Dear Mona Eltahawy: You do not represent “Us”
It all started this morning when Kawlture suggested we feature the Foreign Policy issue cover on our blog, the Mainstream Media and the Orient. I was on my phone and could not see the cover clearly. At first, I thought it was blackface, but upon zooming in and reading the the featured article title by Mona Eltahawy, my eyes weren’t fooling me. It really was a woman covered in a black body-painted niqab.
They tell you don’t judge a book by its cover. But I, as an Arab-American Muslim woman, could not get that image out of my head long enough to even begin reading Mona’s article. I kept thinking about how the image degraded and insulted every woman I know that wears or has ever worn the niqab. The face veil is rooted in pre-Islamic history, and I’m not going to delve into it. If you want a more comprehensive read, I recommend Leila Ahmed’s Women and Gender in Islam.
Today, those who are fixated on the niqab believe that focusing on what a Muslim woman wears is what defines her thought, her intellect, her capabilities, her sexuality, her gender, her very existence. It’s a narrative that’s been framed by the West and fed by the likes of Qasim Amin and even Hoda Sha’rawi. FP’s decision to choose this photograph of a naked woman with a body-painted niqab embodies this problematic narrative in more ways than one:
- This inherent sexualization of the niqab through the pose and exposure of the female form revives the classic harem literature and art, presenting the Arab and/or Muslim woman as “exotic” and “mysterious,” but still an object. An object lacking the agency to define herself, thus defined by others.
- All of the women close to me who wear the niqab do so for different reasons. One friend only wears the niqab when she goes protesting because she feels comfortable in it. Another friend has worn the niqab, against the will of her family, since she was 14 out of her own free will. The representation of the niqab as splattered body paint on a naked woman degrades the decision of women who wear the niqab as a choice.
- The feature of an Arab woman’s article on the front cover does not justify the editorial choice to use the image. Mona Eltahawy was notoriously owned during a debate over the niqab ban in France, where she took the position in favor of the ban. Her stance on the niqab is convenient to the narrative being perpetuated by the problematic image.
But I digress. On to Mona’s article, titled “Why Do They Hate Us.” As a writer, I’m aware that editors sometimes propose titles, but they usually inform writers of that change. At least, that was my experience with Foreign Policy (it was a piece they never published). However, immediately, the title sets off an alarm: the use of the first-person-plural. The first-person-plural can be appropriately used when the speaker has been elected to speak on behalf of the group they are speaking on behalf of. In this case, the “They” being Arab societies and “Us” being Arab women. Mona’s self-appointed representation of Arab women is neither professional nor accurate. While I sincerely value the freedom of self-expression and have not one problem with her expressing her views, but to do so on the behalf of all Arab women is enraging.
Her article presents a summary and background of the treatment of women in the region, paired with statistics and specific examples of cases from countries throughout the region, fluffed with emotional rhetoric, ending with a call for fighting against injustices. Every now and then, a different image of the nude woman with the body-painted niqab interrupts the commentary, fueling the rage all over again.
She includes bits like:
“I’ll never forget hearing that if a baby boy urinated on you, you could go ahead and pray in the same clothes, yet if a baby girl peed on you, you had to change. What on Earth in the girl’s urine made you impure? I wondered. Hatred of women.”
And,
“The Islamist hatred of women burns brightly across the region — now more than ever.”
Also,
“But at least Yemeni women can drive. It surely hasn’t ended their litany of problems, but it symbolizes freedom.”
Concluding with,
“We are more than our headscarves and our hymens. Listen to those of us fighting. Amplify the voices of the region and poke the hatred in its eye.”
The entire article is framed in a way that portrays Arab women as helpless, and in need of rescue and protection. It’s a convenient narrative for FP’s mostly Western-based readership. No mention of Tawakul Karman, Zainab and Maryam al-Khawaja, etc.—women who rose through the revolutions and were present in the public sphere during protests and demonstrations, standing alongside their compatriots demanding change and an end to injustices of all kinds. These women stood up as individuals and not as self-proclaimed representatives of Arab women.
Mona points to “hate” as the source and cause of the injustices committed against Arab women. She scapegoats the rise of the Islamists, but Maya Mikdashi debunked that argument a couple months ago:
“Gender equality and justice should be a focus of progressive politics no matter who is in power. A selective fear of Islamists when it comes to women’s and LGBTQ rights has more to do with Islamophobia than a genuine concern with gender justice. Unfortunately, Islamists do not have an exclusive license to practice patriarchy and gender discrimination/oppression in the region. The secular state has been doing it fairly adequately for the last half a century.”
Yet, she entirely neglects the socioeconomic roots of gender inequality, the rise of authoritarian regimes in a post-colonialist context, the remnants of dehumanization and oppression from colonialism, the systematic exclusion of women from the political system or those who are used as convenient tools for the regime. There is more to gender inequality than just “hate.”
The true fight should be against the monolithic representation of women in the region, illustrated by an over-sexualized image of splattered black paint over a nude body. This does nothing to rectify the position of women in ANY society.
Source: sharquaouia
The rape of men: "it's systematically silenced."
“In Africa no man is allowed to be vulnerable,” says RLP’s gender officer Salome Atim. “You have to be masculine, strong. You should never break down or cry. A man must be a leader and provide for the whole family. When he fails to reach that set standard, society perceives that there is something wrong.”
Often, she says, wives who discover their husbands have been raped decide to leave them. “They ask me: ‘So now how am I going to live with him? As what? Is this still a husband? Is it a wife?’ They ask, ‘If he can be raped, who is protecting me?’ There’s one family I have been working closely with in which the husband has been raped twice. When his wife discovered this, she went home, packed her belongings, picked up their child and left. Of course that brought down this man’s heart.”
Back at RLP I’m told about the other ways in which their clients have been made to suffer. Men aren’t simply raped, they are forced to penetrate holes in banana trees that run with acidic sap, to sit with their genitals over a fire, to drag rocks tied to their penis, to give oral sex to queues of soldiers, to be penetrated with screwdrivers and sticks. Atim has now seen so many male survivors that, frequently, she can spot them the moment they sit down. “They tend to lean forward and will often sit on one buttock,” she tells me. “When they cough, they grab their lower regions. At times, they will stand up and there’s blood on the chair. And they often have some kind of smell.”
[…]
“International human rights law leaves out men in nearly all instruments designed to address sexual violence,” she continues. “The UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000 treats wartime sexual violence as something that only impacts on women and girls… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced $44m to implement this resolution. Because of its entirely exclusive focus on female victims, it seems unlikely that any of these new funds will reach the thousands of men and boys who suffer from this kind of abuse. Ignoring male rape not only neglects men, it also harms women by reinforcing a viewpoint that equates ‘female’ with ‘victim’, thus hampering our ability to see women as strong and empowered. In the same way, silence about male victims reinforces unhealthy expectations about men and their supposed invulnerability.”
Considering Dolan’s finding that “female rape is significantly underreported and male rape almost never”, I ask Stemple if, following her research, she believes it might be a hitherto unimagined part of all wars. “No one knows, but I do think it’s safe to say that it’s likely that it’s been a part of many wars throughout history and that taboo has played a part in the silence.”
As I leave Uganda, there’s a detail of a story that I can’t forget. Before receiving help from the RLP, one man went to see his local doctor. He told him he had been raped four times, that he was injured and depressed and his wife had threatened to leave him. The doctor gave him a Panadol.
Why Isn’t Birth Control Getting Better?

One of the worst feelings in the world, if you are a modern, feminist-inclined woman, is when you realize that your life kinda resembles a birth-control commercial. On more occasions than I can count, I’ve found myself in a large group of women, most of us heterosexual, sexually active, and in our twenties, sitting around complaining about how we’re completely unhappy with our chosen contraceptive method. (Better than sitting around talking about how yogurt turns us on, I guess.)
There are the friends in long-term relationships who, after enduring years of diminished sex drive, have convinced their boyfriends to switch to condoms. The friends who are prone to depression and can’t take the Pill because the next thing they know they’ll be crying at This American Life—even the light-hearted episodes. The friends who tried the NuvaRing but found it dried them out like an old lady. The friends who are actually doing quite well on Yaz, thankyouverymuch, but still have lingering worries about blood clots and strokes—worries that are, according to a new study, completely warranted. And on and on.
Where’s the outrage?
The statistics on women’s satisfaction with birth control should be enough to make Big Pharma invest in some serious R&D: Virtually every woman in America (99 percent of us) will use some form of contraception in our lifetime. In the United States alone there are 62 million women of childbearing age, 70 percent of whom are sexually active but do not want children. In other words, at least 43 million American women need birth control—and that’s not even counting the men who sleep with them.
We also need better birth control. A 2004 survey found that 20 percent of women were not satisfied with the contraceptive method they were using. On average, women try four different types of contraception during their lifetime. Studies continue to show that even low-dose hormonal contraception exacerbates depression and decreases libido. And last year, a study in the Journal of Family Practice found that only 57 percent of women on the Pill were happy with it.
Fifty years after the invention of the birth-control pill, we are all so busycelebrating our contraceptive options—and defending our access to them—that we tend to forget how few we have. The basic science behind most contraception remains virtually unchanged since the 1950s, when researcher John Rock discovered that a combination of estrogen and progesterone would allow a woman to control her fertility. Sure, scientists have tweaked the hormone levels and delivery methods, but every single one of these innovations is still based on synthetic hormones.
The fact that nearly all birth control is based in the same science will come as no surprise to any woman who has tried to find a non-hormonal contraceptive choice. Her celebrated options are very quickly reduced to using condoms, charting her cycle and abstaining when she’s ovulating, or abstaining altogether. When young women I know have inquired about getting an IUD, a shocking number have been dissuaded by their doctors. (Here’s more on that.) And despite frequent assurances that a male contraceptive pill is “on the horizon” or “in development,” it’s nowhere close. “The joke in the field is: The male pill’s been five to 10 years away for the last 30 years,” Dr. John Amory, a researcher at the University of Washington, told CNN.
Where’s the innovation?
“I think a lot of the last decades of work by the industry has been in taking hormonal methods and changing them a little bit, tweaking them, as opposed to huge leaps and revolutionary changes,” says Jill Schwartz, medical director of CONRAD, a reproductive health research institution. Yet even she is not optimistic that women would be willing to try an experimental new method. “It’s economic. It’s going to cost so much to make a new product… But it’s not going to be a huge market share. So for industry it’s not enticing.”
Are pharmaceutical companies so busy inventing illnesses and wooing doctors that they can’t bother to invest in R&D for a product for which 99 percent of American women are potential consumers—not to mention the rest of the world? Have social conservatives made birth control so controversial that even the most forward-thinking university researcher can’t find funding for this research and even the most profit-thirsty CEO doesn’t want to go through the FDA approval process? Or is the human reproductive system really so complicated that we unlocked the only way of controlling it way back in 1951? My friends and I would like some answers.
So I woke up this morning in a pool of my own blood.
Wait, let me back up.
Hi, my name is Cara and I’m a 21 year old woman. Every 28 days, give or take, I have a period. And it fucking sucks. Today, was one of those where I take from the 28 day cycle. I wasn’t due for another period for at least a week, but considering that my period is pretty much permanently irregular, I get to wake up a lot of mornings in a pool of my own blood. Hmm. Lovely.
I then proceed to dump my sheets, my underwear, and my pajamas in my laundry room in a tub filled with cold water, with the hopes that this time I haven’t ruined them permanently.
What next? Well, a shower of course! To wipe off the smell of rotting blood from my body! Squeaky clean and towel fresh I have about a two minute window before the volcano of blood begins to erupt again from my vagina.
What will it be today? A piece of chlorinated toilet paper cardboard with a string that I get to shove up my hole wherein the blood will sit and rot until the next time I can shove another piece of chlorinated cardboard up the same hole? Or, a plastic lined toilet paper diaper attached to my underwear that causes rug burn to my vaginal area when I walk? Well the later requires less coordination, and it is early, so I guess I’ll be sitting in a period diaper today. The best ever.
Of course, I could always just get birth control, and lessen this whole shit. But 1) I can’t afford it 2) I can’t ask my dad to pay for it because, guess what? Just like the men who run my government, my father correlates birth control with sexual promiscuity! Thus, sitting on my rotting blood, undergoing severe cramps that have on more than one occasion caused me to black out, it is! (Not that birth control is such a walk in the park either, our bodies have to learn to deal with the hormones and other chemicals and consequences that birth control entails.)
Then, I get to go to class, where I have to pretend that I am not a leaky faucet of blood and tissue. I get to sit in Calculus, and if heaven forbid, I need an additional pad, I have to be discrete about it, so as not to offend the men’s gentle sensibilities to the fact that I am the one dropping tissues and blood from my body through my vagina.
I once asked a male to take me to the pharmacy so that I could pick up (GASP) pads, or as we like to call it “feminine products” (again, so as not to offend the gentlemen’s overly sensitive natures) and had him equate me talking about my period to him talking about his erections.
ARE
YOU
FUCKING
KIDDING
ME
No.
This is nothing like your fucking erection’s. I don’t derive any enjoyment from this. I can’t mentally control any ounce of this entire process. I can’t masturbate my problem away. My period does not end in orgasm.
It stays. For at least five days in my case. Draining blood out of my body. Causing me severe cramps, making me irritable -not because I’m uncomfortable (which mind you, would be reason enough) - but because my hormones are all over the place, bloating me up to two sizes larger than I normally am, I have to actively fight not to smell like a fish market, and on top of that, you want me to be hush-hush about this? Because it’s icky for you?
And this is not an attack on that one man, this is an attack on ALL MEN who on top of sitting on their throne of gender privilege want me to stay quiet and be content about the fact that five days out of every month I get to undergo this happiest of joys.
And then, these very same men have the audacity to get annoyed because we don’t want to listen to their bullshit complaining about traffic? Or whatever other meaningless story they happen to tell us while our bodies are actively fighting against us? Then we get to be the butt of their tired-ass jokes? Sorry, I am most certainly not sorry.
I repeat NO. I say women come out of the period closet and say, “You know what, this happens to me. Every. Fucking. Month. And it’s terrible. LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT MY MORNING.” Because the truth is, if I live in a country where Viagra is covered by medical insurance, but birth control isn’t, I can no longer keep denying that I live in a country that is actively waging a war on women. And if I live in a country that is actively waging war on my sex, the least I am going to do is break patriarchal social propriety to inform anyone and everyone of the shit biological process I was BLESSED enough to be born into.
Hello, my name is Cara, I’m a 21 year old woman, and today I’m on my period. Let me fucking tell you about it.
EDIT: To everyone who is reading this from external websites, I’ve further addressed mistakes I made, and what I meant my point to be here and here.
Source: itscandidlycara
“never again”
This image is one of the most powerful pro-choice images I’ve ever seen. When I saw it in the newspaper I immediately cut it out and hung it on my wall.
This is not my image. I’m using it with permission from Arthur Newspaper.
Source: maleficus-juicy
While you were sleeping:
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin signed the following bills:
- Blocking insurance companies from covering abortion
- Removing contraception from the sex education curriculum
- Overruling the objections of the Wisconsin Medical Association to interfere with doctors on counseling women on abortion
- AND (here’s the kicker): He eliminated the states key protection for women trying to get equal pay for equal work.
I would like to write passionate disparaging remarks, but I find myself almost moved to tears for every woman living in Wisconsin right now.
Read more here and Here
(via cosmopolitan-fascist)
Source: sexreeducated
Benevolent sexism: the culture of gender traditions that feed the fire of hostile sexism towards women, in a manner that seems sympathetic and proper but is in fact subtle and dangerous. Benevolent sexism is widely-accepted and encouraged by the men and women whom it is inculcated in.
TL;DR @ article: We think the proper way to treat a women is with patronizing affection and insisting on conventional chivalry and bringing attention to her physical appearances, but these actions are often social illusions that place women in subordinate positions and prevent them from exploring their identities. Much of what is given to them is not wanted, and much of what is wanted (ex. women who appreciate chivalry and gender norms etc.), is only wanted because it has been fabricated, instilled in growing girls by patriarchic media and norms, resulting in a lack of actual fulfillment and equality. Benevolent sexism ultimately cripples women’s abilities to challenge inequality and prevent discrimination.
Source: historicalcontext
For those who think I rant about the patriarchy and misogyny too much
From: Julia Maddera, Georgetown University ‘13.
To the first man, who I met by the Eiffel Tower my second week in Paris, when I didn’t know better. Who took me out four times, who waved little red flags that I tried to ignore. Like asking me outright if I was a virgin on the first date, like calling me five different pet names when I’d asked him not to throughout the second, like saying he’d heard that feminists were not real women during the third, like disappearing for a week and a half after the fourth. Who, as it turns out, was not the bullet, but the careening fourteen-wheeler that I narrowly managed to dodge. Who admitted that he hit the young woman that his mother was trying to force him to marry. Who didn’t want to marry her because he believes in romantic love. Who doesn’t see the contradiction in those two sentences.
To the guy in my medieval literature class, who lent me one of Camus’ plays and showed me around the library. Who wants to use his French education not to escape to the West, but to go back to his third-world home country to teach at its eight-year-old university. Who I admired until he asked me what my American boyfriend had thought about me coming to Paris, until he demanded to know why I didn’t have one (a boyfriend, that is), until he asked if it was required that I marry an American. Who reached out and touched my earrings, without asking, the next time he saw me. Who won’t take a hint.
To the PhD student who tried to take me up to his apartment after a five minute conversation, when I had just wanted to get lunch, who said there’s a first time for everything. Who told me that we were university students, living in a 21st century democracy, and that relations between men and women were different now, so what was I so scared of? Who recoiled in shock when I told him that I had friends who’d been raped, and by other university students, at that. Who does not have to think about rape on a daily basis. Who insisted on paying for my lunch, because “it was a matter of honor.” Who then physically prevented me from handing my money to the cashier, when I was trying to make it clear that this was not a date. Who didn’t believe me when I said I didn’t want a boyfriend, five times. Whose number I blocked the moment I stepped on the metro. Who has called me three times since. Who told me he wants to go into Senegalese politics. Who, I can only hope, will listen to the women of his country better than he listened to me.
To the delivery guy on the red motorcycle idling outside of the apartments on Avenue de Porte de Vanves, the ones I walk past every day, who said bonsoir and who, because I said it in return to be polite, followed me to the metro as I walked, head twisted down, pretending that I didn’t understand the language I’ve studied for eight years.
To the two men Thursday night in le Marais, swaggering drunk toward me, ignoring the male friend standing by my side, who leered at my chest and slurred, “Bonsoir, comme tu es mignonne,” as I shoved past them, trying to sound angry, not afraid. Who left me feeling fidgety and panicked, so when I took the night bus in the wrong direction and found myself alone with two other strange men at a bus stop at 2:30 A.M., I let the cab driver fleece me out of 25 euro just to take a taxi home.
To the group of teenage boys loitering on the corner by my apartment, who decided to sound a siren at my approach because I was wearing a knee-length dress and a bulky sweater. Who made me regret forgoing tights because I had wanted to feel the spring air on my calves for once. Who will never have to wear an itchy pair of pantyhose in their entire lives. To whom I said nothing, because I still have to walk past that corner twice a day for the next three-and-a-half months, because there were five of them and one of me.
To the three men standing on the corner of the periphery five minutes later when I was crossing the street. To the one who motioned for his friends to turn and look at me, quick, and then left his wolf-whistle ringing in my ears, shame like sunburn covering my face. Who didn’t care that it was broad daylight. Who made me wish that I could swear a blue streak back in French, without my accent betraying that I am American, which is another word for “easy” here.
To the two men at sunset on the bridge by Saint Michel, in the middle of tourist central, who made skeeting noises at me, like a pair of sputtering mosquitoes, to get my attention. Who laughed when I flipped them off, and who kept hissing at me anyway. Who forced me to keep checking over my shoulder, all the way to the metro, to make sure that I wasn’t being followed.
But also to the French friend who blamed my problems with French men on my university in the northern suburbs, a Parisian synonym for emeutes, gang violence, and immigration. Who insisted that if he brought me to his upper-crust private (white) university—where the French elite reproduces itself into perpetuity—I would meet nicer French guys. Who forced me to defend the men who’d harassed me against his barely-veiled, racist critique.
And also to the American friend at home who nearly rolled his eyes as he half-listened to my stories, who said, “Oh god, it’s hard being so attractive, isn’t it?” as if I was being vain. Who laughs and does not understand why I always duck out of the frame of photographs, who knows nothing of what my body means to me.
And that’s just two months in Paris.
To all the Italian men who made me wish I had dyed my hair black before studying in Florence, who kept me from going out dancing because I got sick of feeling them creeping up behind me, sneaking their hands around my waist (and lower) when I’d already said NO three times.
To the six-foot-something Georgetown student who prided himself on protecting the girls from being groped on the dance floor. Who chose to write about the rape of the Sabine woman for that week’s assignment. Who described the way her breast slipped free of her tunic when she fell, as if he was writing a porno, not a rape scene, who had the woman fall in love with her Roman rapist the next morning, after he spun her a tale of the coming glory of his country. Who said “in a fit of passion, she thrust herself upon his member” and was not joking. Who ended the story with the titular character saying to her children that she had been raped, but only at first.
To the seventh-grade boy who told my younger sister that he could rape her, if he wanted to.
To the gang of twenty-five year-olds in the Jeep who hollered at her as they drove past, leering at her thirteen-year-old body dressed in sweat pants and a tank top. Who made my sister, fearless on the soccer field and in the classroom and in the karate studio, run home crying. Who were the reason she became afraid to walk the dog by herself in our “safe, suburban” neighborhood.
To my father, who said, “What white male privilege?” Who was not being ironic.
(via dhunki)
Source: thelittlekneesofbees
Male fantasies, male fantasies, is everything run by male fantasies? Up on a pedestal or down on your knees, it’s all a male fantasy: that you’re strong enough to take what they dish out, or else too weak to do anything about it. Even pretending you aren’t catering to male fantasies is a male fantasy: pretending you’re unseen, pretending you have a life of your own, that you can wash your feet and comb your hair unconscious of the ever-present watcher peering through the keyhole, peering through the keyhole in your own head, if nowhere else. You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman. You are your own voyeur.
(via newtheoryoldlove)
Source: helplesslyamazed
I hope they realize this.
Also, Part of Me was just a shitty music video as a whole, in terms of portraying the marines as well. Why are these people famous again?
Source: queersecrets
There is an expectation that we can talk about sins but no one must be identified as a sinner: newspapers love to describe words or deeds as “racially charged” even in those cases when it would be more honest to say “racist”; we agree that there is rampant misogyny, but misogynists are nowhere to be found; homophobia is a problem but no one is homophobic. One cumulative effect of this policed language is that when someone dares to point out something as obvious as white privilege, it is seen as unduly provocative. Marginalized voices in America have fewer and fewer avenues to speak plainly about what they suffer; the effect of this enforced civility is that those voices are falsified or blocked entirely from the discourse.
Source: thepoliticalnotebook
Gender Diction
Okay, I am ignorant and the internet is not helping me at the moment with conflicting answers. If anyone would care to take the time to explain, or direct to me to a good source on this, it’d be great.
When someone is talking about men and/or women, what is the respectful way to include transgender (or is it transgendered?) people into the conversation, in regards to terms? I know I’ve seen trans and trans* before, but I’m not really sure about this at all. I also understand transgender and transexual can not be used interchangeably, and to my knowledge are both adjectives and not nouns?
All and any help would be greatly appreciated!
?
I’ll try to help!
Don’t talk about “women and trans* women” or “men and trans* men”. Men are men are men, trans* or otherwise, and same for women. Your identity is what counts in that.
Trans* is preferred, because it refers to everyone under the trans* umbrella, binary and nonbinary alike.
Both are, in fact, adjectives; they’re also not in the past tense, ever. Like, you can’t “trans*gender” someone, so you wouldn’t say “trans*gendered people”. They’re trans*.
For a lot of trans* folks, it’s to do with personal preference here. Some don’t want to differentiate between themselves as trans* people and cis people and will want “man” or “woman” in reference to them, while others feel uncomfortable with that because they see being trans* as something really big to them, and prefer “trans*man” or “trans*woman.”
If you’re talking about, say, health, and something that impacts certain people directly, like abortion, refer to people with that characteristic. It’s not impacting all women and it’s not impacting just women, it’s impacting people with the ability to get pregnant, and people with uteri. So say that.
Boosting for any followers with additional input.
YES, okay thank you. I’ll keep my ears open for more input.
(via duskypants)
Source: dishabillic
Gender Diction
Okay, I am ignorant and the internet is not helping me at the moment with conflicting answers. If anyone would care to take the time to explain, or direct to me to a good source on this, it’d be great.
When someone is talking about men and/or women, what is the respectful way to include transgender (or is it transgendered?) people into the conversation, in regards to terms? I know I’ve seen trans and trans* before, but I’m not really sure about this at all. I also understand transgender and transexual can not be used interchangeably, and to my knowledge are both adjectives and not nouns?
All and any help would be greatly appreciated!
?
In praise of the dude teaching at my son’s preschool
I turned to close the preschool gate the other day and looked back to see what my three-year-old son was up to.
And this is what I saw: his teacher in a laughing jog, leading a pack of toddlers in a full sprint. A few weeks ago I saw this teacher sliding on the ice (safely) with the kids. And somewhere in there, I came to pick up my son to find the same teacher lost in a mountain of pillows, laughing kids all around piling on.
Good teacher, huh? Oh, yeah, one other thing. The teacher’s name is Sven (not really, but he is a guy).
There have been three male teachers at the preschool in the past 18 months, and all three were great, even if not so energetic as Sven.
The last thing I want to do is say that my son needs Sven because he is a man, because only men would skate on the ice or race through the yard or wrestle in a mountain of pillows. That’s ridiculous. It’s probably a function of youth as much as anything else.
However, most of the other teachers - even the young ones - do not slide on the ice or race through the yard or wrestle in a mountain of pillows. Sven does.
We live in Sweden, and before you think this is some paean to socialism and progressive Scandinavian values, it’s not. Sweden is pretty bad at recruiting male preschool teachers, at least compared to neighbors Norway and Denmark.
And this isn’t about male role models either. Well, it is, though not so much. See, I was home with my son paternity leave for more than half of his life before he started preschool. He knows lots of dads. His grandpa baby sits him when we are home in California. He doesn’t need guys.
But it’s nice.
And it’s good for society. I push paternity leave pretty hard because I think it’s important for mom, dad and baby. But challenging gender roles should not stop at the preschool door, and it should not just be about getting my daughter to see princesses in a different way or letting my son wear pink mittens.
This is from a Gloria Steinham interview in 1995:
The way we get divided into our false notions of masculine and feminine is what we see as children. And, if, as children, whether we’re boys or girls, we’re raised mainly by women, then we deeply believe that only women can be loving, nurturing, flexible, patient, compassionate, all those things one needs to be to raise little children, and that men cannot do that, which is a libel on men. Of course men can do that. On the other end of it, they mainly see men in the world outside the home, or being assertive, aggressive, so they come to believe that women can’t be assertive, achieving, aggressive, intellectual. And that’s how we get our humanity? We’re deprived of our full humanity
This won’t change easily, I know, but it should change (and here is an excellent report for deep reading on how to make it change. The report includes the best ever description I’ve read of why boys and girls and not driven by their sex, but by their gender roles:
Gender and sex are closely linked, in so far as one’s biological sex will determine which gender role (male or female) society will expect one to play (Dejonckheere, 2001).
Oh, and about the whole sexual predator thing, that overarching fear seems to be missing here in Sweden when it comes to guy teachers. I couldn’t tell you if the crime rates are lower here, or whether Swedes have more or less missed the crazy, anxious panic that American parents have been whipped into the past couple decades.
Nope, here men don’t become preschool teachers just because men don’t become preschool teachers. But I’m sure glad the dude running my son’s class chose differently.
(via violentopinions)
Source: daddyland


