short period between my own realization through me becoming open with everyone in my life.
So, what does this all have to do with the title I gave this blog post? Well, I have always loved to sing. It has always brought me joy. There are only a handful of days where I don’t start of the day humming “Good Morning Baltimore” from Hairspray (Musical) or “Provincial Life” from Beauty and the Beast (Movie). When I feel overwhelmed, I scream-sing “I’m Not Okay” by My Chemical Romance (Band) until I feel better. When I need a good cry I'm feeling sad, I listen to “People” from Funny Girl (Musical) or “On My Own” or “I Dreamed a Dream,” the latter two from Les Miserablés (Musical). Some of the quotes I live my life by come from songs. Two of my favorites, both which come from the song “Down, Down, Down to Mephisto’s Café” by Streetlight Manifesto (Band), which say “You can play the role of rebel, just be sure to know your wrong from right,” and
However, singing when you are in middle school and high school, especially growing up in the conservative part of California (I lived next to a place named Santee, but people referred to it as Klan-tee because of all the white supremacists living there) is not something a boy does. It’s something a “faggot” does. And this, guys, gals, and non-binary-pals, is where my tale of toxic masculinity begins.
First, what is toxic masculinity? Some on this blog have talked about toxic masculinity (see: Toxic Locker Rooms) and other have defined it (see: #MasculinitySoFragile and the Gendering of Consumer Products). I wanted to define it in my own terms as well. Toxic masculinity, to me, is any type of behavior done to ensure that one is seen as masculine, but to the determent of actor or others. This often means that the actor will avoid doing things that they or society perceive as feminine- like singing, dancing, cooking, talking about your emotions, having long hair, wearing traditionally feminine colors, etc.- even if it is something the person truly loves doing.
For me, the thing I avoided doing because it was considered feminine was singing. I never joined choir at my middle school. And I only joined high school choir my senior year, over half a year after I had come out. I was so afraid of being perceived as an “other” that I purposefully avoided something I truly loved. And I would only have been perceived as an “other” because of the patriarchy dictating what is masculine and what is feminine.
Instead of choir, I joined the next closest thing: band (I played clarinet for 9 years, and was first chair my last year of high school). I made so many good friends in band, and I cherish most of my memories from those times. But I never loved the activity. It was not something I wanted to be doing, but rather was something I was doing to get a fix. I still wanted music in my life, and band was the best, unfeminine way to incorporate it.
But it was not the same. And I look back now and am sad that I was too scared to participate in something I truly loved.
In college, I tried out for a couple acapella groups, but because of my lack of experience and training, I often was under prepared for my auditions, and clearly not the best choice. I only auditioned my freshman year, and it went terribly. I heard other auditions, those that had musical training and had been singing their whole lives, and knew I could not compare. I knew that I would never be on that level without practice, which I did not have time for. Even after shedding my toxic masculinity, I still felt its effects.
It was not until I came to law school that I started singing again. I bombed my audition with Law Capella my 1L year because I was scared. I was a 1L auditioning in front of 2Ls and 3Ls (that in and of itself should be enough explanation), but I also was sandwiched between two people I already knew could sing well. My nerves got the better of me.
Full of resolve, I tried out again my 2L year. Thanks to some help from my friends, and some practice, I was able secure a spot in the group. I have taken a solo three times now, and I will be singing at graduation. I am extremely proud of the journey that has brought me here. I just wish I had not let fear, the patriarchy, and toxic masculinity stop me from pursuing something I truly loved. What comes to mind are The Streetlight Manifesto lyrics I quoted earlier: "the punishment that they threaten constantly, it’s only real if they can just convince me." My fear, the patriarchy, and my toxic masculinity were only real because they just convinced me that I would be nothing if I did not fit the mold.
Just some ending thoughts. One, I am extremely happy with how my life turned out, so even though not joining a choir sooner is probably one of my bigger regrets, I am still extremely happy. Two, life is always better with a soundtrack, so add some music to your life. Three, do not let others define you, and do not let them limit how you live your life because, if you do, you will miss out on a lot of songs along the way.
For me, the latter was my main concern. A lot of people say that deep down they had always known they were gay. I, however, was not one of those people. Growing up, I believed I was straight. There was no nagging voice in the back of my head telling me that maybe I liked boys.
My mom was diagnosed with cancer right before I turned 15, and she died less than four months later. I attribute not hearing that voice to just trying to readjust to life and dealing with the trauma after her death. But, at 17, I realized I was gay, and within three weeks, I had come out to everyone in my life. It was a very short period between my own realization through me becoming open with everyone in my life.
So, what does this all have to do with the title I gave this blog post? Well, I have always loved to sing. It has always brought me joy. There are only a handful of days where I don’t start of the day humming “Good Morning Baltimore” from Hairspray (Musical) or “Provincial Life” from Beauty and the Beast (Movie). When I feel overwhelmed, I scream-sing “I’m Not Okay” by My Chemical Romance (Band) until I feel better. When I need a good cry I'm feeling sad, I listen to “People” from Funny Girl (Musical) or “On My Own” or “I Dreamed a Dream,” the latter two from Les Miserablés (Musical). Some of the quotes I live my life by come from songs. Two of my favorites, both which come from the song “Down, Down, Down to Mephisto’s Café” by Streetlight Manifesto (Band), which say “You can play the role of rebel, just be sure to know your wrong from right,” and
Way back when the prophecies began, do you think they really had a master plan, or were they merely writing fables, stories? I don’t know but it has occurred to me, the punishment that they threaten constantly, it’s only real if they can just convince me.”I have never been in love, but I have felt how much love can hurt someone by listening to any Adele album. This is all just a long way of saying, I love music and it has and always will be a big part of my life.
However, singing when you are in middle school and high school, especially growing up in the conservative part of California (I lived next to a place named Santee, but people referred to it as Klan-tee because of all the white supremacists living there) is not something a boy does. It’s something a “faggot” does. And this, guys, gals, and non-binary-pals, is where my tale of toxic masculinity begins.
First, what is toxic masculinity? Some on this blog have talked about toxic masculinity (see: Toxic Locker Rooms) and other have defined it (see: #MasculinitySoFragile and the Gendering of Consumer Products). I wanted to define it in my own terms as well. Toxic masculinity, to me, is any type of behavior done to ensure that one is seen as masculine, but to the determent of actor or others. This often means that the actor will avoid doing things that they or society perceive as feminine- like singing, dancing, cooking, talking about your emotions, having long hair, wearing traditionally feminine colors, etc.- even if it is something the person truly loves doing.
For me, the thing I avoided doing because it was considered feminine was singing. I never joined choir at my middle school. And I only joined high school choir my senior year, over half a year after I had come out. I was so afraid of being perceived as an “other” that I purposefully avoided something I truly loved. And I would only have been perceived as an “other” because of the patriarchy dictating what is masculine and what is feminine.
Instead of choir, I joined the next closest thing: band (I played clarinet for 9 years, and was first chair my last year of high school). I made so many good friends in band, and I cherish most of my memories from those times. But I never loved the activity. It was not something I wanted to be doing, but rather was something I was doing to get a fix. I still wanted music in my life, and band was the best, unfeminine way to incorporate it.
But it was not the same. And I look back now and am sad that I was too scared to participate in something I truly loved.
In college, I tried out for a couple acapella groups, but because of my lack of experience and training, I often was under prepared for my auditions, and clearly not the best choice. I only auditioned my freshman year, and it went terribly. I heard other auditions, those that had musical training and had been singing their whole lives, and knew I could not compare. I knew that I would never be on that level without practice, which I did not have time for. Even after shedding my toxic masculinity, I still felt its effects.
It was not until I came to law school that I started singing again. I bombed my audition with Law Capella my 1L year because I was scared. I was a 1L auditioning in front of 2Ls and 3Ls (that in and of itself should be enough explanation), but I also was sandwiched between two people I already knew could sing well. My nerves got the better of me.
Full of resolve, I tried out again my 2L year. Thanks to some help from my friends, and some practice, I was able secure a spot in the group. I have taken a solo three times now, and I will be singing at graduation. I am extremely proud of the journey that has brought me here. I just wish I had not let fear, the patriarchy, and toxic masculinity stop me from pursuing something I truly loved. What comes to mind are The Streetlight Manifesto lyrics I quoted earlier: "the punishment that they threaten constantly, it’s only real if they can just convince me." My fear, the patriarchy, and my toxic masculinity were only real because they just convinced me that I would be nothing if I did not fit the mold.
Just some ending thoughts. One, I am extremely happy with how my life turned out, so even though not joining a choir sooner is probably one of my bigger regrets, I am still extremely happy. Two, life is always better with a soundtrack, so add some music to your life. Three, do not let others define you, and do not let them limit how you live your life because, if you do, you will miss out on a lot of songs along the way.
Kris Jenner isn’t “keeping up” with feminism
I’ll admit it; I still religiously watch Keeping Up with the Kardashians every Sunday. Does this make me a ‘bad feminist’? Maybe, but frankly I don’t care and I’m going to continue to watch the show that turned six women into multi-millionaires (one, Kylie, close to billionaire status) for letting their entire lives be shown to the world.
However, in the most recent episode, season 16, episode 2 “Kourtney’s Choice,” there were some problematic ideas spouted by the matriarch of the family, Kris Jenner, that I simply couldn’t bring myself to ignore.
The scene I had my main issues with was filmed after Kanye West, Kim Kardashian West’s husband, made an unplanned and controversial rant after his performance on Saturday Night Live as the credits rolled. During this rambling speech, Kanye wore a “Make America Great Again” hat and made several pro-Trump statements. While it was cut from the broadcast of Saturday Night Live, footage of the tirade leaked to YouTube and Twitter almost immediately, and many members of the public and celebrities voiced their disapproval of Kanye’s message.
In the scene I mentioned above from Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Kim tells her mom, Kris, about the unplanned speech and states that she is unsure whether her family will ever be invited back to Saturday Night Live. Kim goes on to tell her mother:
Look, I can’t control it… I know that Kanye is always gonna be Kanye, and I’m never trying to change that. I mean, that’s who I fell in love with, and I’m not trying to change who he is.
Kris, clearly frustrated and upset about the negative press making Kim look bad, then advises her daughter:
I just feel like to keep him calm, you really need to pay him a little more attention...I think he just is expecting a lot more than you’re giving."
To which Kim replies, irritated, that, "I don't have any much more to give."
Somehow Kris turns an impromptu, problematic speech made by a grown and independent man into an implication that Kim is deficient as a wife for not controlling Kanye’s actions. Kris seems to think that even while Kim is juggling three (soon to be four) children, running multiple businesses, and doing numerous public appearances and interviews, she still needs to somehow control her husband by giving him more attention and affection.
This advice plays into the outdated and problematic notion that women are not only supposed to be the ones running the home, but they are also representative and responsible for their husbands’ actions. By telling Kim she could stop Kanye’s erratic behavior by catering to his needs more often, Kris is saying Kim not only needs to be a partner to Kanye, but a mother and a manager as well. Kim Kardashian West does not need to answer for her husband’s actions because Kanye is an adult who can answer for himself.
Although Kris is herself a working mother, having acted as Kim, Khloe, Kourtney, Kendall, and Kylie’s manager since they first rose to fame in 2007, by making this comment it is clear she still believes Kim’s role as a wife should come before her work. For Kris, Kim should be focusing on providing emotional labor, the type of labor which is typically assigned to women in heterosexual relationships.
In Melissa Curran’s article, “Gender, Emotion Work, and Relationship Quality: A Daily Diary Study,” she unpacks the idea of emotional labor in relationships and the effect it has on the relationship when that labor is unequally divided. She also dives into the long-held belief, as evidenced through Kris Jenner’s comments to Kim, that women are the ones meant to shoulder the bulk of the emotional work in heterosexual relationships. She explains:
Emotion work can underscore greater relational inequality between partners, including perceptions that women are held accountable for emotion work in ways that men are not.
This accountability for emotion work is what Kris was trying to put onto Kim with her comments and insinuation that Kanye’s erratic behavior was directly tied to Kim’s supposed deficiencies in the emotional labor she is putting into her relationship.
According to the theory presented in Rebecca J Erikson’s article, “Why Emotion Work Matters: Sex, Gender, and the Division of Household Labor,” women have historically been the ones assigned the majority of emotional labor in the relationship because it was viewed as a fair tradeoff for the economic labor the husband contributed to the relationship. However, in the case of Kim Kardashian-West and Kanye West, Kim actually provides more of the economic labor to the relationship (Kanye has a net worth estimated at $250 million while Kim has a net worth of $350 million).
Kris seems to want Kim to fall into the archaic sense of what it means to be a wife and a partner – despite the fact that Kim manages a perfume line, make-up line, popular app, as well as countless contracts using her personal Instagram as advertising for companies. Kim wasn’t exaggerating when she said she didn’t have much left to give emotionally to Kanye.
Ultimately, it is not only regressive for Kris to suggest Kim’s lack of emotional labor is directly tied to Kanye’s outbursts, but it is also insulting to Kanye, who has been very open with the fact he is an independent person who is going to do what he wants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
