Feminist Forum Magazine March 2018: Women's Resource Center by Loyola University New Orleans

Feminist

Loyola University New Orleans Women’s Resource Center The

# Me TOO! # #Me #TOO!

Forum March 2018

MeTOO! MeTOO!

Mélange’s

HERstory returns to

Feminist Festival

In this Issue of

The Feminist Forum

Cover 23

Perspectives of Aziz Ansari and #MeToo

My newly problematic fave and affirming my feminist identity by Andie Slein The danger of treating men like boys by Grace Riddick

HerStory Returns #MeToo is a central theme photograph courtesy of Tomas Orhuela

Equality 05 #MeToo A call to resistance

How do we address female sexual assailants? by Challen Palmer

Feminist Worlds 20 Growing up with a powerful mom

by Katy Kemp

by Rachel Barnack and Ragine Green

Womanhood by Ragine Green

21 09

I am a feminist because... by Olivia Daudon

Generations of strong women by Sarah Donaldson

From the director’s desk

#MeToo

The movement, the backlash, the hope by Patricia Boyett

My feminist journey by Victoria Williams

Authorization

Feminist Forum is an unofficial publication of the Women’s Resource Center. Views and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Women’s Resource Center or Loyola University New Orleans. Loyola University New Orleans Women’s Resource Center

The Feminist Forum Vol. I, No. 2 March 2018 www.loyno.edu/womenscenter

Submissions

Submissions are welcome and should be submitted to wrc@loyno.edu. The Feminist Forum editors reserve the right to all final decisions.

Loyola University New Orleans has fully supported and fostered in its educational programs, admissions, employment practices, and in the activities it operates the policy of not discriminating on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. This policy is in compliance with all applicable federal regulations and guidelines.

Education Shades of Grey 27 50 Virginal maidens, dark

Camelia

by Challen Palmer

Fat girl

by Serena Hill

knights and the patriarchal trap by Patricia Boyett and Tess Rowland

Feminism in music

Her stories

The loud, muted voice by Ragine Green

Empowerment and Selective Service 40 Women by Sarah Donaldson

by Daniel DeBarge

A feminist book club by Tess Rowland

Women in politics

Transgender representation in the fashion world by Trent Dardar

A walk on the inked side

You are what you wear?

A time for choosing

LGBTea

by Lauryn Langford

Anything you can do...

Assume the position

A new Loyola student organization by Daniel DeBarge and Challen Palmer

by Victoria Williams

by Nicholas Mitchell

The competition within the work place by Hadori Bukle

by Lena Jaffe

Our Mission

In the path of the Ignatius mission at Loyola University New Orleans, we, as a feminist community, seek to educate ourselves through critical analysis; we endeavor to empower the oppressed through devotion to diversity and uplift; and we pursue equality through social justice.

Production Team Director/Editor in Chief Patricia Boyett

Senior Editor Nora Corrigan

Managing Editor Andie Slein

Art Team Emmaline Bouchillon Gabrielle Hawkins Serena Hill Deniz Sidi

Senior Editor Challen Palmer

Lance Taylor Victoria Williams Noelie Zeichik Special Contributors Lean Jaffe Katy Kemp Nicholas Mitchell

Lance Taylor

Equality + Education + Empowerment

Equality

#MeToo A call to resistance by Rachel Barnack and Ragine Green

MeToo--a simple phrase, but it is full of such great power! To translate its meaning simply- I too have experienced sexual assault and/or harassment. The public declarations are powerful, for our patriarchal society has so often sought to silence victims by shaming them. The #MeToo movement sparked such an immense outcry, speaking such volumes, that Time Magazine declared those brave enough to tell their stories, as well as those still in the shadows, “2017 Person(s) of the Year: The Silence Breakers.” Although the recognition of the silence breakers is a fantastic achievement in fourth wave feminism, one can’t help but wonder what has gone so wrong in our society. Why have people taken it upon themselves to take advantage of another, to abuse another? Why have we not acknowledged the silence breakers of past years? The experience of Me Too is as ancient as it is modern, for women have long suffered from sexual subjugation in nearly every society in recorded history. #MeToo

is also a call to resistance. And that too has deep historical roots. Danielle McGuire traces powerful roots to the resistance against sexual subjugate to the brave African American women who have fought against it since the days of slavery. Her book, At the Dark End of the Street, opens in Abbeville, Alabama in 1944 when US Army Private Herbert Lovett and five other white men stalked a black woman Recy Taylor as she walked home from a night church service, abducted her and gangraped her. Taylor became a pioneering civil rights activist and feminist when she dared to report the brutal crime and demand justice. Taylor received significant assistance from Rosa Parks, whom the NAACP sent to Abbeville to investigate the case. Parks is well known for starting the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955 when she refused to heed segregation laws and relinquish her seat to a white person. McGuire shows us that her activism began over a decade earlier when she advocated for justice in rape cases. When Parks and Taylor confronted the usual law enforcement indifference

to injustices against black victims, they, and many other black women, launched a movement for racial justice that laid the foundations for the Civil Rights Movement and the second wave of feminism. As McGuire traces Taylor’s struggle, she also travels back into the era of slavery to reveal that black women had a paved a long history of resistance against sexual abuse Another pioneering African American women, Tarana Burke, launched the 21st century struggle against sexual assault when in 2006, she founded Just Be Inc. to help African American survivors of gender violence and initiated the Me Too Movement. Burke’s efforts transformed into a national and international movement in October of 2017. On October 5, The New York Times published a story by Jodi Cantor and Megan Twohey in which women leveled a series of sexual assault allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. On October 15, Alyssa Milano called on survivors to post #MeToo on social media in an effort “to give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.” Within

want usually, but change is coming. In the last five months, we have witnessed the movement grow and instigate significant developments. The Today’s Show fired Matt Lauer. Kevin Spacey lost his job on House of Cards, was replaced by Christopher Plummer in All the Money in the World, and is being investigated by Scotland Yard on several sexual assault charges. Harvey Weinstein has been removed from his own company, ousted from the Producer’s Guild of America, expelled from the Motion Picture Academy, and is being investigated on rape charges by police. Larry Nassar has been sentenced up to 175 years in prison. Several members of congress resigned after allegations surfaced. These are just the most famous cases. #MeToo started with a woman outside the spotlight, and many are fighting to ensure

harassment persist. In November of 2017, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas published a letter in Time Magazine on behalf of the roughly 700,000 female farm workers in the United States. The members expressed their support for the women in Hollywood and also stated in part: “Countless farmworker women across our country suffer in silence because of the widespread sexual harassment and assault that they face at work. We do not work under bright stage lights or on the big screen. We work in the shadows of society in isolated fields and packinghouses that are out of sight and out of mind for most people in this country. Your job feeds souls, fills hearts and spreads joy. Our job nourishes the nation with the fruits, vegetables and other crops that we plant, pick and pack.” They noted that they too faced difficulties reporting, for they worked under those “who have the power to hire, fire, blacklist and otherwise threaten our economic, physical and emotional security.” On January 1, 2018, a large group of Holly-

elle bri Ga wk Ha ins

days, Rolling Stone reported that 53,000 women responded to the call, thousands of them revealing that they had been harassed, sexually assaulted, and/or raped, including famous actresses like America Ferrara, Lady Gaga, and Rosario Dawson. CBS News reported that within 24 hours, #MeToo had burst onto a multitude of platforms, accompanying more than 12 million social media posts, and encouraging all persons having experienced sexual assault and/or harassment to take a stand. Since that time, nearly every day, the media covers someone coming forward to tell their #MeToo story. With the attention gained from the at least 3 allegations of sexual misconduct against Matt Lauer, the at least 19 accusations against President Donald Trump, a variety of allegations against members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including Senator Al Franken, Congressman John Conyers, Senator Blake Farenthold, and Congressman Trent Franks, the over 80 allegations against Harvey Weinstein, the over 150 accusations against Larry Nassar, and the at least 230 allegations against James Toback, the world had no choice but to listen to the voices of #MeToo. Sexual assault and harassment are not always, of course, heterosexual male to female assaults. Melanie Martinez, a popular female pop artist, allegedly molested and raped her female best friend, Timothy Heller. Kevin Spacey, a well-known male actor and producer, allegedly sexually assaulted Anthony Rapp and allegedly harassed more than a dozen males under his power. Terry Crews, a male actor and former professional football star, as well as James Van Der Beek, a famous male actor, have also put forth statements on social media concerning the sexual misconduct they have experienced from male superiors. Van der Beek stated, “I understand the unwarranted shame, powerlessness & inability to blow the whistle. There’s a power dynamic that feels impossible to overcome." The movement has fallen short with respect to transgendered individuals. With the push for inclusion in our world’s current fourth wave of feminism, one cannot help but be dissatisfied in the lack of representation. Change does move slower than we

that the spotlight now shines, not just on celebrities and athletes, but brings light to all the dark places where sexual abuse and

wood women expressed their solidarity with Alianza Nacional de Campesinas. The women and their allies built upon #MeToo by launching Times Up. They released an open letter in The New York Times, which cited

Equality

and business; they’re our athletes in the Olympics and they’re our soldiers in the military.” Winfrey’s speech reached out to women who have feared speaking out against the men who abused and harassed them because of the immense power they held over them. She concluded with great hope and determination: “But their time is up. Their time is up. . . . So I want all the

girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon! And when that new day finally dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women, many of whom are right here in this room tonight, and some pretty phenomenal men, fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say ‘Me too’ again.”

courtesy of Rae Taylor

with gratitude the message from Alianza Nacional de Campesinas and expressed its mission to support women, men, people of color, and the LGBT community who have less access to media platforms and funds to speak out about harassment. That same day, Cara Buckley reported in The New York Times that Times Up had pledged to develop a legal defense fund of $13 million to help support working class women. In addition, Times Up members developed teams advocating for punishment against harassment in the workforce, a movement to foster gender parity in studio and talent agencies, a campaign to foster legislation that prohibits non-disclosure agreements and “penalizes companies that tolerate persistent harassment,” and a call for all women to wear black on the red carpet at the 75th Golden Globe Awards to symbolize their solidarity with survivors and their determination to speak out against sexual assault and harassment. Times Up has caught fire, with supporters at the Grammy’s wearing a white rose in solidarity, and politicians wearing black at President Trump’s State of the Union Address. Several Congress members are also working on legislation to develop better reporting and procedural processes for Congressional members and their staff. Oprah Winfrey became the powerful voice and face of Times Up during the 75th Golden Globe Awards. She accepted the Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement and received a standing ovation, not only for her accomplishment, but her emotional speech that focused on #MeToo: “I’m especially proud and inspired by all the women who have felt strong enough and empowered enough to speak up and share their personal stories.” She reminded America who those woman are: “They are domestic workers and farm workers; they are working in factories and they work in restaurants, and they’re in academia and engineering and medicine and science; they’re part of the world of tech and politics

What does #MeToo mean to you?

In response to the emerging debates over the #MeToo movement, we are focusing much of our second issue of our Feminist Forum on our perspectives of #MeToo and of a range of power struggles and cultural developments surrounding harassment, abuse, and sexual assault. We invite your responses too as a core mission of our magazine is to create a forum where we engage in rational debate about the feminist struggles and seek solutions. Send us letters, essays, poems, art, articles etc. to wrc@loyno.edu. In addition, we have asked some of our students, staff, and community members, “What does #MeToo mean to you?”

"It means taking a stand for victims of sexual violence to show them that they are not alone and to give them the courage to speak out about their experiences to begin the healing process. Also to give the perpetrators consequences for their horrible actions." -M.J. Bertrand, Loyola University of New Orleans Class of ‘21 "I think this movement should include men as well because there are so many of them that are sitting in silence." -Darlene Washington, Community member “At this point, I’ve faced the hardest things in life and being in that predicament has made me stronger. It is a chance to show my strength!”

Edlisha Johnson, Loyola University of New Orleans, Class of ‘20

" The MeToo movement has been an amazing opportunity for survivors to finally feel justice and empowerment. As a woman who grew up within the entertainment industry I faced blatant sexism and felt the vicious power dynamic within the field, and now I am more proud than ever to say I am a woman within the arts community."

Tess Rowland, Loyola University of New Orleans Class of “20

"Me too movement is about women who have been violated by men that is finally speaking up. My thoughts about: My 1st view is any man that take advantage of a women is a coward. 2nd Any women who goes to a man room in the middle of the night for a meeting, it’s not a meeting. 3rd I don’t understand why some waited for years to come forward (grown women at that time). Children I understand for the fear. My heart goes out -Regina Green, Community member to all of them." "What I love most about this movement is that it was designed to encourage other victims of sexual assault to come forth, knowing that they are not alone. Many women tend to think they are the only ones who have had a horrible experience such as this. Knowing that there are others like you can give them a sense of security and kinship." -Chanel Mack, Community member

“The #MeToo movement holds many meanings for me - as a woman, a mother, and a survivor. It means supporting survivors, acknowledging their trauma and pain, encouraging their resilience, and playing an active role in their recovery. It means recognizing that ALL acts of interpersonal violence - no matter how seemingly small - affect survivors and their families in different ways, and further degrades the health and integrity of communities and institutions. It means being an agent of advocacy and social justice, confronting difficult or uncomfortable situations, and challenging myself and others to uphold and respect the human condition rather than tear it down. It means that respect for others should transcend gender, race, age, sexuality, or income.”

Kate Yurgil, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Loyola University of New Orleans

Equality

Reflections from the Directors Desk Patricia Boyett, Director, Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Resource Center

#MeToo

The movement, the backlash, the hope 9

early every woman I know has a #MeToo story. Quite a few have been raped, many were molested, many were sexually abused as a child—some by a stranger, but most of them by someone they knew; almost every woman I know has had the experience of a man groping their genitals or behinds without permission; quite a few have been approached by a stranger who randomly flashed them or masturbated in front of them; and many of them have had a boss harass and/or abuse them in various ways, including making lewd comments about their bodies, forcing them to kiss them, groping their private areas, and even seeking to coerce them into sex. Many of us have had several of these experiences. And I imagine the numbers of us who have been raped or molested or harassed are much higher because some women never tell; and many only tell those in their close inner circles. Women have often chosen not to report, particularly to police, because justice so often eludes us, because of the backlashes we face, because so few of us receive even a modicum of justice.

Still, I am hopeful that the tide is changing as we witness the extraordinary #MeToo Movement roll across the nation. The response has been significant. Investigations have been opened; in some cases in which the accusations were plentiful and the evidence convincing, companies have fired the accused or boards have removed them. Political leaders accused of sexual harassment have resigned. And some convicted offenders are facing real punishment. For example, Judge Rosemarie Aquilina sentenced Larry Nassar up to 175 years in prison after 156 girls and women testified that former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor sexually assaulted them. Such shifts in our culture give me hope that we will see real changes coming forward in the future; that rapists and molesters will face prison sentences commensurate with the severity of their crimes; and that companies and institutions will stop tolerating sexual harassment. But the movement is also spurring confusion and conflict inside and outside the struggle. Some fear the #MeToo movement has gone too far—that it is entangling innocent men, that it is victimizing women,

or that it is blurring the lines between sexual assault and normal human sexuality. Recently, Babe.net published an article in which an anonymous woman, using the pseudonym “Grace,” accused actor Aziz Ansari of sexual assault; she alleged that Anzari ignored her “verbal and nonverbal cues” that she did not want to have sexual relations and continued to try and have sex with her. The following day she texted him her concerns; he apologized and stated that he “misread things in the moment.” After the story came out, Ansari reiterated that he thought he had her consent. In response to the Babe.net essay, Bary Weiss argues in her op-ed in The New York Times that Aziz Ansari, is only guilty of “not being a mind reader.” Weiss notes that Ansari appeared to act “aggressive and selfish,” that we have a “broken sex culture,” and that “women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own.” However, she denounces this “insidious attempt by some women to criminalize awkward, gross and entitled sex.” The answer, she tells us, is to teach women to empower themselves to speak up and to leave in such situations. Similarly, Daphne

courtesy of Rae Taylor

supporters of #MeToo, worry that we are doing away with due process all together. Margaret Atwood, the author of Handmaid’s Tale, argues in a recent editorial in The Globe and Mail “The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexualabuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions . . . so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. . . . If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers?” I consider it vital to have national conversations about these concerns, but in the process, let us not forget the survivors and the absolute pervasiveness of rape, sexual

courtesy of Rae Taylor

Merkin’s op-ed in The New York Times expresses concern that “we are returning to a victimology paradigm for young women, in particular, in which they are perceived to be—and perceive themselves to be--as frail as a Victorian housewives. . . . What happened to women’s agency?” Some men consider #MeToo dangerous. Andrew Sullivan in “It’s Time to Resist the Excess of #MeToo” for New York argues that the #MeToo movement has turned into McCarthyism in which the movement is morphing “bad behavior at parties” with “brutal assault and rape of employees and co-workers” and delivering equal punishments of “social ostracism and career destruction” without the benefit of due process. In an editorial in The New Yorker, “The Rising Pressure of the #MeToo Backlash,” Jia Tolentino describes how during a medical exam, her doctor informed her of his concerns that the #MeToo Movement was spiraling out of control, and he asked her: “ . . . how far does this go? Someone says something out of line at the office party—you’re telling me that’s sexual assault? . . . Lot of people calling a lot of things sexual assault, sexual harassment.” He also complained about the focus on #MeToo: “There are a lot of things going on in this world. And you’re putting sexual harassment in the newspapers every day while we’ve got the M.T.A. breaking down, we’ve got this lunatic in the White House.” Some critics are also arguing that #MeToo is turning into a puritanical movement that oppresses expressions of sexuality that are normal and even desirable. Recently, Catherine Deneuve led 100 French female artists and intellectuals to publish an open letter in Le Monde in which they applaud the exposure of men like Harvey Weinstein, but denounce the punishment of men “when their only crime was to touch a woman’s knee, try to steal a kiss, talk about ‘intimate’ things during a work meal, or send sexuallycharged messages to women who did not return their interest.” #MeToo, they claim, is becoming a “witch hunt” in the name of “puritanism.” They conclude that #MeToo, rather than aiding women, “serves the interests of the enemies of sexual freedom, the religious extremists, the reactionaries and those who believe . . . that women are a species ‘apart,’ children with adult faces who demand to be protected.” Many people are also grappling with fears that a false accusation could derail the #MeToo Movement. And some, even

assault, and harassment that #MeToo is exposing. Personally, #MeToo has given me such hope in my work at the center and in my life in this world that we are advancing toward a society that understands sexual subjugation is at the root of the oppression of women and that we are demanding that society no longer tolerate it. Throughout the ages, sexual subjugation has been used as a tool to control female sexuality; to force and keep women locked in domestic realms; to ensure male domination of politics, the military, and the workforce; to regard females as the property of men; to portray women as maidens or whores to fit patriarchal needs; to treat the female body as a trophy or a conquest; in a word to subjugate. Sexual subjugation is at the root of patriarchies and has mingled in America with other forms of oppression, particularly racial oppression. And it must end.

To end it, we must also work toward eliminating the rape culture that perpetuates the oppression of women. So, let’s begin with the critics who worry that #MeToo could suppress normal forms of romantic and sexual relationships that develop between colleagues. We need to have a national conversation over the question: What are the boundaries between puritanical oppression of human expression on one side and sexual subjugation on the other? I disagree with the Catherine Deneuve that it is acceptable for someone to force someone to kiss them or send unwanted sex-charged texts. Consent is vital. And we must always consider power dynamics. Power is always present between a boss and an employee. Unwanted advances place the employee in a terrible position. Thus, we must develop deeper understandings and methods to deal with power imbalances in the workplace. However, I do understand the fear that some feminists in my social circles and at the center have articulated: if we allow the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction, we will ban all forms of normal human connections, and we will find ourselves creating the blueprint for a puritanical world that suppresses healthy human expressions and relationships. Many people have dated and/or fallen in love and married someone they met at work. And that should still be able to happen. We just need to figure out how to create better structures to prevent and respond to harassment and abuse. In addition, we need to work on our culture; we need to have more national conversations and deeper understandings of the dynamics of sexual relationships. Many critics of the Babe.net essay, including Weiss and Merkin, argued that when Ansari repeatedly tried to initiate a sexual encounter, the woman could have simply left. Sure. But he could have stopped trying to reinitiate sex when she told him she wanted him to stop. I must note that we only have the woman’s full narration of the encounter and that Ansari has insisted that he thought that all that occurred was consensual. We have had many powerful conversations at the WRC about this issue. And two women on the WRC student staff, Andie Slein and Grace Riddick, have written their reflections on Ansari and “Grace” following this one, both of which I consider thought-provoking. We have also had several conversations at the WRC about the criticisms that #MeToo is blurring the lines between a

joke, unsolicited groping, molestation, and rape. I am unaware of any #MeToo stories that have led someone to lose their job over a joke. Most revelations have exposed aggressive sexual advances, unwanted sexual groping, and rape. I agree we need to differentiate about the severity of acts of harassment and sexual abuse as the law certainly does so. For example, most state laws categorize groping as a misdemeanor and molestation and rape as felonies. However, that does not mean that we need to tolerate any form of sexual assault or that we should ignore how acts like groping feed into rape culture. It is shocking to me that any person is so arrogant to think they are entitled to grab someone’s genitals or behinds without the person’s permission. As Laura Kipnis argues in her essay “Has #MeToo gone too far or not far enough?” in The Guardian, our bodies have “public areas and private ones.” A hand, Kipnis, notes is a public space. I agree. We commonly touch people’s hands in a handshake, but of course, we offer our hands and wait for the other party to shake it or decline. In addition, as many might consider it fine to touch someone on the shoulder, if it turns into an unsolicited massage from a colleague or a boss, its crossing into private zones. And anyone has a right to say they don’t want to be touched anywhere. Clearly, breasts, genitals, and butts are private areas. Anyone who trespass without permission shows in such a transgression a sense of arrogance, entitlement, and sexism. Such acts are often meant to degrade or to show dominance. They clearly disregard the absolute right of all of us to control who touches our private areas. Bodily autonomy is vital. Consequently, many women responded with outrage in October 2016 to the exposure of the 2005 Hollywood Access tape in which Donald Trump boasted to Billy Bush: “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” The arrogance, the sense of entitlement, the belief that women let him do it are at the heart of everyday sexism women face. And then of course, over a dozen women came forward with allegations that they had not “let” him do anything—that he had forced himself on them. When the tape went viral, Trump sought to tamp down the outrage by stating it “was just locker room talk.”

Such a response was also telling. For even if it was just boasting, classifying it as “locker room talk,” as though concocting tales of assaulting woman was something normal, also startled many women. Why, I wondered, would groping a woman’s vagina without her permission be something to boast about? Why wouldn’t his peers consider that creepy? Was that not an insult to men too? Men are not naturally beasts subject to the whims of their sexual desires with no rational minds, no manners, and no ability to control themselves. Surely most men, I thought, would be outraged over his comments too. Thus, I was surprised when many of his male supporters defended him in the news and on social media. I encountered male Facebook friends who informed me that they regularly heard such talk in locker rooms, on golf courses, in boardrooms, and in many places where men gathered without women. It’s just the way men bond. But I wondered then, why do some men bond over demeaning women? Even more shocking, some women defended Trump—after all, they said, their husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and fathers spoke of women in such ways. Ten women in a focus group for Anderson Cooper’s CNN show agreed that it was just “locker room talk.” One woman said she’d “heard worse.” Another said she found it offensive, but “that’s the boy’s club.” Melania Trump told Cooper Anderson it was “just boy talk.” But Trump is not a boy. He is a grown man. He was 59 when he uttered those words. To my relief, men close to me denounced the language, and so did many famous athletes like LeBron James. In an ESPN.com article on October 11, many men insisted that they never heard that sort of talk in locker rooms. Though Ron Darling noted that he had heard men speak in such ways in locker rooms as well as clubhouses and board rooms, he considered it shameful. Less than a month later, Trump was elected President of the United States. America elected a man who boasted about assaulting women and a man who over a dozen women had accused of sexual assault. Why does our society permit men like Trump to get away with behavior that we would destroy women for doing? Let us reimagine for a moment the 2016 presidential campaign and reverse the roles. Let’s imagine Hillary Clinton stalking Donald Trump across the debate stage, calling him a “nasty man,” and bragging about grabbing

men’s “dicks” because she was famous and they just let her do it. Let’s imagine that over a dozen men came forward and claimed that she sexually assaulted them. Can we imagine women claiming that we just talk this way in locker rooms or men rushing to her defense, claiming that it was just women’s nature, that their sisters and girlfriends and wives and moms acted and spoke in similar ways; it was just girls being girls? Clearly society would not allow a woman to get away with such behavior. After all, Trump managed to deflect the uproar over the tape and the many accusations of sexual assault against him by repeatedly stating that Hillary Clinton had defended her husband when women accused him of sexual harassment and assault. Let me be clear: I am one of many feminists who was appalled by Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment and assault scandals. I felt betrayed by a man who portrayed himself as a champion of women’s rights and yet treated women in such dastardly ways. And I was shocked that Hillary continued to defend him in the wake of so many allegations. But Hillary Clinton was never accused of sexual assault herself and never boasted of assaulting anyone; Trump had been accused and had boasted of it. Still Trump was successful in the deflection. And Bill Clinton survived impeachment and remained a popular Democratic leader long after the allegations. So I am left pondering the question: Do patriarchal perspectives of the world lead the general public to tolerate sexist and abusive behavior by men that they would consider horrifying if practiced by women? Andrew Sullivan might claim that we could find the answer in the differing nature of men and women. And here is where I consider the criticism of #MeToo particularly troubling. In his piece, “#MeToo and the Taboo Topic of Nature” for New York, Sullivan argues that modern feminism’s tendency to perceive gender differences as social constructions ignores the scientific differences between the genders. In an attempt to prove his assertion, he revealed that he had undergone hormone replacement therapy because his HIV-positive condition had massively lowered his testosterone levels. As he recalls, “It was a fascinating experience to witness maleness literally being injected into me. . . . You get a real sense of what being a man is from an

experience like that, as the rush of energy, strength, clarity, ambition, drive, impatience and, above all, horniness overcame me every two weeks in the wake of the shot.” He contended it taught him “the sheer and immense natural difference between being a man and a woman.” Sullivan perceives his experience as reflective of scientific studies, a topic, which he insists is nearly “taboo” in gender studies. But rather than providing evidence from scientific studies to support his assertion that male and female natures are so profoundly different, he draws from his personal life as a gay man. He argues that he lives in a world that is mostly without women. And in such a world without women, “you see male sexuality unleashed more fully, as men would naturally express it, if they could get away with it. It’s full of handsiness and groping and objectification and lust and aggression and passion and the ruthless pursuit of yet another conquest. And yes, I mean conquest. That’s what testosterone does. It’s also full of love, tenderness, compassion, jealousy, respect, dignity, and a need for security and a home.” Sullivan concludes that trying to deny men their nature as well as deny “countless women . . . who want men to be different, who are, in fact, deeply attracted to the core aggression of the human male” access to such men will cause the #MeToo movement to derail. I am left to wonder how Sullivan defines the nature of women. And how does he perceive the nature then of transgender persons or those who do not identify with either gender? And why is he certain that all gay men perceive sexuality the same way as he does? I have experienced many and seen all the qualities that he ascribes to men in women and in persons who do not conform to a gender and of persons of all orientations. All of us humans can be ambitious, strong, logical, determined, impatient, tender, compassionate, jealous, respectful, loving, dignified, sexual, aggressive, and passionate. All of us can desire home, security, and sex. For the sake of argument, I will imagine for a moment that our natures are different and that we live in a binary gender world, then how does he imagine that those differences should play into the sexual relationships between the sexes? He clearly states that rape is wrong in his essay. But what about the groping and the harassment? What does he mean by male

aggression exactly? And if it’s in men’s nature to objectify and conquer, are we women supposed to let them? Does he think then women’s nature is submissive, that we naturally want to be conquered and objectified? And does he actually think all gay men wish to be objectified and objectify or that all lesbians, as he insinuates in his piece, want relationships instead of casual sex? I think here his argument falls apart. For I do not see all men as aggressive and all women as submissive; I do not think men have a naturally higher sex drive than women; all of it varies. And his argument completely ignores transgender and non-gender conforming persons as though they do not exist. The scientific understanding of gender is far more complex than Sullivan imagines and is influx as new studies provide deeper knowledge. For example, in a recent National Geographic article, “How Science is Helping Us Understand Gender,” Robin Haranz Marig reveals that scientist have found that chromosomes are only part of the complex piece that determines gender and that a variety of genetic variations and other influences affect our gender identities as female, male, or gender fluid. Moreover, as history teaches us, the interpretation of the nature of the sexes is not monolithic; various cultures at various times developed different definitions of our natures. For example, throughout the history of modern Western Civilization, women’s natures have been portrayed in differing ways to fit patriarchal needs. Scholars like Barbara Tuchman in Distant Mirror, Carol F. Karlson in The Devil in the Shape of a Woman, and Joseph Klaitz in Servants of Satan demonstrated that during the Middle Ages and the colonization of the Americas, political and religious leaders portrayed women as the daughters of Eve and claimed that through her sin, women inherited a wanton lascivious nature and constantly tempted men into iniquity. In the infamous Malleus Maleficarum published in 1486, Heirich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger declared: “What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil nature, painted with fair colours. ... Women are by nature instruments of Satan -- they are by nature carnal, a structural defect rooted in the original creation.”

courtesy of Rae Taylor The perspective of women shifted during the era of American slavery. As Deborah Gray White has shown us in Aren’t I a Woman? the Eve persona morphed into Jezebel and was forced upon black female slaves; and then too emerged the a-sexual Mamie stereotype of the black slave who devoted her entire life to the white family and had none of her own. Nancy Cott in Bonds of Womanhood, Ann Firor Scott in The Southern Lady, and Barbara Welter in “The Cult of True Womanhood,” (American Quarterly 1966) all show how the white patriarchy moved white women, or at the least the middling and elite, to the pedestal and portrayed them as fragile, puritanical maidens who endured but eventually sought to oppress the natural lascivious nature of men. Although some men have

used the Jezebel and Eve myths in an effort to justify rape; as Joanna Bourke shows in Rape, the puritanical myths did not protect those deemed the maiden from sexual abuse either; and women have often been blamed for these assaults whether or not they were previously considered the maiden or the whore—that is if the accused rapist was white. Like most historians of the Jim Crow South, I came across many cases in my research in which due process was absent, in which white mobs lynched black men accused of rape by a white person. And I found many books that also substantiated my primary research findings. Ida B. Wells’s The Red Record, Crystal Feimster’s Southern Horror, Danielle McGuire’s At the Dark End of the Street, Jacquelyn Dowd Hall’s Revolt

Against Chivalry, and Neil McMillen’s Dark Journey explore how white mobs often lynched black men accused of raping white women, and white-controlled courts rarely punished white men for raping black women. In addition, fictional works in the early 20th century, clearly demonstrate the intersections of racism and sexism that influenced the white American mentality. For example, The Clansman (1905) by Thomas Dixon, Jr., and its film adaptation Birth of a Nation (1915) directed by D. W. Griffith, portrayed a group of former Confederate soldiers who formed the Klan as heroes struggling to protect their land and the purity of their white women from black men. In both the novel and the film, the white “heroine” kills herself after a black man, Gus, rapes her to preserve her fiancé’s honor, and her fiancé forms the first Ku Klux Klan to hunt Gus and lynch him. President Woodrow Wilson showed the film in the White House. Of course, black women also suffered from the intersections of racism and sexism. Both Feimster and McGuire explore the long history of sexual subjugation of black women and the bold legal and direct-action battles black women fought to achieve even a measure of justice. Although in our contemporary era, the racial and gender myths have faded some, many vestiges remain with us and infect our judicial system. If we wish to develop a fair judicial system, we need to debunk gender and racial myths. With the exception of persons who are a-sexual, all of us of all genders have sexual desires, but most of have the power and choice to control our impulses. That does not mean that we cannot be sexual beings, but we should not be permitted to sexually subjugate others. And we should build a judicial system free of bias. My historical work has informed my constant concern with America’s struggle to practice its creed of liberty, justice, and equality for all people. Thus, in response to the many criticisms that #MeToo is doing away with due process and is leading to McCarthyism, I agree that any democratic society must be concerned with the possibilities of false reporting, of misunderstandings of legal definitions of crimes and harassment, and with institutions firing persons without due process. However, survivors, as Margaret Atwood has noted, have turned to the internet because the legal system has failed them. So, yes we need

to fix the legal system. And yes, we need to be concerned that a false story could ruin someone’s life. I consider due process and equal protection of the law a vital pillar of a democratic nation. Yet I also understand that just as the system has failed African Americans and other persons of color, it has failed survivors of all races. Our legal system, like all of our systems, function through the existing culture. We still live in a culture that suffers from sexism, racism, and prejudice of all sorts. As we try to fix it, we will find ourselves facing many obstacles and growing as confused as we are certain. For example, Atwood, whose Handmaid’s Tale is a feminist classic and one of my favorite novels, has faced criticism from many other feminists regarding a recent sexual assault case at the University of British Columbia. As Constance Grady notes in her January 17 piece in Vox, Atwood added her signature to an open letter in November 2016 that criticized the UBC’s handling of the case and the firing of the accused professor, novelist Steven Galloway. It appears, as Grady argues, that the university handled the case extremely poorly, and in the process, denied due process to both Galloway and the complainant. Some feminists criticized Atwood for signing the letter as well as her commentary about it because they thought she seemed empathetic to Galloway while appearing indifferent to the suffering of the complainant and the complainant’s witnesses. Although I think Atwood brings up important points about the possibilities of false accusations, I think she also needs to emphasize the rarity of false reporting. To that end, let me let me reiterate a few points I made in my December 2017 Director’s Desk. First, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, approximately 63 percent of sexual assaults are never reported, and false reporting falls between 2 and 10 percent. Second, in an article in Quartz, Sandra Newman revealed that a false report rarely leads to an arrest. Third, Ken Armstrong and T. Christian Miller reported in The New York Times several stories in which police charged and prosecuted women for false reporting when later evidence revealed that they had been raped. The research suggests that false accusations are rare, and few false reports lead to charges, whereas unreported rapes are common, and even reported rapes rarely result in justice for the survivor. These statistics and studies are vital in

disproving arguments that insist #MeToo is exaggerating the problem. Rape and sexual assault are far more common in our culture than most people want to believe. To change our culture, we need movements like #MeToo. As Tolentino informed her doctor when he asked why journalists were focused on writing about #MeToo rather than other issues like the MTA breaking down and the issues with Trump’s presidency, she responded: “I think that abuses of power tend to overlap, and that Trump wouldn’t have been elected if people actually thought sexual assault was important.” She also noted that she found it interesting that many people were more concerned with “overreach” than the abuses that journalists were exposing. So, let us remember a moment the shocking allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer, John Conyers, Bill O’Reilly, and President Trump among so many others. And let us not forget Larry Nassar’s sexual abuse of at least 156 girls and women. Let us not ignore that so many horrors occur every day, and so many stories remain and will remain untold. Perhaps the good doctor would consider such stories of harassment, assault, and rape as important as the M.T.A. breaking down if it had happened to him. And we, as feminists, should emphasize that it has happened and continues to happen to boys and men and to persons of all genders too. Let us remember the survivors of Kevin Spacey and Jerry Sandusky. And of course, women have also abused persons. Let us remember the cases of Mary Kay Letourneau and Pam Smart and the allegations against Melanie Martinez. Upon pondering these cases in which women are accused, we must also ask ourselves if our patriarchal culture makes it difficult for some to see women as perpetrators and men as victims because the cultural myths tell us that men always want to have sex. So on the one hand, America elected a president boasting of sexual assaulting women and accused by man women of doing just that, and on the other hand, we often cannot imagine that a woman could rape. Later in this issue, one of the magazine’s editors, Challen Palmer, explores that very problem. As we continue these conversations about how to respond to #MeToo, I hope that we move to discuss proposals for concrete action. In such conversations, I hope that we will address the following. First, we must work toward ensuring due

process and equal protection of the law for everyone—both those who report abuse and those accused of harassment, assault, and rape. Yes, we must speak out against any overreach that entangles the innocent. Simultaneously, we must acknowledge that the greater contemporary problem has not been attacks on the innocent, but the absolute failure of so many workplaces and legal institutions to provide justice to the survivor. The Nassar case and the Sandusky case are stark examples of profound injustices in which the failure of institutions to properly investigate abuse not only failed the survivors but allowed these predators to assault so many others. Thus, we must also ensure that due process and equal protection of the law extends to anyone who reports abuse. To that end, we must ensure that all institutions and workforces take reports seriously, fully investigate them, and provide access to advocates. Second, we must define with great clarity the lines between normal sexual expression and assault. Surely, we can celebrate our sexuality without abusing another person. Third, we must define sexual harassment, clearly delineating the lines between acceptable human relationships and abuse. Fourth, we must develop stronger educational models and training programs and incorporate them into the curriculum in our elementary, middle, and high schools; we need to constantly work on improving our trainings in all of our universities and work places. Such programs should not only teach laws and processes, but should also foster an understanding of rape culture, how to dismantle it, and how to build a new culture of respect. It should help prepare teenagers and young adults for sexual encounters like the one between “Grace” and Ansari. We rarely talk about those ones—the messy ones in which the communication breaks down, the ones that cause some to freeze or react in ways that felt foreign to them, the ones in which someone thinks consent was granted and the other does not. Perhaps these ones are so difficult to discuss because they are so familiar. And because we live in a culture that expects men to push sex—that no can mean maybe—that a woman can be persuaded. We need to talk about agency and female empowerment, but we also need to understand the sociobiology of sexual encounters that cause some people to freeze. And I hope we might do so without dividing into camps, but instead by trying to reach

healthy understandings and by dismantling sexist culture. Fifth, we need to fund agencies that support survivors and that educate the public. And that’s just the beginning. #MeToo is also reflective of the massive imbalance of power of the genders in America because sexual subjugation thrives on that imbalance. As I noted in my previous director’s desk, but bears repeating here: although women represent 50.8 % of the population, men control all of our political, financial, and cultural power centers by massive margins. According to the Center for American Progress’s The Women’s Leadership Gap report in 2017, women earn nearly 60% of all undergraduate and master degrees, 47% of law degrees, and 48% of medical degrees; they represent 49% of the college educated workforce and 47% of the labor workforce. And yet women represent only 6% of CEOs, 19% of the US Congress, 31% full professors, 17% college presidents, 16% of medical school deans, and 18% of equity and law partners. Women also lack power in Hollywood. In the top-grossing American-made films in 2016, women comprised only 17% of directors, producers, editors, and cinematographers. Moreover, women of color represent a fraction of these percentages. Finally, as the American Association of University Women’s 2016 The Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap reports, unequal pay for equal work also persists, particularly for women of color. The wage gap and the power gap provide a breeding ground for sexual subjugation. Women fear speaking up because it could derail their careers. Bosses have power over promotions, raises, recommendations and sometimes work locations. Professors have power over grades and recommendation letters and serve on tenure committees. And for some women, who live from paycheck to paycheck, the price of speaking out against sexual harassment is the loss of shelter and food for them and their families. Women also have feared speaking up because they expected the backlash would come that would lead to a collective discrimination of women. Facebook CEO Cheryl Sanderberg (on a December Facebook post) and film director Steven Soderbergh (in The Daily Beast on January 22) have both expressed concerns that in the wake of #MeToo, men will retreat from mentoring and hiring women. Yet both also support the movement and stress the importance of hiring women. Sandberg notes hiring and promoting

women is essential to combatting harassment. I imagine we should also fear that some men may turn to “the Billy Graham rule,” supported by many evangelicals, which prohibits men from dining, traveling, or meeting a woman alone. One of the most powerful men in the world, Vice President Mike Pence, told the Hill in 2002 that he would not dine with a woman, other than his wife. As Jia Tolentino points out in her March 31, 2017 editorial in The New Yorker, considering that men dominate the upper echelons of power in nearly every industry and considering the vastness of business and mentorship conducted over meals, if all men followed such a rule, women’s opportunities for advancement would greatly diminish. If the Billy Graham rule became pervasive, we would find ourselves locked in the land of Eve where we are always the temptress responsible for man’s fall. In such a world, we are disempowered or removed from the workforce all together; we are kept in the domestic realm; and the realm of work and power becomes the man’s domain. #MeToo will never fully succeed unless women become as powerful in our economic, military, educational, spiritual, cultural, and political institutions as men. When we have power, men in power will not be able to simply ignore us or alienate us from the workforce when we raise concerns about sexual abuse and harassment. Thus, if we are ever to create a workplace and a nation that respects all genders equally, we need more women in middle management and executive positions; we need more women climbing the ranks of the military; we need more female spiritual leaders; we need more women in executive positions in educational institutions; we need more female directors and cultural overseers and producers; we need more women to run for office; and yes, we need to break the toughest glass ceiling and put a women into the White House. #MeToo is, at its roots, about centuries of female powerlessness and the need for empowerment. And the Women’s Movement is blazing that trail. Women’s empowerment became the central rallying cry for the anniversary Women’s Marches in New Orleans and across the nation and the world. This year, Las Vegas served as the mother of the marches with its battle cry: “Power to the Polls: We are the leaders we have been waiting for.” On the Women’s March

website, the organizers called not only for the mobilization of women voters but for the mobilization of female candidates. They celebrated the election of “November’s sweeping victories—from the first openly transgender woman of color winning an election to public office, to the first Asian American woman elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, to the first Sikh American to be elected mayor of the city, to the first-ever Latina women elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, to seven cities electing their first Black mayors, and so many more—Women’s March aims to convert the groundswell of momentum and activism into direct electoral power.” Time Magazine’s cover story “The Avengers: First They Marched, Now They’re Running,” by Charlotte Alter reveals that a record number of women are running for political offices in 2018. The New Orleans march reflected the great hope for women’s empowerment as well. As I gathered with my friends on January 20 and marched through my beloved city, I was inspired by women wielding the signs: “Empowered Women Empower Women” and “Trans Women too!” And I was moved deeply by a man with his toddler-aged-daughter carrying the sign: “Future Female President;” a male friend of mine wearing a shirt that declared, “Consent is Sexy;” and several men with signs stating, “Men of Quality do not fear Gender Equality.” Male partners are vital to our struggle. This movement is not man-hating. It opposes patriarchy, not men. Moreover, patriarchy is harmful to men too. And these men at the march understood that. Many among the marchers carried signs with two words: “Me Too.” At the core of empowerment remains women’s rights to protect our bodies and lives from harm and our very existence from subjugation. #MeToo was everywhere at the march. It is everywhere in our society. But our stories are not only tales of suffering. They are also journeys of survival. For centuries, cisgender women and transgender women have endured, have risen again, have navigated, have challenged, and have left in their wake victories that moved the struggle forward. #MeToo is as an ancient battle cry echoing through the ages and beckoning us to rise again and again for justice. For nearly every woman has a story. The time has come for our stories to change the world.

Equality

Perspectives on Aziz Ansari and #MeToo

My newly problematic fave and affirming my feminist identity by Andie Slein

n January 14th, I began my day the way most millennials do: by opening Twitter. I saw the very first headline on my feed and instantly felt my heart drop. “Aziz Ansari faces sexual assault allegations.” Several minutes passed before I could even garner the courage to click the link. I knew that once I took that leap, I would open Pandora’s box and never be able to see one of my favorite creators in the same light ever again. I’ve followed Aziz’s career for several years, and I definitely consider him to be one of my dearest inspirations. His show, Master of None, is smartly written and crafted. It provides such an insightful look into the daily lives and obstacles of millennials learning to navigate the adult world. Aziz’s public persona has always been grounded in a progressive viewpoint on social issues, and he has continually asserted his own identity as a feminist. I received his book, Modern Romance, as a Christmas gift this year. It demonstrates a deep understanding of the challenges of dating in the digital age and the nuances associated with romantic interaction; it also includes a good deal of anecdotal material to supplement the sociological findings. I am still carrying this book with me, although I have not been able to return to it since the allegations were released. I finally took the leap and opened Katie Way’s article, “I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life,” published by Babe.net. The article tells the story of a young female photographer under the pseudonym “Grace.” Grace and Aziz met at a party, flirted, and eventually went out on a date. On the date, Grace and Aziz went back to his apartment where he made continual efforts to initiate sexual contact. She described his behavior as that of a “horny, rough, entitled 18-year-old.” I was prepared to be disgusted, enraged, and devastated by the story I was

reading. I had read numerous trigger warnings and commentary about how graphic the account was. For this reason, I was completely shocked when I came to the end of the article and felt nothing but honest confusion. To be perfectly candid, my first thought was, “Is that all?” My very next thought was, “Oh my god, I can’t believe I just thought that.” I was confused about whether the behavior described could actually be labeled sexual assault. This confusion came from the fact that I have been on several nearly identical dates with men who have behaved the exact same way as Aziz, almost to a T. Were those experiences assault? Should I have felt more violated than I actually did? I was confused about whether rape culture creates such a fear of sexual interaction that women can no longer feel empowered to firmly push back or even leave in these situations. But could I share this thought with anyone? Would it be immediately labeled victim blaming? Was I victim blaming? I was confused about whether my response was actually justified or just blind defense of my favorite celebrity. Finally, I was confused about my responsibility as a feminist to have a certain reaction to this story. Every vocal feminist on my timeline tore into Aziz for his disregard of consent and his aggressive behavior. I couldn’t help but feel a little scared by the wave of extreme reactions that I was witnessing. Anyone who knows me can attest to my passionate commitment to feminism. Between running Feminist Fridays, attending women’s marches, working at the Women’s Resource Center, and producing Feminist Friday’s production of The Vagina Monologues, I find myself deeply entrenched in the world of feminism on a daily basis. Even though I live in this world, I suddenly felt like I did not belong. It took days before a select few took the brave step to write pieces that took

the blame off of Aziz and commented on the complexities of the issue, rather than contributing to the black and white reaction I saw so many people initially have. Many cited the statement Aziz released in response to the allegations. It is clear from his statement that he genuinely did not see the harm in his behavior while their interaction was happening. When Grace confronted him through text message initially, he expressed this same confusion, as well as remorse for how his actions affected her. Both his public statement and this private interaction reveal the true lesson to be learned: we have so many differing ideas of what consent is that even well-meaning, self-identified feminists can completely miss the mark. While I found solace in these later articles, I still felt the need to express my own perspective in whatever way I could. I began a tailspin of thought, and I could not bring myself out. I evaluated everything from my own dating history to the conversations I had with peers about the definition of consent. I did not realize it in the moment but reading this article was a groundbreaking moment for me. For the first time in a long time, I was presented with a situation that I couldn’t respond to with a clear cut answer. This forced me to ask myself really tough questions, evaluate my own feminist identity, and engage in conversations I was afraid to have. I felt ashamed that my reaction to these allegations was not perfectly “feminist,” but I had to ask myself what that even means in the first place. I had to ask myself why I felt more scared of other feminists than the sexist people we actually oppose. I had to ask myself why we continue to put so much pressure on one another to react to events with one blindly unified voice and why any perspectives outside of those bounds are attacked. Today, I feel more grounded in my beliefs than before I learned about the al-

legations against Aziz Ansari. I believe no one should ever feel violated. I believe men and women still view consent very differently, and that needs to change. I believe feminism is a concept that is as diverse and evolving as the many voices that shape it. I believe we should not police each other’s reactions and commentary because it is only through many different perspectives that we will learn what we need to learn

he backlash to the recent allegations against Aziz Ansari speaks volumes about the way that our society treats conversations about sex, and what constitutes “bad sex.” The conversation about consent has been prolific lately in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Babe.net published an essay about a sexual encounter between Aziz Ansari and by a woman who used the pseudonym Grace to tell her story. Grace stated that she experienced a sense of profound violation when she left Ansari’s apartment after what he perceived to be a consensual encounter. The issue with the case of Ansari is a part of the bigger issue at hand, which is the lack of discourse regarding these situations. The general backlash against Grace’s accusations focused less on Grace and more on the concern that all men will become a target now. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, many men have said that they were now too “scared” to work with women for fear of being accused of sexual assault because anything could be deemed as sexual assault these days. Many women have argued that if this is sexual assault, then they’ve been assaulted multiple times. Bari Weiss in her editorial in The New York Times argued that Ansari is being attacked for not being a “mind reader.” But one of the most complicated reactions is the argument that Grace could have left at any time. A few months ago, Grace went back to Ansari’s apartment after a date. According to Grace, once they got back to his place he began to move things very quickly. Ansari soon indicated that he was going to get a condom only minutes after first kissing her, and once Grace

through these kinds of accounts. Part of me still feels afraid to author this article, because it takes an enormous amount of courage to make any statement you know will be met with disagreement, especially on controversial subjects like this one. However, I know that navigating the nuances of right and wrong is one of the greatest challenges that life presents, and there is bravery in facing that chal-

lenge. I feel proud to have seized this opportunity to evaluate my own views, to grow as a feminist, and finally, to grow as a person. I know that together, we can live in a world where feminism listens as much as it speaks. Sometimes, it takes a single story with several difficult questions to reveal how truly necessary that can be.

The danger of treating men like boys by Grace Riddick

mentioned that they should slow down, he continued to kiss and undress her. Ansari continued to try and persuade her to fool around, and he eventually performed oral sex on her. He implied that she should do the same to him, and she did. The issue with the criticism that Grace could have left at any time is that it is framing the situation and the reactions that she could have had in a very strict, black and white manner. Grace did what a lot of woman probably would have done in that situation: she gave in to a sexual act that she may not have been completely comfortable with because of the pervasive mindset that our patriarchal society has established. It’s a mindset that says that men should persist when it comes to sex. It’s a mindset that says that women should submit to men and toughen up, even when they may be uncomfortable. It’s a very complicated issue that, when mixed with a lack of conversation on the topic, can lead to situations like these. Ansari, a 34-year-old man, has lived in a time when this conversation is ongoing and he has become vocal in it, too. In fact, what prompted Grace to speak up was when she saw that Ansari wore the “Time’s Up” pin, a call to end sexual harassment in the entertainment industry, at the Golden Globes. Ansari has also chosen to say his direct thoughts on feminism. He has chosen to call himself a feminist. Feminism is a word that indicates equal rights for men and women. Equal rights should indicate the right for a woman to say no, to give verbal and physical cues when she may want to slow down, and for a man to stop when she does. The question shouldn’t be about

Grace’s actions, but about his. Grace gave physical and verbal cues, including saying “no” and Ansari continued to persist. He agreed to just “chill” when Grace suggested it and then seconds later tried to have sex again. That happened twice. Ansari is a man, not a boy. We cannot keep treating men like they are boys who didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong. But Ansari is the nice, funny, feminist who no one wants to think of as a bad guy, and he is, of course, not acting on the level of accusations against Weinstein. But at the end of the day, what Ansari did was wrong. The #MeToo movement is diverse and allows women to have their voices heard on the experiences that they have had with sexual assault, harassment, and even rape. It does not just address the extreme Harvey Weinstein examples. What Ansari did wasn’t criminal, but it needs to be talked about so that he and other men can learn that it is wrong. By having these discussions, we can allow women to be heard and for men to learn that they may have made someone feel violated or uncomfortable. This is not just a case of “bad sex” like many have called it. It is a situation where a woman felt violated because she asked a man to slow down multiple times, and even said “no” to stop him. By saying that Grace took her accusations too far, we are silencing women who go through situations where they have felt violated. We are allowing men to not be held accountable for their actions. Through these conversations, we can reduce the amount of women who will go through these situations by showing men that it’s not okay to act in the way that Ansari did.

Equality

How do we address female sexual assailants? by Challen Palmer

ctober 5, 2017, saw the beginning of a scandal with the publication of The New York Times article outing Harvey Weinstein for his past (and present) allegations of sexual harassment. The article, “Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades,” detailed accusations that spanned multiple decades of his career in Hollywood. His accusers include some of Hollywood’s most beloved actresses: Ashley Judd, Lupita Nyong’o, Rose McGowan, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Angelina Jolie, to name a few. This particular outing not only sparked an international outrage, it also instigated a slew of accusations against other house-hold names. Kevin Spacey was accused of molesting teenage boys (and attempted an offensive coming-out in his barely-apology). Matt Lauer was fired by NBC News after a detailed complaint was lodged against him about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace. These allegations coming to light have sparked multiple social movements, including the #MeToo movement—a trend on social media where men and women stand in solidarity with fellow victims of sexual assault—and the Time’s Up movement—a social movement started by Hollywood actors and executives to protest sexual harassment in the workplace. With women with such social power at the helm of these movements (Oprah Winfrey, herself, is a supporter of the Time’s Up movement) it would seem that it is time for men with corrupt intentions to finally face the ridicule they deserve. However, how do we, as a society, act when women are the ones perpetuating the same culture we are taught to fear at such an early age? How do we react when a woman is the one assaulting a man, or even another woman? Every woman knows at least one other woman who has been sexually harassed. We’re taught from an early age to protect ourselves from people who might hurt us (at least, I was, and every girl I know was). Lessons of defense under the guise

of “oh, but boys will be boys!” narrated my adolescence. When I was younger, I didn’t understand why my mother, my teachers, or my coaches kept repeating this mantra to me. I always assumed that these figures in my life were dismissive of the injustices I had faced growing up. Later, I realized that that was all anyone expected boys to be—just boys. No higher expectations for personal growth and maturity, boys would always be boys, and I was expected to accept that fact if I was going to grow and mature on my own. Despite this condescending attitude towards men, it does explain why men are often held to a lower standard than women. Everyone should be held accountable for their own actions, men and women alike; however, as women, we are expected to always be the bigger person. Women are held to a higher standard and hold themselves to a higher standard, because that is the kind of social conditioning we have been put through. So, when a woman is accused of sexual assault, many people disregard the claim as being a lie. People write off the claim because of one horribly damaging and sexist reason: people believe that men can’t be raped and, subsequently, that women are not capable of rape. The heteronormative lens that I find most Americans view sexual assault through is part of why the problem is such a complex issue. Lena Dunham, who I consider the Queen of White Feminism (a toxic brand of feminism centered around the ideals and struggles of primarily straight, Christian, white women while showing no concern to protecting women of color, non-straight women, transwomen, women belonging to cultural minorities, and men) wrote in her memoir, Not that Kind of Girl, about behavior with her younger sister when they were children, which I consider sexual abuse. The memoir details Dunham casually masturbating in bed next to her sister, about bribing her with candy. Dunham writes, “if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds […] anything a sexual preda-

tor might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.” In one specifically disturbing passage, Dunham wrote about “experimenting” with her sister’s vagina, the only explanation given being: “This was within the spectrum of things I did.” While some child therapists have defended her behavior as being nothing other than normal sexual development, Dunham graphically describing how she masturbated in bed next to her toddler-aged sister while forcing said sister to kiss her, while also describing herself as a “sexual predator” does not seem normal to me. I consider it clear from Dunham’s own words that she admitted to sexually abusing her younger sister. Yet she was not subjected to the public humiliation that Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby faced. In December 2017, former contestant on The Voice, Melanie Martinez, was accused of rape and sexual assault by her then close friend, Timothy Heller. Martinez, according to Heller, coerced Heller over a two-day period into having sex and then “violated her with a sex toy.” Martinez used the tried-and-true “she never said no” defense after Heller released her story, despite Heller claiming that she refused multiple times. When asked why Heller waited so long to tell her story (the assault happened in 2015), she said, “I think I was invalidating my own experience for so long because [Martinez] is not a man.” Aside from a few former fans burning their Melanie Martinez merchandise, she has not faced any social ridicule or any real consequences for her actions. This attitude—the idea that women are not capable of rape because it is an inherently male phenomenon—is not only harmful to women, it is harmful to the men who are assaulted as well. In this empowering time of the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements, it is more important now, than ever, to properly deal with the women who commit sexual assault. Ignorance is complicity and the time of ignoring the behavior of female sexual assailants is over.

Feminist Worlds

Growing up with a powerful mom

Gabrielle Hawkins

by Katy Kemp

or the eighteen years that I have been on this earth, I thought proving a gender related point was just that; a point. However, as I have grown and matured, I have stepped into a different world; womanhood. I never knew there was a word to describe my character and my personality. You see, I describe myself as steadfast, confident, and truthful. It is crazy to me how my mindset and morals surround this one word. My morals withhold independence,

grew up in a household where my mom was the breadwinner. She’s had a high speed job my entire life. A specific quirk about her job in the satellite industry is she travels all the time and always has. When she was pregnant with me, she flew to Bali for an important conference. For my thirteenth birthday, she happened to be going to Hawaii for a conference. I got to tag along. Nowadays she’s traveling about thirty percent of the time but when I was younger it was more frequent than that. She would be gone 2 or 3 weeks every month roughly. Her traveling was awesome because I got gifts from all the cool places she would visit, but it can be hard when your mom is gone so much. During the time where her traveling was at its peak, she was on a fast track to becoming vice president of the company she was working for. Soon after the traveling kicked up, she came to a realization that she wanted to spend more time with her family so she switched companies and got a lower intensity job. Before my mother switched to a less intense job, my dad took on the standard

motherly role. He woke me up every morning for school, packed all my lunches, helped me with my homework etc. He was my rock, and I looked up to him for everything growing up. Because he had the standard motherly role, I didn't think that it was normal for the mother to be the caretaker. I always saw my mom as the powerful lady who was loving and caring, but was gone to provide for my dad and me. Growing up with such a strong women figure has affected my views on the societal perception of women and in turn made me a feminist. For me, it's counterintuitive to think that women have any less ability than men because I grew up looking up to my mother as such a powerful force, and it was my normal. I never thought anything more than that. But as I got older, I realized my normal was skewed. I began to see the unequal treatment first hand and was mind boggled that this was a real problem. Ever since then I knew I wanted to join the fight for equality because every young little girl should look up to their mom like I did to mine.

Womanhood

by Ragine Green

consistency, and equality. However, my feminism is more than equality for women. My feminism is equality for “ALL” women; no matter the nationality, spirituality, disability, or sexuality. I chose a life career of feminism to make sure that my future daughters and their daughters are continually bred through a long line of black women. ‘I am woman, and when I think I must speak’. I am a feminist because I am not anti-man. I am all for a righteous man; a man with

common sense. I am a feminist because I am a survivor that is not pursued by the shortness of her hem line or the dialect of her speech. I am all woman, just as I am feminist. I am feminist due to the lack of understanding and emotions for ‘bitchy’ females. I am here as a bridge of consideration and hope. I am here to show that ‘anything he can do; I can do too’! It is ‘she’ who holds the world on her shoulders, and it is because of this strength that I am a feminist!

Equality

I’m a feminist because . . . . by Olivia Daudon

I’m a feminist because at restaurants my dad gets handed the check, instead on my mom. I’m a feminist because women make 78 cents to every dollar a man makes; because only 19.4% of our Congress is made up of women; because 4% of CEOs in America are female; because I should be able to dictate what I do with my body. I’m a feminist because I have a president that thinks it’s ok to grab women “by the pussy;” because the way I’m born shouldn’t make me greater or lesser than someone else of a different gender; because rape is the most under reported crime in America; because my body is objectified in the media to appeal to the other gender; because I had to buy pepper spray to protect myself when I go out at night; because there are so many women that have it worse than me in other countries; I’m a feminist because a large majority of people trafﬁcked in America are female; because men are told to not act like “pussy’s” and show emotion; because I don’t believe that I have to be staying at home doing “domestic” duties. I’m a feminist because I believe in the equality of the sexes

Generations of strong women

by Sarah Donaldson

y family is full of strong women. I grew up with stories of the dedicated women in my family. My great great grandmother was the first women to graduate from the University of Florida. She also started her own business when she was only 14 during the Great Depression no less! She was the kindest and most generous person I have ever met and so determined to strive for better. My grandmother was another strong woman. She decided to take a stand and protested the Vietnam War while her husband was fighting it; she is not afraid to stand up for her grandchildren. My mother had to work three jobs while she raised three small children; she decided to pursue a degree, and during her college career, she became the president of Phi Theta Kappa. I watched her fight so hard to finally find happiness and was inspired by her resolve. With all these women and their stories around me, I knew no other way than to grow up strong and try to make the world bend to my ambitions any way possible. As I grew and moved, I became painfully aware that the world would not be so eager to bend to the will of anyone, and it felt like women were at a greater disadvantage. However, I believe that the hard work and dedication of women is the foundation of feminism. The framework of feminism calls for future equality so that everyone gets to experience a tough like steel world. I will never understand why this movement must work so hard for all people to be treated as people. I am a feminist because I want a world in which anyone can thrive with dedication and hard work. I want a world where nobody wastes time caring how other people live their lives and use their energy to work on figuring out the bigger problems (famine, epidemics, poisoned water...etc.), to just learn and grow as a species.

Feminist Worlds

My feminist journey by Victoria Williams

hy am I a feminist? It seems that I was destined, in a way, to be a feminist. From a young age, I noticed that some groups were treated less equally than others. Being a young black girl, my first encounter with inequality began with the color of my skin. I was exposed to racism very early and my first lesson in inequality was that people who look like me are sometimes treated unfairly simply because of how we look. My next lesson came in the form of sexual orientation. My mother used to watch a show called Queer as Folk, which was a dramatic take on the lives of a set of characters who belonged to the LGBTQ+ community. We talked about sexual orientation often in my household, and my mom taught me that not everyone accepts the LGBTQ+ community. This was a slap to

my face because in my eyes, I really could not fathom the idea of being mistreated solely based on the fact that I may not like boys or that I liked both girls and boys. My next lesson would not come until high school when I started to realize that women were not treated the same as men were. I started to learn about things like slut shaming, the wage-gap, the subordination of feminine qualities, rape culture, etc. At that point, I realized that there were more things wrong with society than I ever could have imagined. I felt in my heart that things needed to change. I ended up finding a community of individuals who believed in the same causes I did and also wanted to see the injustices of the world be corrected; they were feminists. From that point on, that’s how I identified. I was a feminist. My journey didn’t end there though. I strived to keep learning about how social injustice appeared in my

life, in both subtle ways and obvious ones. I learned about the sexuality spectrum as well as the gender spectrum, I learned about intersectional feminism, I learned about privilege, and so much more. Once I became a part of the feminist community, I felt at home and I wouldn’t dream of giving it up! I have met so many incredibly talented, intelligent, extraordinary women who inspire me to keep fighting for what’s right, to keep striving for knowledge, and to keep loving myself. I’m so proud to be a black woman and despite all the hardships that come along with it, I wouldn’t have it any other way. So, why am I a feminist? I am a feminist because I want to see a future where people of all genders, sexualities, and races can feel safe and confident in their identity without being made to feel they can’t be.

WRC Staff 2017-18

courtesy of Tomas Orhuela

HerStory Returns

#MeToo is a Central Theme The Women’s Resource Center is thrilled to bring back Mélange Dance Company’s production of Her Story from March 8 to March 11 during our Feminist Festival. All of us at the center are so moved by the company’s work that we wanted to learn more about Mélange and the inspiration for the dancers’ powerful performance of the four waves of feminism. We had the wonderful opportunity to interview Monica Ordoñez, the artistic director and one of the founders of Mélange. How and when was Mélange Dance Company founded and what does the name mean to you? Mélange was founded in 2014 by myself (Monica Ordoñez) and Alexa Erck Lambert. We had a core group of dancers that we had been performing with and decided to start our own company. The name Mélange was inspired by the diversity of our dancers and their unique talents that contribute to the strength of our company. The artistic vision is led by my personal aesthetic as a choreographer, which is rooted in a harmonious connection between movement, music, and narrative. As the company has developed, the narratives have become inspired by history and social justice, and our productions have become known to be all encompassing in our portrayal of these themes, provoking a range of emotion for our audiences. We incorporate elements such as time period costuming, props, and film. Mélange has grown to reflect a union of diverse dancers who unite to present

meaningful dance that is multifaceted and can make a difference in this world. What is new this year about HerStory? Wow, so much! When I originally conceptualized HerStory in 2016, it was such a different time. I poured myself into research about the history of the women’s movement, and once I came to the present, I questioned what actually was happening to keep progressing. I felt like I needed to tread very lightly in using the word "feminism" in the show and advertisements to not turn off audiences, which is ridiculous because feminism means equality; which I felt it necessary to emphasize in the first finale. Unintentionally, HerStory premiered a few days after the election, and I really channeled that momentum to conclude the show. I had hoped to be premiering HerStory with our first female president. Well, we all know how that turned out; however, it sparked a fire in a new generation of women who perhaps didn’t previously feel the need to fight. As the show is set chronologically, now, the second half of the show has much more strength and direction with inspiration from the women’s marches, and various movements such as MeToo and Times Up. There IS a clear movement to depict. Now, we're saying the word Feminism loud and proud with confidence that is reflected in this powerful movement for change. I went back and refined some of the original works. We have a few new dancers. There is new choreography. I like to improve the

clarity of the choreography and professionalism of the production as much as possible with each remount. Also, I won’t give one of our new works away completely, but scrunched socks are included. We have some costume upgrades by our talented designer, Kaci Thomassie! How does the #MeToo Movement fit into the production, and why did you choose a photograph reflecting MeToo to symbolize the performance? So HerStory has always had a piece that speaks to sexual harassment and the Take Back the Night marches that originated in the 80s to take back the streets/speak to sexual harassment and violence against women and fight for laws that protect women. Last year, I closed that piece with words from a very infamously leaked audio tape and a gesture to indicate that no, it’s not ok. Now, the MeToo movement provides an extension of that piece and a concrete resolution to take action to end sexual harassment, violence, and all inequalities among all people. I chose to use a photograph reflecting MeToo to symbolize this remount of HerStory because it showcases where the women’s movement is headed. There is a silent strength to the photos. We have the stage, and people are listening, strategizing, and taking action. It’s a very empowering time for women, and I’m honored to have this platform to depict it in dance.

Why do you consider the feminist movement important? How does it inform your work? I have always considered myself to be a feminist. Even from a young age I recall being extremely competitive with the boys in P.E. class (I think I was largely influenced by my mom who attended the marches during the women’s liberation movement). When I started to conceive HerStory, I realized that I really didn’t know the magnitude of the fight that generations have fought to achieve equality, being part of a more privileged generation that had certain rights handed to me. It was mind blowing to realize that women weren’t included in the Constitution, and that STILL Congress has not ratified the ERA to secure our rights. So now having all this knowledge, I think it’s extremely important, and I understand that there is still a long way to go. Feminism simply means equality, and I think more people are starting to get on board, but still when you initiate a hashtag “feminismis…” “feminismiscancer” is the top hit. “Feminismisequality” is second I believe. So that’s an indicator that we have a lot of work to do still. Feminism is absolutely the backbone of nearly all of my work, as I am passionate about advocating for equality in my work in interesting ways

that engage history and initiate important conversations. Each “phase” of feminism inspired my work in HerStory in a different way, but the common goal is clear throughout. How is dance a powerful way to convey important messages about our society and how to change it? For me, storytelling through dance has always come naturally. There is something about connecting the right movement, music, and emotion to reflect important themes in our society that is really powerful and can transcend words. I think that when audiences see dance sometimes they don’t expect to understand the meaning; but when these elements are married properly, the audience can really see dance as a universal language and commit to message and then continue their thought process outside of the theater. Mélange strives to present work that resonates, inspires, and is hopeful in order to connect with our audience and initiate change. I have heard wonderful feedback from audience members who have really taken our shows to heart, using the knowledge they gained and thinking about the messages portrayed in our shows days later, and best of all taking action to help

change society for the better. One woman expressed that she went to the Women’s March this year because of our shows, which is the best feedback! It really makes me feel like we’re on to something and can take HerStory outside of New Orleans (which is the ultimate goal). Please tell us anything else about the company, the production, and feminism that you want to share. We are just so thankful for the opportunities we have had to present HerStory on a beautiful stage at Loyola as part of the Feminist Festival and are thrilled at its reception from our audiences. I know that the dancers really feed off of audience energy, and it has been great. As a passionate choreographer, having this platform to challenge myself to create and present these complete works with brilliant dancers is so meaningful. I’m really hopeful that we can gain more exposure with HerStory and take the production on the road outside of New Orleans. The timing is there, and it is my ultimate goal to continue to spread knowledge and feminism through dance. We have a campaign running to help increase our exposure and growth. Every share helps! https://my.ignitecx.com/melange

Monica Ordoñez, originally from Miami, Florida,

began taking ballet classes at the age of three. As she furthered her training in jazz, modern, lyrical, and contemporary, she discovered her passion for choreography. She trained at Miami Dade College, The University of South Florida, and Tulane University in Ballet and Modern. She has been choreographing in Miami, New York, and New Orleans for the past 10 years. Ordoñez has received 6 nominations for Big Easy Classical Arts Awards: 2014 for Outstanding Choreography and Outstanding Modern Dance Presentation (Love Story), 2015 for Outstanding Modern Dance Presentation (The UpStairs Lounge), 2016 for Outstanding Dance Presentation (Being Human), 2017 for Outstanding Choreography (Journey of Dreamers), and 2017 Outstanding Dance Ensemble.

courtesy of Emily Apple

Join us for

HerStory

March 8-10 at 8 pm | March 11 at 3 pm Roussel Hall | 6363 St. Charles Avenue NOLA The movement continues. Our timely, exciting, and original production returns as the fight for gender equity gains strength. Join us as we reflect on the progress initiated by women who dared to persist, journeying through the three waves of feminism to bring monumental moments in 'herstory' to life. Watch the layers unfold as dancers portray the trials and triumphs generations of women have faced in an eclectic arrangement of storytelling. Meet the unyielding Suffragists who paved the way, our own Nola Sazerac Stormers, the role reversing Rosie the Riveters, 'bra burners’ who fought to pass landmark legislation, the evolved working woman, the objectified woman. HerStory highlights the rise of the modern movement for justice, where women and men around the world have marched for humanity and change. Voices are raised, conversations are increasing, and actions are being taken to say Time's Up against sexual harassment and gender inequalities. Experience our unique production that is moving, celebratory, thought provoking, humorous, provocative, and certainly healing. Onward!

Tickets

https://neworleans.boldtypetickets.com/events/51369447/m233lange-dance-company-presents-herstory

Education “It’s the way I am made, Anastasia. I need to control you. I need you to behave in a certain way, and if you don’t—I love to watch your beautiful alabaster skin pink and warm up under my hands. . . . It’s the fact that you are mine to do with as I see fit—ultimate control over someone else. And it turns me on.”

Fifty Shades of Grey

Virginal maidens, dark knights and the patriarchal trap by Tess Rowland and Patricia Boyett

. L. James’s Fifty Shades trilogy, Fifty Shades of Grey, Fifty Shades Darker, Fifty Shades Freed, and the film adaptations ignited a national conversation about the line between erotica and abuse and strikes at one of the core barriers to gender equality. James considers her series a “passionate love story” that is only heightened by the exploration of Bondage, Dominance, Submission, and Sadomasochism (BDSM). Some critics agreed, while others perceived it as normalizing the subjugation and abuse of women. In response to the #MeToo Movement and the recent release of the final film adaptation, Fifty Shades Freed, we decided to explore the series through various feminist lenses. The craze and perhaps the controversy surrounding Christian Grey’s fetish for sexual dominance transformed the selfpublished fan fiction into a gold mine. In late February 2014, The Hollywood Reporter revealed that the series hit the landmark 100 million sale, catapulting it onto an elite list of best-selling series, which includes Twilight, Harry Potter, James Bond, and Sweet Valley High. Hollywood also rushed to capitalize on the gold rush and signed Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan to a three-picture deal, with the first adaptation directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson and written by Kelly Marcel opening on Valentine’s Day 2015, the second and third directed by James Foley and written by Niall Leonard opening on February 10, 2017, and on February 13, 2018 respectively. In addition, James deepened her financial success by rewriting the series from Christian’s perspective. However, as Anthony Cummins emphasizes in his review in The Daily Telegraph, the November release of the second book in the second trilogy from Christian’s perspective suffered from fading interest and poor timing: “The recent Harvey Weinstein allegations might seem to muddy the already questionable appeal of a ‘sensuous romance’ built around the magnetism of a predatory tycoon who uses ex-FBI spies to keep tabs on the object of his desire.” According to Kiera O’Brien in December’s The Bookseller, the latest release still soared high on the book charts, but sales of the entire Grey endeavor have steadily decreased: “Grey’s enormous 1.1mcopy total volume was not quite a quarter of the even more enormous 4.7m Fifty Shades of Grey shifted, and the Fifty Shades Darker film tie-in, released earlier this year,

sold fewer than half what the Fifty Shades of Grey tie-in did in 2015.” Over the course of the release of the books and film, feminists expressed a variety of reactions. Some publicly expressed that they consider the series empowering; they view Anastasia as exercising her sexual agency by experimenting with erotica. Although Daily Dot staff writer and editor, E. J. Dickson, despised the book, she enjoyed the film. She emphasized that “it is explicitly marketed as an erotic fairy tale for older women who have enough sexual experience to differentiate between the fantasy of a man like Christian Grey and the reality. This makes it not so much a romanticization of domestic abuse as a conduit for women to fantasize about being a young, sexually inexperienced naif, learning the ropes from an older, more dominant male about their bodies and their desires.” In contrast, Amy Bonomi, Chair of Human Development and Family Studies at Michigan State University, told Lauren Friedman in an interview for Business Insider that Fifty Shades of Grey “normalizes” abuse by pretending that it is simply a BDSM game, and she criticizes Hollywood for “romanticizing” it in the film adaptation. Using the Center for Disease Control’s standard definition of abuse, Bonomi characterizes the relationship between Christian and Anastasia as epitomizing Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). As Bonomi asserts, “emotional abuse is present in nearly every interaction . . . [and] sexual violence is pervasive.” Is the trilogy simply harmless erotica in which a woman exercises her sexual agency to explore (BDSM) or is it glamorizing abuse? We found that although select scenes might fit the standard of harmless erotica and that the film tended to soften the harsher edges of the books, the core narrative romanticizes abuse and advances Hollywood and Harlequin patriarchal tropes that perpetuate a sexist culture.

Dark Knights and Virginal Maidens

The Fifty Shades series plays into Hollywood and Harlequin tropes that are deeply imbedded in Western patriarchal culture. At the opening of the trilogy, Christian, a wealthy, handsome, mysterious 27-year-old business mogul with a tragic past sets his sights on Anastasia a virginal, beautiful graduating college senior, with a passion for classic romantic literature and lost causes, like bad boys. Christian immediately presents clues that his personality

is dysfunctional. Like typical abusers, he often showers Anastasia with intense and passionate attention, but he also withdraws from her or lashes out at her, conveying a personality disorder that therapist Beverly Engel calls the Jekyll and Hyde syndrome in her 2006 book titled after the disorder. However, E. L. James seeks to make Christian’s dysfunctions sexy and alluring. He is not exactly Prince Charming because he has too much darkness for the fairy tale version of the wholesome prince; he is then more like, as Christian characterizes himself, a “dark knight.” Yet he is not a new invention. The trope stretches back to classical literature, including Wuthering Heights, Beauty and the Beast, and Jane Eyre. It is a staple of the classic Hollywood era from A Street Car Named Desire to Rebel Without a Cause and reinvented itself in a variety of ways in the 1980s and 1990s in films like Bad Boys and Reality Bites. In the new millennium, Twilight epitomized these tropes in film and literature. In fact, James developed the characters of Christian and Anastasia from fanfiction modeled after Twilight. Christian, like typical literary and cinematic bad boys, shrouds his past in mystery while also slipping into conversation subtle hints that he has suffered through a difficult past and is cautious about whom he allows into his inner circle. The bad boy makes his female interest feel special as he intimates that she seems different, that she might be the only one who could truly understand him, heal him. Of course, the woman who heals him must be pure of heart and body. In James’s trilogy, the bad boy and good girl are flung into the world of erotica, but their caricatures remain intact. When Christian finds out that Anastasia is a virgin, he is thrilled because only he will ever possess her sexually. Moreover, the message is conveyed: this “dark knight” might only be healed by the love of the innocent, virginal Anastasia, as he becomes so enamored by her that he breaks some of his rules. Rather than simply engaging in a purely sexual BDSM relationship; he courts Anastasia by purchasing her limited editions of classic novels, a MacBook, and a sports car; he takes her on thrilling rides in his helicopter and on his glider, and he even decides to actually sleep next to her in bed one night. Yes, you read that correctly. Mr. Grey refuses to sleep next to his submissives; he forces them to sleep in a separate bedroom. Of course, he considers Anastasia different, special.

And her virginity is significant part of her appeal because, in his mind, it allows her to belong entirely to him. After they “make love” the first time, he says to her, “Every time you move tomorrow, I want you to be reminded that I have been here. Only me. You are mine.” Throughout the trilogy he repeatedly informs her that she belongs to him. Yet he resists giving himself to her. After sleeping next to Anastasia, he withdraws. He also grows moody and lashes out at her. Other times, he is a perfect gentleman; thus, expressing the Jekyll and Hyde syndrome. As the intensity is often so powerful, the withdrawal periods are painful and unnerving. But it is also part of the addiction, for she tries desperately to draw him emotionally closer to experience that intimacy again. In her desperation, she will also endure his abuse and retreats for those moments when he is tender and kind again. And therein lies the trap. She endures Hyde in hope that Jekyll will return.

Theories of Intimate Partner Violence

Lenore E. Walker, psychologist and author of The Battered Woman (1979) and The Battered Woman Syndrome (2016), contends that abusive relationships follow a roller coaster pattern that occur within a three-stage repetitive cycle: tension building stage, acute battering episode, and a honeymoon phase. Sociologist Ellen Pence and social worker Michael Paymar argue that throughout an abusive relationship nonviolent forms of abuse are constant rather than cyclical, and abusers use violence to reinforce their control. In their book, Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model (1993), Paymar and Pence presented their power and control wheel theory in which they argue that battered women suffer constantly from eight elements of nonphysical abuse, including the abuser’s use of male privilege, intimidation, isolation, coercion and threats, emotional abuse, economic abuse, exploitation of her relationship with their children, and minimizing or denying the abuse or blaming her for it. The abuser relies on violence as a weapon to bolster the nonphysical forms of power and control. Each of these elements of abuse, except the use of children, are prevalent throughout Fifty Shades of Grey series. Anastasia also experiences cycles of abuse that reflect Walker’s theory. In Fifty Shades, the relationship begins with a contract in which Christian agrees

to allow Anastasia to stay at his penthouse several days a week and provide her with designer clothing and a luxurious lifestyle. In exchange, she must surrender control over her body and lifestyle to him. The contract requires that she exercise regularly, indulge in alcohol only as Christian allows, follow a strict diet, wear the clothes that he selects, and serve as a willing participant in his distorted version of a BDSM relationship. She must also keep their relationship a secret. When she disobeys these rules, he is permitted to punish her. Moreover, Christian takes the games outside the bedroom to the point that the practice of dominance and submission permeates every aspect of their relationship. And it is precisely in these acts, that the character of Christian Grey resembles the profile of an abuser. Immediately, with his lavish gifts, he seeks to convey that he is buying her and thus owns her. Yes, she often tries to refuse the gifts, but ultimately, she accepts them; she does modify some of the rules in the contract, but then she tends to obey them or accept punishment. As a dark knight, the abuser often tries to disguise control as protection. Christian is a master at such tactics. After a few flirtatious exchanges during the ‘courting stage,’ Anastasia drunk-dials Christian from a bar, but then ends the call without telling him where she is. He uses a tracker that he put inside her phone to locate her outside the bar where he discovers Anastasia’s friend, Jose, trying to kiss her. Anastasia is too intoxicated to notice this waving red flag with the words stalker all over it. Christian shoves Jose out of the way and then holds Anastasia’s hair as she vomits. In the morning, Anastasia wakes to find herself in a bed in Grey’s hotel suite wearing different clothing. When she questions him how she ended up wearing new clothes, he informs her that he undressed and redressed her because she was covered in vomit; he scolds her for becoming overly intoxicated and warns her of the dangers she put herself in by being drunk at a bar with men. It is clear here that he considers himself her protector who saved her from being taken advantage of and possibly raped by a man when she was drunk. However, he is the one who violated her. He undressed her without her consent. To throw another red flag in her face, he states: If “you were mine, you wouldn’t sit for a week.” Yes, if they were dating, he would consider her his possession whom he could

punish. If Grey truly desired to protect her, he could have found her roommate inside the bar and helped ensure a safe transport to her apartment where her roommate, whom she already had an established trusted relationship with, could watch over her. Anastasia seems somewhat concerned about his responses to her, but she is also intrigued by him, particularly as he continues to also make her feel special. In typical Harlequin fashion, he suggests that she is perhaps the only woman who could break through the steely armor where he hides the wounded boy inside him. And thus, begins an addiction in which Anastasia endures his use of intimidation and retreats in hopes of obtaining the intimacy again. But why would Anastasia put up with him at all? These are typical harsh questions that society flings at abused women. Society often blames the abused for staying rather than the abuser for abusing because of a lack of understanding of the complex way abusers imprison the psyches of those they claim to love. During the early stage of the relationship, an abuser begins to try and isolate his partner from her friends and family by expressing his need to be with her constantly and by becoming upset and jealous when she visits family or friends without him. At first, he might invite himself or show up uninvited so that he is always with her. Later, he begins to prevent her from being with friends or family by telling her how much he prefers to be alone with her because he loves her so much or by picking apart her family or friends and trying to make them seem as if they are bad for her. Once the relationship progresses, the abuser starts portraying signs of extreme intimidation, which is exhibited by behaviors such questioning who the victim talks to, dropping by her home or work unexpectedly, and refusing to let the victim work, etc. Anastasia even states upon her first encounter with Christian that he was "Polite, Smart, Intense... and really intimidating." Christian uses intimidation to control Anastasia on several occasions. For example, Christian shows up at Anastasia’s work unexpectedly at the beginning of the novel; later during a walk after dinner with his parents, he is furious when she tells him that she has plans to visit her mother in Georgia to the point that he puts her over his shoulder and slaps her behind. Moreover, while she is gone, he informs her

Noelie Zeichik

that he has called a former sex partner, a woman, Elena Lincoln, who had introduced him to BDSM. Anastasia, frustrated by his games, ends the call and refuses to answer his repeated calls. In typical stalker fashion, Grey flies to Georgia and arrives uninvited at a restaurant where she is dining with her mother. He takes over the rest of her trip by taking her a on a leer jet and then gliding. The glamorous outings seem romantic and adventurous to Anastasia, rather than a clever and selfish move by an abuser to isolate his partner from her family. As noted, Grey often provides Anastasia with nice clothing, helicopter rides, and exquisite hotel suites. No, there is nothing wrong with generosity. However, Grey uses his wealth to control Anastasia. Sometimes abusers use this tactic in order to make their partners feel as if they are dependent or indebted to them. Christian sells Anastasia's car without her permission and buys her a new glamorous sports car. In the second book, Fifty Shades Darker, Christian buys the publishing house where Anastasia works; that purchase reveals his exceptional need to control her; as her boss/owner of the company, her career trajectory depends on him. And yet the author and screenwriters weave this control into a form of protection after Anastasia’s direct supervisor, Jack Hyde, tries to rape her and Christian comes to her rescue. Yes, Anastasia does use some military moves to protect herself, but ultimately Christian saves her. Jack serves as a useful medium to shine a chivalrous light on Christian. By portraying Jack as a one-dimensional villain, the writers contrast his extreme cruelty and violence with Christian’s more multi-dimensional personality and make Christian seem like Anastasia’s

hero. Yet men who abuse women are rarely, if ever, one-dimensional. They are far more like Christian than Jack. And it is precisely because they are complex human beings and not villainous monsters that they are dangerous. Their complexity makes them far more capable of creating the cycle of courtship and abuse that tangles their partners in their dysfunctional webs. Christian also physically abuses Anastasia, but he uses a distorted version of BDSM as a means of pretending that the abuse is nothing more than erotic sex games that she will enjoy too. The playroom where Grey takes his “submissives” is

practically a medieval torture chamber. Anastasia must endure flogging, slapping, and whipping. Anastasia does have a safe word, which he encourages her to express. Yet she often refrains from using it, even when she is not enjoying the game because she wants to please him. Furthermore, Anastasia is punished if she disobeys him, which is another tactic of an abuser as they often use coercion and threats to intimidate their partners and gain more control. On several occasions, Christian spanks her, first with his hand and later with a belt and other implements. Anastasia is initially upset by the “spankings” and later refers to him having “beat, assaulted” her and makes a joke that perhaps she should run to Alaska to escape him. He responds: “For the record, you stood beside me, knowing what I was going to do. You didn't at any time ask me to stop - you didn't use either safe word. You are an adult -you have choices. Quite frankly, I'm looking forward to the next time my palm is ringing with pain. You're obviously not listening to the right part of your body. Alaska is very cold and no place to run. I would find you. I can track your cell phone - remember?" When she asks him why he likes to harm her, he answers: “I like the control it gives me . . . I want you to behave in a particular way, and if you don’t, I shall punish you, and you will learn to behave the way I desire. I enjoy punishing you.” The first time he whips her with a belt, she leaves him. During their separation; however, they are both miserable. Soon she returns to him. Throughout the relationship, Christian threatens Anastasia. Although he intimates that such threats are part of the game, they are still concerning and often degrading. He tells her once: “If you struggle, I will tie your feet too. If you make a noise, Anastasia, I will gag you.” During a dinner date in which they discuss the finer parts of the sex

contract, he requests a private dining room for them. Anastasia is uncomfortable and openly expresses that she would rather be in public as it is a safer neutral ground. He responds: "You think that would stop me?"

Normalizing & Romanticizing Abuse & Patriarchy

In a September 2014 article in Journal of Women’s Health, Bonomi and her co-researchers, Julianna M. Nemeth, Lauren E. Altenburger, Melissa L. Anderson, Anastasia Snyder, and Irma Dotto found that the book had a negative impact on young girls, including possible correlations to eating disorders and engaging in emotionally abusive relationships. Pop culture has an excessive influence on society, particularly among the millennial generation and the Generation Z, because both generations spent so much of their formative years accessing it on social media and viewing it on multifarious devices. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of the series is Anastasia’s beliefs that Christian’s dysfunctional past excuses his mistreatment of her and that if she loves him enough, she might heal him. The abusive cycle relies on these exact perceptions. And the books and the films convey that very message as Anastasia’s attraction to Christian also stems from her empathy for him and her need to save him, fix him. Over the course of the trilogy, Christian reveals to Anastasia that his biological mother worked as a prostitute and was a drug addict. Her pimp often beat Christian and burned cigarettes into his skin, leaving deep physical and emotional scars. When Christian was 4-years-old, his mother died of an overdose. Christian remained with her for 4 days before police discovered them. Dr. Grace Trevelyan Grey cared for him in the emergency room, and eventually, she and her husband Carrick adopted him. The Greys adored Christian and their other adopted children, Elliot and Mia, and raised them in a healthy and happy home. Still, Christian struggled to cope with his pain; as a teenager, he suffered from violent mood swings and developed a drinking problem. He reveals to Anastasia that at the age of 15, he was seduced by his mother’s friend Elena Lincoln. She introduced him to the BDSM lifestyle and channeled his rage into practicing BDSM. As Anastasia learns of Christian’s suffering, she takes on the role of his therapist in many ways as she guides him to see that the relationship with Elena was not consensual—that she raped him. As he opens up to her, she believes that she can heal him. They reach a tipping point when he finally reveals to her that he chooses petite brunettes like her because they all resemble his mother whom he calls the “crack whore;” and he takes out his rage on his dead mother by engaging in violent sexual relationships (however contractual) with his submissives. Although disturbed by the revelation, Anastasia is even more determined to save Christian. And ultimately, the authors and screenwriters weave the narrative into its Harlequin conclusion in which Anastasia heals the dark knight; she achieves such a feat by exorcizing the demons that haunt Christian by teaching him how to love. The last book ends with the knight marrying the maiden, whisking her off to a honeymoon in Europe aboard a luxury motor yacht, and buying her a modern-day castle—a custom mansion overlooking the Pacific Coast—where they raise their children in a healthy, happy home. Yet such fairy tales are rare in real life. Love, no matter how deep, does not heal an

abusive man. Experts in the field like Lenore Walker developed decades of research showing that as an abusive relationship deepens, the abuse persists and deepens. Finally, is this the sort of fairy tale modern women desire—one in which everything centers on a man’s power and pain and in which relationships are codependent?

Perpetuating Patriarchy

Sociologist Allan G. Johnson, in seminal work, The Gender Knot, defines patriarchy as a society that “promotes male privilege by being male dominated, male identified, male centered.” In addition, he contends that patriarchal societies stem from “an obsession with control and involves as one of its key aspects the oppression of women.” The world of Fifty Shades, though told by Anastasia, is dominated by and revolves around Christian’s pain and power, his constant need for control, and his need to punish women. We learn so little about Anastasia’s past or her dreams compared to our knowledge of Christian. Anastasia is deeply interested in Christian’s past, his present life, and his hopes for his future; but Christian is rarely curious about Anastasia’s life unless it involves him. Christian stands in the spotlight and the center, and she is the woman behind the man. Moreover, her lack of experience, sexually and romantically with men, makes it far easier for him to control the relationship; she sees him as the expert and perceives herself as the novice.

Breaking the Cycle and Challenging Patriarchy

The series would have proven far more powerful if Anastasia realized that nothing could excuse Christian’s abuse of her and that she must break the cycle. Certainly, an abuser who wants to change might rely on the empathy of loved ones and the assistance of professional mental health specialists, but he must decide that his mindset is wrong and his behavior dysfunctional. He must work arduously to change his mindset; he must refrain from becoming codependent on another person. We often question as a society why rape and abuse are so prevalent and how we can act to prevent such violence. We might consider starting with addressing our culture, for rape culture is perpetuated when our popular stories glamorize and/or normalizes hypermasculinity, female submissiveness, and dysfunctional relationships and transform them into an old, twisted fairy tale in which the love of a pure woman tames a dark, wounded knight. We might show young girls that they are worthy and valuable human beings who, if they seek a partner, should seek a confident and stable person who is not intimidated by an independent woman and who wants an equal partnership in which her desires, experiences, and standing in the world are as important as his. We are not arguing for the suppression of sexuality as certainly women can and do enjoy erotica. We think erotica can be empowering and encourage women to express their sexual agency as they see fit. But wouldn’t a story of erotica be far more exciting if the main characters are equal partners?

Feminism in music by Daniel DeBarge This column marks the first “Feminism in Music” series. Throughout the series, I will choose five songs that reflect feminist struggles and ideals. Feel free to put each song into a playlist of your own! If you want to share with me any song suggestions for future columns in the series, send recommendations to me via wrc@loyno.edu. I hope you enjoy!

“Four Women” - Nina Simone

This piece was released by Nina Simone on her 1967 album, Wild is the Wind. It tells the story of four different African-American women: Aunt Sarah, Saffronia, Sweet Thing, and Peaches. Each women represents one of four stereotypes ascribed to black women in America. Simone is able to capture every one of the women she portrays in the song solely through her diction and vocal dynamics, especially in her portrayal of Peaches when she sings: “I'm awfully bitter these days Because my parents were slaves.” Additionally, the song was sampled recently by Jay-Z on his song, “The Story of OJ.”

“Respect” - Aretha Franklin

This 1960s anthem was originally released by Otis Redding in 1965 but became popular when it was re-released by Aretha Franklin in 1967. Franklin’s version is powerful because she switches the gender roles that were popular at that time in history. One phrase that stands out in the song: “I'm about to give you all of my money And all I'm askin' in return, honey Is to give me my propers When you get home.” Franklin demands “respect,” and the powerful confidence in her voice while she sings it startled audiences in the 1960s and continues to impress audiences of today.

“U.N.I.T.Y.” - Queen Latifah

“U.N.I.T.Y., U.N.I.T.Y. that's a unity, U.N.I.T.Y., Love a black woman from infinity to infinity.”

Queen Latifah released this Grammy-winning song off of her 1993 album, Black Reign. Latifah wrote the song as a protest against how women are treated in society, and spoke out, throughout the song, against street harassment, domestic abuse, and lack of respect for women in the hip-hop music industry. Don’t sleep on QUEEN Latifah; she can spit better than your favorite rapper.

“Run the World (Girls)” - Beyonce

What sticks out to me the most about this song off of Beyonce’s album, 4, is the pre-hook: “My persuasion can build a nation Endless power, with our love we can devour You'll do anything for me.” Just by looking at the title, a listener already knows that this song is all about women empowerment. However, Beyonce makes a key point in the pre-hook where she explains that women of all backgrounds have the power to run the world through the use of intelligence, power, and unity. Her song has inspired countless younger generations of girls to pursue education and power.

Don’t Touch My Hair - Solange

This R&B piece came off Solange’s recent album, A Seat at the Table, which won a Grammy for the “Best R&B Performance.” The song’s main message aims to speak out against micro-aggressions forced upon black people, and specifically black women: “Don't touch my hair When it's the feelings I wear Don't touch my soul When it's the rhythm I know.”

Education

Her Stories

A feminist book club

et me begin by thanking all of you who joined me for the first meeting of the Her Story book club. I have selected Margaret Atwood’s award-winning novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, published by McClelland and Stewart in 1985, as our second book for our Her Stories Book Club. MGM/Hulu’s adaptation of the novel for a mini-series in 2017 became an overnight sensation and has won a series of awards, including eight Emmys and two Golden Globes. The series took home trophies for best television seriesdrama and best actress (Elizabeth Moss) at both the Golden Globes and the Emmys. The novel centers around the emergence of a theocratic dystopia in the United States when extremist religious terrorists, who call themselves the Sons of Jacob, kill the President and most members of Congress, suspend the Constitution, and establish the Republic of Gilead. Military commanders run this new police state in which they divide women into social classes determined by their interpretation of the Biblical subordination of women in the Old

Testament. As the ability to bear children has decreased greatly in this dystopian world because of a toxic environment, the leaders, called the commanders, focus their gender hierarchy on forcing fertile women, known as the handmaid’s, to procreate. Women are forced into the roles of Wives, Handmaids, Aunts, Marthas, and Econowives. Handmaids are fertile women abducted and forced into re-education camps in Gilead run by the Aunts. After their re-education, they are assigned to a commander and his barren wife. The handmaid’s job is to produce a child that the couple will raise; if the handmaid is successful, she is assigned to a new couple to start the process again. The commanders claim to model their society on the story of Jacob, in which Jacob’s wives, Rachel and Leah, could not initially conceive and thus had their two handmaids bear children for them. Each commander also has Marthas (maids and cooks to serve the family). Finally, the society includes Econowives, lower class women, who are forced to procreate with their husbands. All women, regardless of their station, are forbidden the right to read, own property, or choose their own clothing—they wear clothing synonymous with their station. The handmaid wears a long scarlet dress and cloak and a white bonnet. The book centers around protagonist, Offred, a handmaid who is forced against her will to bear children for Fred and his wife, Serena Joy. Offred is not her real name—it means “of Fred,” to whom she now belongs. Offred was abducted while trying to flee America for Canada with her husband Luke and her daughter. Throughout the novel, as Offred adjusts as best as she is able to her enslaved predicament, she has flashbacks of her previous life that inspire her to eventually join a secret, resistance movement known as May Day. The novel sheds a light on a variety of other social oppressions such as treatment of homosexuals. Homosexuality is viewed

by Tess Rowland

as an absolute crime, punishable by death. Anyone who resists the Republic of Gilead and its teachings are put to death. Many fans of the book perceive the development of the series as particularly timely. Atwood told Eliana Dockterman of Time Magazine (September 7, 2017) that when she wrote her book, she tried to imagine the sort of totalitarian society that could develop in the United States. She determined that “It wouldn’t be communism. No surprises there. I thought it would have to be some sort of theocracy, like the 17th century in the U.S. I was always very interested in the Salem witch trials, another instance of controlling women.” Upon its initial publication, Atwood said a common criticism was that people could not imagine this type of totalitarian society emerging in America. But since Donald Trump and Mike Pence have moved into the White House, she rarely hears that anymore. Atwood also argues that throughout history, women have suffered from sexual subjugation and still do. “The control of women and babies has been a part of every repressive regime in history. This has been happening all along. I don’t take it lightly when a politician says something like a pregnancy can’t result from a rape because a woman’s body knows it and rejects it. There’s an under¬current of this [type of thinking]. And then it rises to the surface sometimes. But The Handmaid’s Tale is always relevant, just in different ways in different political contexts. Not that much has changed.” For many, the book has become deeply relevant today. At the Women’s March on January 20, 2017, some women held the sign “Make Margaret Atwood fiction again.” And I myself wonder, when we live in a time when America elected a President who promotes rape culture, blatant misogyny, and the discrimination of LGBTQ+ individuals, who is to say that The Handmaid’s Tale could not become a reality?

Join us

for our 2nd Her Stories meeting We will continue our review of The Handsmaid Tale, discuss addressing the following questions as well as any topic the group introduces.

1. In Gilead, women are classified as Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, or Aunts, but Moira refuses to be categorized as such. What does she symbolize in the novel? 2. What does the bookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s last line mean to you? 3. What do you think happens to Offred in the end? 4. The book starts with 3 quotes; how do they relate to the novel? 5. How do you think this novel relates to the present? 6. What do the historical notes at the end of novel mean to you? 7. Do you think such a society could take control in America? 8. Is this a feminist novel and a feminist television show?

April 20, 3-4PM Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Resource Center Living Room Marquette 315

Education

LGBTea

Transgender representation in the fashion world by Trent Dardar

or decades, beauty standards and upcoming fashion trends have been presented on runways across the world. Until recent years, trans women and queer identifying people have usually been left out of the spotlight. The most recent runways have proven to be some of the most diverse ever seen. In the United States, there have been drag queens, transsexual women and men, and gender queer folks stomping runways at fashion weeks across the country. The fashion paradigm shift does not stop in the U.S. US Magazine reported that India recently showcased their first trans model named Anjali Lama at India’s largest fashion event. Also, a transgender German model named Benjamin Melzer was put on the cover of Men’s Health Germany in 2016. In a time when many countries seem to be regressing rather than progressing into a more inclusive world, the fashion industry is sending a strong message of

Emmaline Bouchillon

ing in the United States, it is so important that these trans-women continue to break boundaries in the fashion industry so that transgender community can begin to have a stronger influence in the fashion world. There are now even some transgender specific modeling agencies in NYC! How beautiful the world of fashion will be with the inclusion of these beautiful people. The fight for inclusion is not nearly over in this industry that is predominantly driven by white cisgendered people, but progress is on the rise. Not very long ago, it would have been impossible to imagine a transgender model on the cover of Vogue, but in February 2017, Vogue Paris gave Brazilian model Valentina Sampaio the cover as well as a spread to celebrate transgender identities. Fellow LGBTQIA+ folks, the spotlight is on us for once. It’s time to take charge and get noticed! Long gone are the days where we hide in silence!

You are what you wear?

vividly remember receiving my first dress code violation back in high school. It was a hot day as it usually is in New Orleans. I had just bought a new dress and was excited to wear it to school. I arrived at school and no later than 2nd period was I stopped by the school security guard. I asked him what was wrong and his reply was, “Dresses must come to the knee.” For some background information, I am by no means short, and my legs constitute about 80 percent of my body. Therefore, finding dresses that came to my knee was as much of a challenge as naming three people who sing better than Beyoncé. My punishment for wearing a dress in 90 degree weather was to walk around school wearing a P.E.

resistance against more repressive regimes by broadening its conception of beauty and style to include those minority groups. In an official report from The Fashion Spot (TFS), the 2017 spring runways were named the most inclusive in history. While this year’s runway showed a significant increase in diversity for people of color and transgender people, the statistics are still quite low overall. Out of all of the shows studied in New York, London, Paris, and Milan, only 25% of the models were people of color and, even worse, only 11% were transgender models. Even though the numbers leave much to be desired, I’m proud to say that 8 of the 10 transgender models walking this season were part of New York Fashion Week! These models included Leyna Bloom, Maya Monès and Aurel Haize Odogbo, and Carmen Carrera—a former drag queen contestant on RuPaul’s Drag Race who has since come out as a trans-woman. During this intense political climate we are experienc-

by Lauryn Langford

uniform. At the pivotal age of 14, I began to realize that the way I dressed affected the way others perceived me. This realization made me feel self-conscious about my body. As much as I loved being able to express myself through clothing, I began to obsess over whether or not my outfits were too “slutty” or too “frumpy.” As I got a bit older and entered my angsty teen years, I began to care less of what others thought, but it wasn’t always easy. Whether we like it or not, the truth is that our appearance is the first thing people use to judge us. We live in a society with many social norms that makes it scary to freely express ourselves. Women and members of the LGBT+ community often

face the most judgement. Everyone should be able to express themselves through clothing without fear of being assaulted or receiving unwanted comments. Feminism is about liberation; it is not about deciding what others should and shouldn’t do. People who grow out their body hair aren’t more free than those who don’t; women who wear short skirts aren’t asking for it; and Muslim women who choose to wear hijabs are not oppressed. As humans we often exhibit a multitude of characteristics that are not mutually exclusive. Wearing clothes you love and feel comfortable in is a form of self-expression; however, our identities are more than what we wear.

Anything you can do... Competition within the workplace

ompetition—an activity that we all know all too well. Whether it is in a game or rivalry between two entities, it is bound to take place between humans. However, competition is prevalent in the workplace as well. It might emerge between two or more companies and even employees working for the same company. But why does this happen? If employees are working towards a common goal within a business, why do they feel the need to compete? Regarding men, some may say that it is in their nature to compete in the workplace, but what about women? Do they not have the same competitive drive that pushes them towards success? Are women as competitive as men? Can women be competitive against each other in business? Psychologist Noam Shpancer explored these questions in a thought-provoking Psychology Today article, “Feminine Foes: New Science Explores Female Competition.” Shpancer notes that hundreds of years ago Charles Darwin connected male competition “to gain the attention and reproductive favor of females.” Contrarily, traditional psychological studies of women concluded that females were “passive and uncompetitive.” However, recent studies reveal that women are highly competitive for the same reasons as men: reproduction. Shpancer contends: “As women come to consider being prized by men their ultimate source of strength, worth, achievement and identity, they are compelled to battle other women for the prize.” If this is the case, when all women consider themselves as their ultimate source of strength, worth, achievement, and identity wouldn't competition resolve? Executive coach Bonnie Marcus argues in “The Dark Side of Female Rivalry in the Workplace,” published in Forbes, that the male-dominated conditions of the workplace foster female rivalry: “The male dominated workplace sets women up to compete due to increase scrutiny and scarcity of top leadership positions for women.” To make themselves feel better, Marcus argues, women may feel the need to chastise or belittle women whom they perceive a threat. They may also partici-

by Hadori Bukle

pate in covert competition, which involves “winning” by indirectly putting the other person down. Psychologically, there may be a reason for such behavior. For instance, Marcus points out that each person has an aspect of their personality called the “locus of control.” The locus of control describes the degree in which individuals believe they can control events. An individual’s locus of control can be either internal or external. Internal locus means that the person believes that they have control of their life. External locus refers to the belief that an individual’s life is controlled by noninfluential environmental factors or “by chance or fate.” Researchers have found that women tend to have an external locus, which cause them to feel defensive and more likely to compete against each other in the workplace (forbes.com). But what about men and women competing against each other? Can the differences between the two genders be because one’s competitive nature or is it deeply rooted in the salary and management role gaps? A study by the University of Chicago that was covered by ABC News, found that men are 94 percent more likely to apply for positions that are dependent on outperforming fellow employees. Through this type of competition, men can earn more than their counterparts and receive more promotions, especially in management positions. The study showed that women tend to back away from a competitive workplace, while men thrive in it. Altogether, they found that men “went for jobs that paid the most for personal performancethe higher the fee, the more they applied.” Women often decided to look for jobs that gave them the opportunity to be a part of a team, decreasing the amount of competition. This does not necessarily mean that women cannot compete against men. In fact, a study conducted by researchers from Harvard Business School found that women are competitive but not in particular environments, concurring with the competitive performance intensive work environment described in the University of Chicago study. The researchers conducted a study involving 236 men and women. The test subjects had to take a verbal and math test by either cooperating or competing

against each other. They were then given a partner: male against male, female against male, and female against female. Competition played into the experiment when the test subjects were told that the person with the highest score will receive a payment. Cooperation came into play when the partners received a payment based on their amount of correct answers. They found that there was not a significant difference between pairs that competed against one another and those that worked together. Overall, men performed better on the math exam while women performed better on the verbal exam. The participants performed better when they were paired with someone of the same gender. Ultimately, their researched showed that “men and women work together differently when they're dependent [on each other] versus independent and when they work on stereotypically male or female tasks." Competition is not a negative phenomenon. It is always healthy to have competition within a workplace to improve, but how can women build each other up through healthy competition? Although healthy cooperation is not an impossible feat, it requires some work. The key to healthy competition in the workplace for women is to recognize that it is a competitive environment. A competitive environment should not distress anyone, but women can encounter men and women that are not the friendliest. Another thing to consider, is that building woman-to woman relationships can be a very good thing in the workplace. Since women often feel out of place in their line of work, confiding in one another can help each party fight through that barrier, especially if they work in a place that generally has more men. If any problems do occur between women at work, it is important to handle it in a professional manner to avoid making a conflict worse. Lastly, women should build each other up through healthy competition because they are ultimately competing with themselves. Women compete because they feel threatened and find qualities in others that they do not find in themselves. By focusing on how women can individually better themselves, the force that can drive towards success will continue to grow.

Education

Camelia

Assume the position by Lena Jaffe

by Challen Palmer

Painted bodies brushed in shop! posed poised propped. ‘Sit pretty.’ ‘Suck in.’ ‘Smile.’

a city girl can’t be made out of anybody here

Commands from societies hand.

Not damsels, Just damned. So? Say when. When. Enough.

a stem pushes through the concrete and mud city of steel and iron giving life to crème petals and rich leaves

through the days crème bleeds into pinks and blues royal velvets

Enough painted faces, no more heels to fill, so long assumed roles, fuck coming at will.

daydreams of second lines with sunsets of red and gold drew me to the flower

We are bones we are skin.

fingertips tingling from the contact petals falling at the touch

It doesn’t matter the color, shape, sex we’re in.

the famous flower of Birmingham she loves you not

No labels. No bins.

(after “Famous Flower of Manhattan” by The Avett Brothers)

Nobody wants to be told what box they’re in. Gabrielle Hawkins

Fat girl by Serena Hill

Nothing is funnier than a fat girl Trying to look good, right? If she hasn’t lost the weight, She’ll be falling out of her dress all night. She doesn’t know it’s got a rip in the back From the dance she did to try to get in it. It would be even funnier if she did lose the weight, Because the word fat would still follow her, Like a song stuck in her head, Soprano, tenor, and all those round sounds. She asks to kiss boys because Confidence is sexy. Confidence is desperate. Confidence is orange and red And it looks so wrong on her body-type. Isn’t she supposed to feel ugly? They put sugar in her hand because They think it’s what she wants. She thinks the gesture is sweet, So she’ll put it in her mouth And make it part of who she is. The boys don’t think they’re lucky Unless she wears those jeans, The ones that kiss her thighs Like they want to. The boys won’t listen to her thoughts, But they’ll hear her apologize for taking up space, And they’ll give her treats for it. They won’t hold her hands, But they still expect her to turn her palms out At their request. Gabrielle Hawkins She just wants to be seen, right? Fat girls can’t really feel anything, after all. They can only taste What everyone else refuses to see And live their lives trying to be “The Funny One,” Or “The Nice One,” Or the one who the boys dance on in the dark, but won’t hug, So they don’t feel the shame of being the one Who’s touching the fat girl.

Loud, muted voice by Ragine Green “Somebody almost ran off with all of my stuff Mrs.Wanida; they did Ms.Wanida! They did! Ms. Simms, I felt the pain of someone running off with little ole me.” This isn’t just another fable about the world’s most precious jewels being stolen. But a story. A story about the hidden voice. A voice hidden so deep in the red, that black; blank was never a color nor space seen. The sound of the voice was loud and clear, muted. Experience. Burning yet alive, but soon blank, black. Red was more than fire. More than burning, wounded. Red came streaming down, downward; floor puddle. The red soon turned to clear and yet it still streamed down, downward. From up top. It’s normal, he said. It won’t hurt, he said. Just be a good girl, he said. Approval was all I wanted. Just a little pat on the shoulder to be accepted. A pat? A pat alright. A pat on the ass. Clock passing clockwise slowly it felt. Felt like forever to be exact. Only a few minutes to be exact. Staring off into space. Trying not to cry. It really hurts. But “big girls don’t cry”. The discomfort, damage was fire. Fire breaks or creates the change of girl to women. Creating a sense of quietness and pause. Was this really happening? The aftermath: a bubbly little girl with emotional and mental scars. A bubbly little girl with knowledge of what exactly is sexual intercourse. A bubbly little girl, the creator of emotional whirlwinds. A hurricane of fire. The feeling of hurt and pain spread like a wild fire. No feeling nor emotion, just numb; just wind and smoke. For me it was calm before the storm. Very ironic to say that fire is mellow, but that’s what she is, It was not during the action that my inner action tries to form an outer reaction, but it was stuck. Yes, stuck, no stick. His stick inside bought hurt, yes hurt in the form of years. Yes, six. Six years later when I realized that this secret hurt me deep inside. This was worse than a whopping. This was worse than a timeout. This in fact was different. Six changed a bubbly little girl to a viscous mean teenager. ‘Hurt people, hurt people’, they say. I did not see it as suffering. Actually, it was a form of revenge. Taking back myself. Letting everyone see the monster that he created.

(after For Colored Girls Who Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Enuf by Ntozake Shange) 39

Women and Selective Service

n 2016, California Representative Hunter Duncan proposed an amendment to the defense bill or the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment declared that, like men, women who turn eighteen after January 1, 2018, would be required to enter their names for the United States Selective Service (the draft). Representative Duncan sent this added amendment forward as a dare to his colleague's progressive language when dealing with gender equality. However, the amendment did not pass the floor, and the defense bill the Obama administration signed did not include the Selective Service amendment. The progression of this amendment has met another roadblock in Congress. Senator James Lankford and Jim Inhofe recently asked the floor to remove the provision altogether. Earlier this year in April, Congress decided to take another look at this amendment. Representative Mac Thornberry stated that the commission study had no timeline, and they do not know when the amendment would come to the floor again. Thornberry also stated that “the question of the study should not be whether to include women into the Selective Service, but rather why should there be a Selective Service at all in this era of an all-volunteer force?” If the representatives do not wish to disband the Selective Service, then we must push to make it an equal representation of the citizens of this country. Republican Senator John McCain proclaimed that “men, women, and members of military leadership, believe that it is only fair, since we opened all aspects of the military to women that they should also register for Selective Services.” Despite the outcome, the proposition received massive bipartisan support. Though the Selective Service is not active, and has not been active since the Vietnam war, men are still required to enter their name once they come of age. The inclusion of women would serve as a symbolic advancement for total gender equality within this nation. General Robert B. Neller contends that "all who can fight for this country should do so," especially since defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter

Empowerment

by Sarah Donaldson

has ordered an “open all” combat positions for women. This means that every position in the military is open to women. It is no surprise that this topic has spurred mass debate as well as support. Advocates for the amendment claim that there are no reasons women should not be included in the Selective Service, as women are also citizens of this country. The Pentagon also argues that women should be included in the United States Selective Service and has made this recommendation as of October 25, 2017. Pentagon reports state that including women in the Selective Service would initiate advances of future military benefits associated with the system. The military is open to all genders, and the Selective Service should either reflect that, or be disbanded altogether. It is estimated that eleven million women will be affected by this amendment. The February Rasmussen Report revealed that 49% of all U.S. voters believed that women should be required to register for the Selective Service. While 61% of male voters believed women should be required to register, only 38% of women voters agree. It was calculated that 52% of female citizens opposed the advancement of this amendment at the time it was introduced, while only 38% percent supported it (another 10% were undecided). The report also conveys that only 29% of voters believed that the draft should still exist, while 58% of the population still oppose the draft with 14% of the population registered as unsure. Nonetheless it was reported that many women do not wish to be a part of the Selective Service. On all sides of the spectrum, concern of the inclusion of women in the Selective Service persists. The results from the report leads to another question: should there be a required draft for this nation? However, it should be noted that most of men in the nation also do not wish to be registered in the Selective Service. The Rasmussen Report also revealed that voters under 40 opposed the existence of the military draft more than their elder generations. Thus, the Selective Service, should accurately represent the diversity of the military. This career is no longer reserved

for the males of our society and should not be represented nor should it be treated as such. The Women’s Resource Center asked Loyola students of all genders what they thought about the inclusion of women in the Selective Service. Most of the students felt undecided as to whether women should be included. Those who opposed the amendment did so because they feared for the future of their younger sisters and future daughters. However, should they not fear for their brothers and sons? Many men at Loyola brought up such a point. The results were not unlike that from the Rasmussen Report. The fear for relatives and future children is a natural fear that should not be dismissed. However, one must remember that the Selective Service is not active. One must also recall that the goal and desire for feminism is to achieve full gender equality. Men are required by law to register for the Selective Service. It is not fair for women to opt out of registration because of a fear for sisters, and future daughters. Would it not be fair to say that people would and do fear for their brothers and future son’s lives when they must sign their names into the Selective Service? President Donald Trump’s position of the Selective Service is unclear. He has not made any actions to address the subject. When asked on his position Trump responded vaguely stating that “we have a politically correct military… getting more and more politically correct every day.” However, whether he will act on the issue is ambiguous. Allowing for the exclusion of women in Selective Services illustrates a bias that women are incapable of defending their own nation. Another bias that is emphasized is that a woman's life is more delicate and precious than their male counterpart. Therefore, if the Selective Service continues to exist in this country, it should be representative of all its citizens. Not allowing women to register for the draft would be a mistake, considering the Selective Service only serves as a symbolic piece of our military at present.

Empowerment

Women in politics A new Loyola student organization

by Daniel DeBarge and Challen Palmer

ccacia “Casey” Grant is the founder and co-president of Loyola’s new student organization, Women in Politics. Grant, and the fourteen other women who joined the new organization last spring, is determined to empower women’s voices. She proposed forming the organization in March 2017 after completing the Elect Her Workshop facilitated by Jessica Kelly of Running Start and co-sponsored by Loyola Women’s Resource Center and Tulane University’s Newcomb College Institute. Within two weeks of completing the workshop, Grant worked with several other attendees of Elect Her, including Nikki Stone, Rula Thabata, Johannah Williams, and Camille Didelot to charter Women in Politics, form an e-board, and recruit members. The e-board worked with the Women’s Resource Center to bring Elect Her back to New Orleans in November and are now working toward encouraging women to run for student government. To develop a deeper understanding of the goals of the leaders of Women in Politics, we interviewed five members of the e-board, Accacia “Casey” Grant (founder and copresident), Nikki Stone (co-president), Rula Thabata (vice president), Camille Didelot (publicist), and Johannah Williams (secretary). Why did you want to form this group at Loyola, and why is it important to be a part of it? Grant: After attending Running Start's “Elect Her” workshop last year, I was moved to start this group immediately after (literally as we were leaving the workshop). I wanted to start Women in Politics at Loyola because I feel that women have a voice […] in politics and deserve to be supported throughout the campaigning process and the election season. The future is

female, but everyone disregards a woman's voice. The political world is composed of older white men and not enough women, it is important to be a part of [Women in Politics] because it shows that you support the inclusiveness of women and what they have to say when it comes to politics.

women should be in politics but do not know how. Politics as we understand it in the general terms is not all encompassing of what - politics- actually is. For example, politics are women’s health, education policy, university guidelines.

Didelot: Women are extremely underrepresented in politics, which is problematic because it doesn’t allow almost half of the population to have a voice - and women who are involved in politics are typically white, which does not allow all the community’s needs to be met. To have a diverse group of people at the table will allow us to thrive. It’s important to actively promote women getting involved in politics, especially at Loyola, because statistics have proven that women are more likely to engage in politics later in life if they also have at a high school or college level.

Williams: I wanted to be involved in the forming of Women in Politics because of the energy and excitement of the women I worked with during a political workshop called Elect Her. This program held at Tulane in conjunction with [Loyola’s] Women’s Resource Center, was put on by Running Start, a nonprofit dedicated to inspiring young women to run for office. While at this extremely powerful and educational event, I was able to meet and interact with other civic minded women who were prepared to uplift and support each other in the interest of getting more women politically engaged and interested in running for office. This feeling of support ran through the entire workshop and inspired the women in attendance from Loyola to come together to ensure that we brought that same focus and support back to our campus. Elect her led to the forming of Loyola’s Women In Politics, and our organization [hosted] Elect Her on our Campus on November 11th. Workshops like Elect Her and organizations like Women In Politics are exceedingly important because, not only do they generate support and political interest, but they create a space for women in a place where we are underrepresented and foster relationships and connections that can last for a lifetime.

Thabata: The idea to form this group came from Casey Grant, and it is vital to have an organization focused on women’s involvement in politics. It is important to be a part of it because regardless of one’s political views, there are issues which pertain to women across the nation. Gender equality and equity is a political issue and more

Stone: The statistics that show the number of women involved in politics are very disappointing. Women represent slightly less than 20% of the United States Congress. This gender imbalance in power and under-representation of half our population can easily lead to destructive decisions. Women in Politics at Loyola was formed to

“The future is female, but everyone disregards a woman’s voice”

serve as a common ground for all women and men who recognize this problem in society and want to actively advance towards change. Every time a woman runs for office, she shows the women and girls around her that it’s a viable and important opportunity. Women in Politics at Loyola is dedicated to supporting and learning from qualified women leaders who are working to make a positive difference in modern politics. How does feminism need to evolve in order to create a larger support-line for women running for political offices? Grant: I feel that the term “feminism” is not as diverse as America has made it seem to be. “White Feminism” is a thing, and I believe that is what most people follow. The same issues a white woman faces are not the same issues that women of color face. If

we could follow one inclusive definition of feminism then that would begin to create an even bigger support for women doing literally anything.

tersectional and inclusive. Feminism as a movement is like any movement, it is growing and changing as the times do. To create a larger support-line for women running for political offices, women should create Stone: Feminism can create a larger support networks for each other regardsupport-line for women running for politi- less of political views. When one’s political cal offices by actively supporting qualified views align with another’s, however, they women leaders who are trying to advance are more likely to support the policies. The in politics. It is important that we show patriarchy causes people to perceive that visible and loud support to those strong because women do not support a woman’s politics, they are not supporting her. That is women candidates who are fighting to make a positive change. This type of change simply not factual. Women being in politics requires much more than a “like” on social and supporting one another includes women mobilizing others to go to the polls. media. It requires voting, campaigning, The beauty of democracy is options and educating, and more. There are countless civil society working to affect policy. women who have proven that females are more than capable of handling political positions with great success. It’s up to women Didelot: I don’t think that feminism needs to evolve—I think rather more people need leaders to step up, run for office, and win. to realize how encompassing, inclusive, and intersectional the definition of feminism Thabata: Feminism needs to be more inactually is. Women need to support other women overall—not saying that you need to vote for a woman if you don’t agree with her policies—but rather women should be actively bringing each other up than letting them feel as though they aren’t qualified or good enough to be where they are. It is also the job of men to be doing the same Williams: In order to generate more support for women running for political office, feminism needs to evolve in a way that is particularly intersectional, especially in the areas of race, economic status and political ideology. Women and feminists need to realize the fact that there is not nearly enough representation for women in our government, and that the most important part of that representation is not the political ideology, race or economic status of female candidates, but that women as a whole, are represented, even if our ideals are not completely identical. We need to uplift women who are interested in holding office and give them the platform to obtain the representation we desperately need. DeBarge: What are your plans for the future in politics, will we be seeing you in Congress, or even the White House, someday?

From Left to Right: Rhula Thabata, Casey Grant, and Johannah Williams

Grant: I would honestly love to work in public policy and creating legislation. So maybe you will see me in Congress someday.

Stone: I’ve been a counselor at a summer program called Louisiana Girls State for the past three years. It is a political program that allows prestigious girls from all over the state to come together and create a functioning mock government. Every year it is such a rewarding feeling to see these promising and ambitious future women leaders in action and to be such a big part of their learning experience. I plan on sticking with this program for as long as I possibly can. I also plan on attending law school right after graduation. I’m hoping to become a member of Louisiana’s State Legislature one day, but my long-term goal is to represent Louisiana in the US Senate. Didelot: My dream is to work for an international non-profit that educates women. Michelle Obama’s Let Girls Learn was my dream before it was shut down by the current administration. But there are plenty others, such as The Malala Fund, that I would love to work for. From there, potentially working within foreign policy

courtesy of Jessica Kelly

suited to my skills, that I can fill by running for political office, I would run without a doubt. I recognize the importance of representation and wouldn’t hesitate to create Thabata: My plans for the future include visibility and to inspire women and girls to running for political office, or being the head of a policy firm. I would like to imple- run for office someday. ment policy that makes it difficult to challenge the Violence Against Women Act and As the leaders of Women in Politics pointed out to us in each of the interviews, expand funding for transitional housing and women’s shelters. I would like to create women (especially women of color) are some of the least represented groups in a policy where those who choose to invest government. A government by the people in such programs through private entities should be reflective of its populous. Poliwill get it subsidized. Other policies I am interested in include working on equal pay, tics, as the saying goes, decides who gets what, when, where and how. And many women’s health, and more. polarizing political issues revolve around Williams: My future plans include obtain- women. Without more women in office, ing a Masters in either Political Science or decisions regarding women are left to be Public Policy and staying involved in local made by male lawmakers. Women compolitics. I hope to also gain either a Juris prise 50.8% of the population. During the revolutionary period, colonists revolted Doctorate or Doctorate degree in Politiwith the popular slogan, “No taxation cal Science or Public Policy, as well. While without representation.” Centuries later, the I’d prefer to stay in the background of the political process or connected to grassroots revolution remains unfinished. efforts, I believe that if there is a need, to promote a peaceful international society would be pretty cool, too!

Running Start Running Start, based in Washington D. C., is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preparing women to run for political office. Running Start has found that when women serve as leaders of student organizations and of their university student bodies they are far more likely to run for political office when they graduate. The Running Start mission statement reads as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x153;By educating young women and girls about the importance of politics, and imbuing them with the skills they need to be leaders, we give women the running start they need to achieve greater political power. With an earlier start in politics, women will climb higher on the leadership ladder, allowing more women to share in the decision-making power of this country.â&#x20AC;? 44

A walk on the inked side

Interview with Danika Parker by Victoria Williams

f you’re reading this, more than likely, you have or have at least thought about getting a tattoo. As of 2016, the Harris Poll reports that 3 in 10 adults have at least one tattoo and nearly half of millennials have a tattoo. Moreover, 69% of us who do have a tattoo don’t stop at just one. As tattoos become more mainstream and acceptable, many of us are eager to visit our local tattoo shop and go under the needle in the hopes of being adorned with some awesome new art. Especially with social media at our fingertips, we are able to find great artists and view their portfolios online so we know exactly who we want to do our first (or next) tattoo! Often, many of us are curious as to how one becomes a tattoo artist or the experiences that led artists to where they are today. I was particularly curious about the experiences of female tattoo artists in the industry. Trying to succeed in any industry is tough, but being a woman trying to succeed in a male-dominated industry... let’s just say they have their work cut out for them. The tattoo industry is not like other industries. If there is an issue related to feeling discriminated against by an employer, tattoo parlors rarely have a human

resource department that processes such complaints. You are on your own. So how does one navigate such a career? Well I had the opportunity to explore that territory with the lovely Danika Parker! Danika is a tattoo artist who works out of the femaleowned tattoo shop “Tattoo Temple,” nestled here in New Orleans. She was kind enough to let me visit the shop and ask her my burning questions!

like eighth or seventh grade. My aunt’s best friend, she was a tattooer and she owned a shop and she would tell me from the time that I was like 12 years old, “I want you to be my apprentice once you get a little bit older.” The only thing was that the shop was so far away and I was young and I couldn’t drive. So that didn’t end up working out, but I would say 12 or 13 years old I had it in my head that one day it would be really cool. It’s just something that I never thought I would actually be able to do and I’m kinda shy so I never would have been able to walk into a tattoo shop and ask for an apprenticeship. So I just had it in my head that it would be a really cool job, but I don’t think I’m ever really gonna do it because, like I said, I would have never had the guts to go into a shop. Tattooing found me, so it ended up just kinda being my destiny in the end.

When were you first exposed to tattoos or tattooing? I think I remember early on probably growing up my aunt, she was always covered in tattoos and I was really close to my aunt, so I always looked up to her and all the tattoos she had. She had like full sleeves and everything and tattoos all over her legs, and I knew then that I really wanted tattoos growing up. I’ve always been an artist so I knew that eventually one day I wanted to make that into my career if possible; so it Did you have any concerns about enterwas a lot in my head from the time that I ing such a male-dominated industry? was probably like 10 years old or so. Not really. I think that it kinda pushed me more, if anything. From the time that When did you realize that you wanted to I started apprenticing, I’ve only worked be a tattoo artist? with guys, and I think it pushed me to It definitely was a thought in high school, work harder and made me into the artist I even as early as middle school, I would say, am today. The guys that I worked with at

really bothered me. I just pushed through everything. There were a lot of hard times during my apprenticeship when I would just cry to myself in the bathroom everyday and want to quit, but was like “No, I’m gonna show them one day!”

first when I was apprenticing were really hard on me; they would pick on me all the time, play jokes on me, all kinds of stuff. I definitely think going into it, it didn’t scare me, and I was excited. What brought you to New Orleans? My mom. She took me here about 3 years ago for the first time. My mom loves it here. She paid for my trip and she was like “I’m gonna take you here and you’re gonna love it.” She just thought that the city reminded her of me, and she knew that I would really love it and from the first time she took me here and I got off the plane, I completely fell in love. I thought it was crazy that people lived here and I told myself that I would love to live here one day. So couple years later, I left LA, and I’ve been here for the past 9 months or so. Have you experienced sexism whether directly or indirectly in your line of work? Yeah, I believe so. I know there have been a lot of occurrences, but one thing that first comes to mind was being an apprentice, and my mentor, even after I was done apprenticing and I had my own clientele and working in the shop and making my money, he would still make me do all the grunt work. I still had to scrub the toilet everyday, I still had to clean the whole shop. He had so many other guys working there, and even with new apprentices after me that were males, I still had to clean even though they were the apprentices. I always saw that as me being the only girl and he knows that I’m used to doing it anyway; so he just makes me do it, you know what I’m saying? There are a lot of other things that I could sit here for awhile and think about, but it definitely happens a lot. I think that guys just look at you less. It’s definitely male-dominated, but like I said, it never

Do you feel a sense of empowerment being a tattoo artist considering the history of oppressive beauty standards held in our society and the designation of gendered jobs for women in particular? I do. I feel a lot of pride as a female tattooer, especially being successful, and as I become more successful, it kinda becomes like a slap in the face to my coworkers that. When I started, [they] didn’t think I’d last a week and would pick on me, and it would just push me to be better than all of them, and I am. Would you say that the industry is still male dominated or do you think it’s’ becoming more balanced? I think it is becoming more balanced, but I definitely think that it’s still male-dominated, but it’s definitely evolving a lot, which is really cool to see. You see more shops where it’s just all female tattooers, which is really cool. Here at the studio, it [started out] just me and Natasha. We have another guy, Jordan, who recently started working with us again, but I really like the female vibe. I think it’s a different change, you know? And when I go to New York, I think that it’s going to be an all female shop too, so that’ll be exciting to see. I like working with women, it’s cool.

of competition in LA; it’s huge; there’s so many tattooers, there’s so many tattooers that do the same style as me. Here in New Orleans, maybe there’s a lot less female tattooers. There’s a lot less tattooers here in general and definitely a lot less tattooers that do blackwork, intricate line work, sacred geometry, etc. The clientele is a lot different. I feel like as the artist that you are, you attract clients that are similar to you or are into the same things. It’s just more southern here, a lot more conservative, I guess you could say, especially outside of New Orleans. Money is different. I don’t make as much money, can’t charge as much here. The subjects are different, which I’m enjoying! A lot of people here want to get things that are inspired by New Orleans, which I really love since I’m really passionate about the state and the city. I always have fun tattooing things like gators and swamp scenes and stuff like that, which is something I don’t really get to do in LA, which is another reason I came here because I’m just super inspired by the city, and I knew I’d get to tattoo a lot of things that were inspired by it as well. Finally, do you have any advice for women who want to become tattoo artists themselves? I would say, go about it the right way. Seek out an apprenticeship, don’t teach yourself, don’t try to buy a kit online. There is a lot to know; there is a lot to consider. It’s a very serious job. Some people think they can just buy a machine online and know what they’re doing, but are a lot of levels to it. It took me over a year just to learn the basics. Get your portfolio together, create everyday, draw everyday, make sure you have a lot of material for people to see and to show the person you might want to apprentice under. Make sure that you also choose your mentor wisely and you’re not just gonna get taught by any random gross shop. Just art everyday, nonstop creating and drawing and putting that energy out into the universe.

I’ve heard of a phenomenon in the industry where male artists will consider the work of female artists to be “cute.” Do you think there is an issue amongst the tattoo industry with female tattoo artists and their art not being taken seriously? Has this happened to you or do you think it exists? I think that there are some female tattooers who do have a cutesy style, but there are tattoo artists that have a darker vibe to them, so I think it could go both ways. I With so many new female artists endon’t think female tattooers are only known tering the industry and creating their own for that kind of work. space, I think we can expect to see some great progress for female tattooers. As long Do you have a difference in your experias there are women like Danika out there ences working in LA versus working in who don’t back down from a challenge, New Orleans? women will continue to unite and grow Definitely. It’s a completely different world. together, despite the hurdles that lie ahead I wanted to bring my style here to New in their careers. Orleans because I feel like there is a lot

A Time for Choosing by Nicholas Mitchell

afé Reconcile sits in the part of New Orleans known as Central City. It’s a bustling establishment staffed by at risk youth where you can get a good meal for a fair price and is nestled among the interwar and more modern architecture of the old commercial district on Oretha Castle Haley Boulevard. It’s a favorite among the various community advocates of the city. The light patter of rain blends in with the din of conversations, plates, and the throwback Hip Hop and R&B music playing. I’m being treated to lunch today by civil rights veteran and reentry advocate Ronnie Moore. He’s having the stuffed bell peppers while I’m having the chicken po-boy. As we wait for our food, I read the news on my phone of the latest infighting within the political Left. Exasperated, I sit my phone down which is followed immediately with an Orleans parish accented “What’s on your mind, Nicholas?” Mr. Moore is peering over his glasses at me with genuine inquisitiveness. I stammer for a few seconds then I ask him “You are a veteran of many battles including the Civil

Rights movement. What do I as a young politically active man need remember in the years ahead?” He was silent for a minute and his eyes narrowed in contemplation. Mr. Moore sighed and spoke: “You’re at the beginning of this movement. The hardest part of social justice movements is that you have to come to terms with the fact that you will never know what the end looks like. You’ll try and say things about how racism will die out in two generations, but you can’t know that so don’t focus on that. People eagerly want the quick win and when it doesn’t come, they fall apart. Victory will come in its own time and will take on the appearance of something you can’t even fathom; but defeat will happen quickly. Don’t stop fighting until you win. Focus on the evil in front of you and confront it. You don’t need precedent or history on your side. You just need to be dedicated and right.” “What do you mean that we don’t need a precedent?” I fired back quickly. He smiled at me and responded When we were trying to get civil rights, we had no precedent. It had never happened before. We made a lot of it up as

we went along. When Thurgood Marshall went before the Supreme Court with the Brown case, he had no legal precedent supporting his argument. He had to make one up. Don’t be afraid of improvising and making it up as you go along. There’s no playbook for this.” “So what should we be doing?” I responded. “Respond according to your ability because that’s what you are responsible for. Not everyone can march or debate on a stage and that’s okay.” Our food arrived and we ate in relative silence. As we left the Café, the rain was coming down at a steady pace and filled the air with the scent of freshwater on pavement. Mr. Moore turned towards me and said through a warm smile, “Remember, Nicholas; social justice is about human progress. Keep that in your heart and you’ll never go wrong.” I responded, “I have a fear that my generation has a broken sense of social justice. What should we remember about social justice?” He paused for a second, “You have to be better than your oppressor and give the people something beautiful to embrace. It’s not enough to be

Victoria Williams

against something or someone; you have to be about something that has a place for everyone.” I nodded my head and we walked off into the rain. Those words from this veteran of the greatest social upheaval since the Civil War have remained with me. Today, the social and political landscape is dominated by one man or resistance to that one man: President Donald Trump. “Resistance” is the popular term for the opposition. The trauma of the 2016 presidential election was that the majority of the country was intellectually unprepared for it. “The resistance” is more a cultural movement than anything organized but has yet to decide how to actually resist because it does not know how to. The progressive alliance has balkanized into competing factions that magnify the smallest differences because the popular understanding of social justice, the unifying philosophy which held the various factions together and defines progressivism, is inadequate for the current crisis. We are against a great deal, but what are we for? “What does our social justice look like?” “Who are we?” and “Who do we want to be?” are questions that every

movement must wrestle with. Our most urgent act of civil disobedience against the current administration is to answer these questions. Before we can resist anything, we must remember how we arrived at this point in time. New Orleans is a tiny blue dot in the very red sea that is Louisiana. Truth be told, New Orleans is a libertine city rather than a liberal one where folks leave you to your habits and opinions as long as you don’t kill the vibe. This is the only way a city that revels in parades and the subsequent gridlock they cause can persist. But even New Orleans was not spared from the trauma of the election of Donald Trump. Trauma is the best way to describe what happened in the early hours of Wednesday, November 9, 2016. The world and the majority of the voting population stood in horror as the headline “Donald Trump elected president” swept across the world in every language like the first gale of a hurricane. I suspect many of Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ supporters felt a tightness in their chest as they realized that the first African American president of the United States would be followed by a man

who entered the political landscape on the back of the racist “birtherism” claim. The reelection of Barack Obama in 2012 changed progressives and how we understood social justice. We had largely become complacent and our complacency deceived us. The culture wars were coming to an end, the reactionary forces in America were largely consigned to black and white films and grainy color television images from a distant time. The Democratic primary itself served as validation of the obvious rightness of the progressive cause as its two primary contenders were a woman and a Jewish man who was an avowed Democratic Socialist. Of course those on the ground and in the most marginalized communities always knew that, given the makeup of most state legislatures and Congress, the reactionary nadir in American life was an illusion. It is important to note here what Trump is and what he is not. Trump is not the beginning of some new form of fascism or marks the end of some third version of Reconstruction; that is panic using hyperbole to express itself. Trump is at best a George Wallace-esqe politician in

the digital age and his rhetoric is strikingly American in a way that we incorrectly assumed had been buried in the dust bin of history The rise of Donald Trump signaled that the unquiet ghosts of the past were starting to stir. Trump’s ascendency to the presidency marks the victory of a reactionary movement in America over a pop cultural, complacent view of social justice that was never adequate to combat it. Social media captured that moment for posterity and will give students of history and political science doctorates in time. For those of us who are destined to have “lived through it” someday, the tweets and posts will be reminders of that trauma like a scar upon the body that aches every so often. The next afternoon, fairly numb and confused as to how we arrived at this point, I decided to take a walk through Audubon Park. I was not the only one in the park looking for some sense of levity, solace, or normalcy that day. All these blank faces in their work clothes seemed to wander the pathways lost in contemplation about what would happen next. They all seemed to radiate a feeling of deep confusion and nascent rage that emanated from their very souls. Events like the Inauguration Day protests and the Women’s March will be remembered historically but, looking back on that November day, the resistance was conceived in the popular culture in the smallest and most intimate places like an old park off the street car line in the fall of 2016. The resistance was born in the trauma of the holidays following the election. As soon as “friends-giving” and the friends holiday party replaced family gatherings across the country because a trans son or a gay daughter or a man with bi-racial children or the millions of people who wanted to make life a bit easier for their fellow human could not excuse how their family voted, the culture was irreparably changed. I have often wondered as I walk the oak shaded paths of Audubon Park since those first days after the election how many empty seats and empty plates stood as grim memorials of the cultural cost of Trump’s victory? How many parents, siblings, and cousins had to look at those reminders of how the protests had entered their own lives? How often did they try to comfort themselves with remarks about “snowflakes” to numb the pain caused by the unspoken realization that there was no “getting over this”? That is the first

thing the country as a whole has not fully grasped: “getting over it” was never going to happen. Despite current internal divisions between “the establishment” and “populists,” the emerging political identity of the Left was born in those autumn and winter days across the country as political differences became irreconcilable differences and America was reminded that the political is always personal in the harshest ways. The holiday season saw something angrier, something bolder, and something desperate come into being that still has not been fully articulated. Now, a year and a few months removed from the shock of those first days after Trump’s election we must begin to declare our own manifestation of social justice. At the center of the resistance is a coalescing social justice concept colored by a collective trauma. Some have voiced that these young advocates have to “get out of their feelings,” but I vehemently disagree. Anger is a prerequisite for social justice. So is fear. Some confuse this with hate or rage. Hate corrodes the holder rather than its target and rage is counterproductive. Rage is the emotion that tells a person to let it all burn to the ground even though they have no other place to go. Anger is the proper response to being marginalized and fear is the proper response to the various degradations that accompany it. I recall watching The Out List on HBO one slow afternoon when I heard the raspy with age but still trembling with conviction voice of HIV activist and co-founder of Gay Men’s Health Crisis and ACT UP Larry Kramer. He was discussing the legacy of those two groups when he said something that always floods my mind when the notion of collective anger comes up, “Every treatment for HIV that is out there is because of us. Not from the government. Not from any politician. Not from any drug company. We forced all those things into being by our anger and our fear, and that’s what anger can get you.” The various historical iterations of the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, LGBT rights movements all had anger and fear because society and its laws denied their collective humanity. A commitment to social justice gave that anger shape, direction, and a goal; and it gave the fear a mission. Social justice enabled them to speak. Social justice requires a radical commitment to improving the human condition and the creation of communities

where the dignity of all is defended; one cannot claim to be a practitioner absent this commitment. It can take on many forms and employ many strategies, but at the end of the day if it does not elevate the common good and defend the dignity of the individual, it is not socially just. People die for it. Fighting against systems that have a firm and often monetary interest in your subjugation is always fraught with danger. There’s nothing cute or novel about trying to stop or slow down systems that have amassed huge body counts without noticing. Sexism kills. Homophobia kills. Transphobia kills. Racism kills. Poverty kills. The intersectionality of oppression kills. When people invoke social justice and claim solidarity with targeted populations, they are resolving to oppose a system that has no problem with killing them for their betrayal of their caste. Social justice is a sober philosophy that demands we resist the brutality of murderous men without becoming like them. Achieving social justice is not easy nor is it supposed to be. The intersection of anger, fear, and social justice is “just anger” which is required to confront systems that would kill to protect themselves. Social justice requires a person to announce justice and denounce injustice to those who enable injustice. This is a hard lesson to learn as it demands that a person step outside of the safest of spaces into the unsafe society with the expressed goal of changing it. When I was graduate student, I was assigned to work as the assistant to a professor who, in time, began to mentor me. I was young, motivated, and proud. One sunny spring afternoon as we returned from giving a lecture on James Baldwin and his Oxford debate with William Buckley, one of the progenitors of the modern right, I mentioned to him that I had lost respect for Baldwin because he took the time to legitimize Buckley’s racism by debating him. The professor stopped walking, turned to me and said with a look that only an older man can give a younger man that has said something he once believed, “The country legitimizes racism, Nik. Buckley was the mainstream guy in that debate. Baldwin confronted him.” Of course, he was right although I didn’t want to admit it. Baldwin was punk, hip hop, radical, and prophetic in that 1965 debate with a man who represented a society that had no qualms about killing to protect the oppressive status quo at one of the most privileged universities in the

world because justice has to be announced to those who deny it and to show others that there is a better way. We must do no less than this today. Yet, it is not enough to resist what has arrived. Social Justice is broad but the world we wish to bring into being must be specific. My father is 70-years-old and came of age during the later days of Jim Crow. He often said of the crowds cheering Trump’s most repulsive rhetoric with unpleasant recognition from his own life, “great [as in “make America great again”] is all of us back in our places while they make the decisions about us for us.” The only political divide that matters in the United States today is the one between social justice and the reactionaries who seek to resurrect the previous cultural status quo which, at this point in time, can only be re-imposed brutally. Progressives want progress but towards what? It is not enough to be against Trump. Being against something does not confirm who you are. The resistance is torn between the false choice of being revolutionaries or being the intersection of a steward and prophet. The steward protects and advocates while the prophet elevates the voices of those who are silenced by society: the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the immigrant, and those who are different from the majority. What can be more revolutionary than caring for and helping empower communities left to suffer in the shadows of American prosperity? Is the progressive world view actually intersectional or is it the sum of its constituent parts that can be dropped or elevated depending on the current political triangulation? Is this intersectionality complex and reflective or is it only fixated on a simple binary of the oppressor and oppressed which dismisses those lived experiences that complicate a conveniently tidy worldview? I do not pretend to know the answer to these questions, but I do know that real social justice is deeply intersectional and takes the position that government is the one place where no one should be abandoned in the interest of political expediency. Social justice is an ancient concept that is striking in its diversity which is why progressivism coalesced around it. Reactionaries claim a cultural legacy that is mostly fiction. Progressives claim a millennia old mandate to make this life one worth living. There is disagreement regarding tactics and focus. Debates about feminism, LGBT rights, class, and identity politics are expressions of this diversity but under the

assumption that no one is expendable. No issue is too niche, from bilingual education to food stamps to trans right to use the bathroom free from intimidation. Progressives, albeit with far different words than I use here, advocate for an intersectional culture and celebrate the United States as a creole civilization where all can co-exist in solidarity rather than off of each other’s pain. With diversity comes opportunity for sharing and blending but conflict as well. Without a strict sense of interracial and intergender justice to confront the legacies of sexism and racism in our own enclaves, the progressive alliance will fail. Our inclusion must be genuine and pluralistic. This means that we must recognize the hard truths of history and move beyond protecting our own narratives if they are wrong in the interest of intellectual comfort. “Allyship,”a relationship of convenience, is inadequate for the current crisis. Nothing less than being accomplices in the preservation of human dignity is capable of weathering this storm. The progressive society is a creole society that requires great literacy to move through it because with cultural literacy comes respect. We often ignore the pure radicalism of interracial and intergender bonds and political alliances in American culture. In a country where racism and sexism were placed in the foundations of the society because their only function is to divide people which they do effectively, overcoming those divisions is nothing less than an act of rebellion. We must believe that all lives do in fact matter, not as a silencing tool used against the very real suffering of people at the hands of a brutal system, but because it is true. We must be complicit in solidarity, which is revolutionary. “Who are we?” and “Who do we want to be?” are not abstract questions- they are the actual political project we use to direct our efforts. We currently are living through the history that future generations will study when they discuss social justice. We do not know how this will end; this is the source of our progressive bickering. No matter what division we claim within the resistance, Victoria Williams

we all want the same thing. We want our grandchildren and their children to look at the history of this time and see how we won rather than it being the beginning of the final retreat of social justice and progress from American life. The path forward will take progressives far outside their enclaves. This alliance will live or die based on how far progressives will venture into the unsafe spaces with a message of common humanity and human progress. It will come down to a choice, as most things of importance always do. We can choose to surrender to mocking the decisions the reactionaries make about our lives or we can choose to fulfill our obligations to each other and build something better than we inherited. Whenever I need to gather my thoughts around Trump’s latest outrage and affront to human decency, I walk to Audubon Park which means that I’m out there pretty often. I think about the future. I wonder, if I ever have children, what the world will be like and how I will explain the rules to them? How will they in turn explain the rules to my grandchildren and the great grandchildren I may never meet? Most urgently, I wonder what will happen if the reactionaries win? As I write this essay the skies over New Orleans are gray, the sound and smell of heavy rain fills the air, and the wind faintly whistles through the oak trees; not unlike those early November days after the 2016 election. Mr. Moore was right when he said that the hardest part was not knowing what the end looks like. This is the price of living through times of upheaval and change. Progressives must decide for themselves if they are committed to the long haul, the short haul, or no haul; and only one of these is adequate for any resistance. To you, the reader of these idle thoughts-choose.

Psst...remember to save the date!