Pass.

“Let me buy you dinner,” he said with a smile. He looked at me with confidence. He was close to me in age, and handsome. His actions were presumably innocent. On the surface, there was no reason for me to refuse. He thought he was simply asking me on a date, but it implied a deeper meaning.

He didn’t phrase his proposal as a question, but I still had a choice. I could say yes and smile endearingly; I could take the sandwich he wanted to buy me and thank him for his generosity. But I knew that if I wanted to live with myself, the answer would be no. I could not carry on as a hypocrite. I could not relinquish my self-respect for a sandwich.

“Why?” I asked him. He was uneasy now. There was a possibility that I was going to turn down his advance. “Well,” he ventured, “I was hoping we could eat together. And you know…you’re a girl. If I’m in your company, I have to pay for you.”

He seemed so clueless. There was no reason he couldn’t just ask me to sit with him. I didn’t want to be rude, but I needed to make my point. I wanted him to see that I was as capable of caring for myself as he was. “Thank you for the offer, but I’ll pay for myself.” I turned to the cashier, “Can I get that to go please?”

The cashier’s scowl conveyed her annoyance. She didn’t see me as a person standing up for my right to equality and self-determination. She saw a stuck up, unappreciative girl. She silently handed me the sandwich and my change. I took both and made for the exit.

I am expected to adhere to a set of unwritten rules that men are not subject to. From an early age I was taught that the meaning in my life would come from the man I marry. The law says that I am allowed to work, but if I dedicate all of my energy to bettering myself instead of caring for others, I am considered unfeeling and selfish. If a man makes the same decision he is applauded. Double standards are rampant in this society. People cling to twisted traditions. I am going to take a different road. I want to use my talents to change the world. I won’t be lulled into just settling down with someone exceptional – I am going to be exceptional. And I won’t let a few admonishing glances get in my way.

male bisexuality = unicorn? I don't think so.

I know a lot of people – gay and straight – who believe that bisexuality, specifically bisexual men, exist about as much as they believe that unicorns exist. It seems that there are people who believe that only women can be bisexual and that women are more fluid than men when it comes to sexuality. They believe men can’t be bisexual, but are either gay or straight. Hell, a few years ago I didn’t even believe bisexuality was real and now I identify as bi.

I have big problem with this, and I mean a BIG problem. You might ask, “Why? You’re a woman, why should you care about bisexual men?” I care because I think the gender stereotypes and gender roles that trap men are wrong.

Men are expected to show that they are real men by getting as much ass as possible. They are expected to be promiscuous, sleeping around with as many women as possible. If a man even thinks about not adhering to this stereotype/gender role, then he’s considered gay by others around him, which in our society is still not considered a good thing.

I know tons of men who are secretly bi and are only out to their partners. I know some who are bisexual but don’t want to come out because they’re afraid that no woman would ever want them and worry women will only see them as interested in men. They’re also afraid of gay men not believing them and telling them that they’re gay but are afraid to come out.

Women and gay men who do this don’t realize that their harsh judgments are what keep men (and women, too) from fully realizing their bisexual identity. If we had an open society, where everybody no matter what was welcomed and not ostracized for being “half gay” as one person told me, if we stop telling people how to be or who to fall in love with, and just let them be themselves, I’m sure that we could stop bigotry in its tracks.

I sometimes get very disappointed in the LGBT community. I feel that we often judge each other and accuse each other of “not doing it right.” We are all human beings. We are all unique in our own little way. We need to stop throwing stones at each other, and passing horrible judgments. We need to stop excluding people that aren’t “gay enough” or who are really afraid to come out as gay and don’t want to admit it. This includes people who are trans as well, who I know often feel as left out as bisexual people do.

I’ve said it once and I will say it once more: united we stand, divided we fall! So let’s all please stop this horrible gender role stereotyping that bisexual men are really just gay but afraid to admit it. We need to instead view people who are bi as the missing link in sexuality. We prove that being gay is just as normal and natural to everybody as being straight is: that one isn’t better or more important than the other. At least that’s the way I see it.

So if a guy you like comes out as bi, don’t shun him or say, “Gross, no thanks.” Just go for it. You may be surprised!

Eloise At The Plaza

We all have a favorite children’s picture book – one we read over and over, or that our parents did funny voices for. After revisiting my childhood and experiences growing up through Harry Potter, I wanted to look to some of my earlier literary experiences.

When I was in my local bookstore last week, I perused through the Children’s section and picked up some books clearly aimed towards girls. One, the Girls’ Doodle Book, included pictures you could finish – mostly structured around things like butterflies, flowers, baking, and nesting. Boys, on the other hand, had a doodle book where they drew inventions, action scenes, machinery. The other was geared towards “tomboys”, showing that it’s OK to like worms and sports and hate wearing dresses – but in that book, the “girly-girl” was painted as a villain, while the boy and the tomboy, were fun and carefree. No children’s book is perfect, I know that. Our society’s gender stereotypes and expectations are so ingrained that it’s reasonable to expect them to leak through to children’s stories.

But it made me wonder about the lessons that my favorite picture books as a kid taught me. I plopped myself on my basement floor in front of my bookshelf of old picture books, and fell in love all over again with my favorite book and favorite children’s character: Eloise.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Eloise series, here’s a very quick synopsis of her origin story (via Salon):

Eloise, the beloved nuisance of the Plaza Hotel, was born when her creator, Kay Thompson, an actress, singer and vocal arranger, showed up for dance rehearsal 10 minutes late. “Who do you think you are?” demanded Robert Alton, MGM’s dance instructor. Thompson responded, “I am Eloise. I am 6.” Several years later Thompson teamed up with illustrator Hilary Knight, and in 1955 “Kay Thompson’s Eloise” was published.

Eloise lives at the Plaza, and is everyone’s favorite sassy 6 year old. She has a pot-belly, stringy blonde hair, and a pink ribbon. She is rawther important and she has a busy schedule of things she absolutely must do every day: she bothers the Desk Clerk, calls several people on the House Phones, takes the elevator up and down, and writes her name in magenta crayon all over one of the most famous hotels in New York. As a little kid, I used to pretend to be Eloise. I said things three times like her Nanny, and begged for a turtle to name Skipperdee. I relished in her active imagination (sawing her doll in half and then taking him to the hospital), her pride in what she can do, and her “rawther full” day where she adjusts thermostats, helps the switchboard officers, spies on Hotel Officers, and pretends she is an orphan to get a piece of melon. I took her motto of “getting bored is not allowed” and loved her proper English Nanny’s fondness for boxing.

My love for Eloise taught me to be smart and helpful, to keep my days busy, to never be bored with my life, and to be a little bit sassy. She wasn’t classically pretty, but she was rambunctious and beloved by all. I credit her with giving me the confidence to become who I wanted to be and busy myself doing what I wanted to do. Oooo I absolutely love Eloise!

I believe that a small element of Eloise should be placed in all of our children’s picture books today – an air of whimsy, or a love of adventures, or an excitement for each day’s activities. One of my favorite things about Eloise is that it was originally written for adults and doesn’t talk down to the reader. Some of the most successful Kid Lit has grown out of that intended for adults; in fact, the author of Diary of a Wimpy Kid had a piece on it in Time a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps that’s the lesson to be learned: in order to make strong, independent women – write for them.

What were your favorite picture books as kids? Did any of them set you down your path to becoming a feminist?

Becka also writes for her own blog, Becka Tells All.

What do you think? Are Storm’s parents progressive or are they ultimately harming their child? Is it even possible to raise a gender-free kid?

Mehran Rafaat (in white) is a bacha posh

Afghanistan has had a rough time in recent history. The sudden transformation from fashionable escape for the West to war-torn warlord-ruled landscape to complete Taliban control (and now it seems that the whole place is more or less up for grabs as the current government’s complicity with the Taliban has been revealed) has been something shocking to look at independently of any time period before or after a given moment, or in a historical panorama of the past century.

Kabul was once named the “Paris of the Middle East.” The high society women were very well integrated into European society and many took on French as a second language in an aristocratic gesture to their high-brow city’s namesake.

But the times have changed considerably since then. Anyone who kept up with the news of the Taliban takeover at the beginning of the millenium are familiar with the plight of women in Afghanistan, a percieved problem for Western observers that Sharia law sanctioned. Women were no longer allowed to sport Western haircuts or fashions, and they had to retreat into the billowing black folds of burqas. Though I don’t wish to discuss the legitimacy of this (because I think that, in general, if a woman chooses to wear a hijab or a whole burqa, that is her prerogative in every regard) the loss of feminine freedoms is unmistakable. Now no longer able to leave the house without a male relative, or have any interaction with men unless it is a family member, women are put back in the house in a move that tore the Middle East from the magnetic grasp of the Western world.

The gender barrier is not entirely impenetrable. In fact, there are moments when it can prove to be quite porous. This region’s infatuation with male-dominance has lead to an interesting loophole for women.

Young girls are often dressed up as boys in the absence of a son.

At some point in a young girl’s childhood, the parents, desperately needing a son to legitmize their family, tell the girl that she is no longer going to wear girls’ clothes anymore. The young girl does not really have an understanding of the implications of this external change until years later. She abides her parents wishes and she has her hair cut like a boy, and exchanges her clothes for that of her prodigal brother.

A superstition had somehow woven itself inextricably into the folklore of the larger Afghan community, and it was believed that dressing up a daughter as a son would increase a woman’s chances of giving birth to a son at some point.

With the transformation complete, the young girl discovers that she is able to circumvent the strick stipulations enforced against her sex. Though it is common knowledge that she is merely a stand-in son until the real one comes along, she is treated as a boy by the community at large. She is able to explore the streets outside of her dusty home without a male chaperone. At school, she plays sports with the boys and does not hang out with the girls anymore. She bonds with her father.

The “bacha posh” (literally “dressed up as a boy” in Dari) grows accustomed to her new assumed gender. But then she grows up and the requisite physical changes begin to take place. Her disguise begins to fail her, and her mother and father tell her that it is time to turn back into dutiful daughter once again.

“For me, it would have been better to grow up as a girl since I had to become a woman in the end,” commented a former bacha posh.

She has to grow accustomed to a burqa that drags on the floor and bunches around her legs, she must grow out her hair and keep it from falling into her face. She can no longer play soccer with the boys and she grows closer to her mother who may have had a son in the years that the daughter played the part.

“When you change back, it’s like you are born again.”

Some women choose to stay as a bacha posh indefinitely because they grow so accustomed to it. Despite their parents’ wishes. Other change back, but fail to fall into the confines of perfect domicility. In the article, one woman speaks of her husband who hit her. Her reaction was to hit him back. That settled the couple’s dynamic quickly.

I think what is most curious about this social phenomenon is the ability of women to access the world of men in a completely acceptable way. It is completely acceptable for a women to become a man in a hyper-masculine society. Of course, the catch is that she’ll go back once her time is up, but I still think it is remarkable that this can happen in a place where gender roles are so stringently policed. I feel like this sort of cross-dressing would be seen as utterly unacceptable in the United States. Though that’s because men and women are much more equal in their importance to society (though sexism still runs rampant), it would seem that Americans are still completely uncomfortable by obfuscating our set gender roles because, perhaps, that is something reserved for a subversise transvestite community found in drag clubs.

Social norms are terribly inconsistent and prove contrary to other tenets of a society beliefs. The fact that gender-bending is acceptable in Afghanistan and still taboo in America is somewhat mystifying in some ways, though sensible in a pragmatic way for those in desperate want of a son. This alternate road also demands the question: why don’t women gain more rights if they are already granted such freedoms if they dress as men? It seems over-complicated to be even worth the difficult transition between genders that could later inhibit a woman’s future formation of an identity. Also, it seems odd that men, who so zealousy guard their birthright, allow women to assume their role. I would feel emasculated in that position, but perhaps that’s only an American standpoint. Though perhaps it’s utterly useless to try and compare these two regions that have such different ethos governing how we view gender identity and sex. But it would be interesting to look at it further because I think it would help me as an American point out how men percieve themselves in relation to each other and to women.

In Afghanistan, it seems like the idea of a man so far as fulfilling the position of head of the household is largely a symbolic position that coincides with said individual having a penis. But this physical attribute, given the bacha posh tradition, is only secondary to the need of a strong hand to govern the household. Having a son ensures the protection of the household in the future, but at that age the differences between a girl and a boy honestly are not that significant. Symbolically, a girl can stand in place of a boy until puberty hits, when the actual mark of manhood becomes apparent. Then the man must take on the role of ruler of the house, as well as adventurer who crosses the threshold and enters the wide open world in order to secure the needs of his family unit.

Perhaps I’m looking at this entire phenomenon in archaic terms, but the transferability of masculinity in children is significant. In America, girls are girls and boys are boys. Gender identity is seen as set in stone. In Afghanistan, the role in the household and the face you present to the outside world is much more ritualized, and in fact offers great evidence that perhaps gender roles – especially when instituted at a young age – are more flexible than Americans may think.

Alec also blogs at the BAM blog, where this article was originally posted

Recently Indian newspapers have been flooded with reports about the Dar-ul-Uloom?s (an Islamic school propagating Sunni Islam in India) fatwa stating that it is un-Islamic for women to work with men. Yet again we appear to be at the crossroads: having to choose between antiquated traditions and moving forward into a society where men and women are accorded with the same level of respect and treated as equals.

As Indian society is relaxing its earlier rigid views about women and their position in society and allowing them to go out and work in cities, the Muslim clerics are adamant about regressing back in time and making sure that the benefits of feminism and society?’s more liberal attitude towards women aren?t passed on to Indian Muslim women.

As usual, a huge fury erupted after the fatwa was issued with many Muslims divided on the issue. It seems that as a silent feminist movement is in the works in India, Muslim women are largely not included in it.

Already Muslim women have been held back from the effects of liberalization that overtook the Western world in the 1960′?s and are at present slowly seeping into Indian society. Indian Muslim women were just beginning to take small steps towards becoming more empowered when the Dar-ul-Uloom had to go and declare such a fatwa making it unfit for women to work with men.

Why curb Indian Muslim women?s rights to such an extent? What does the Dar-ul-Uloom expect to achieve? Do they want all women to stay at home and have babies?

Think of this: there are so many amazingly intelligent young Muslim girls out there who are being robbed of higher education, who are being robbed of the ability to contribute to society and make it a better place for us to live in. Back in my old school there were quite a few girls who already knew that by the time they completed the 10th grade and were declared literate that they would be married off and sent away from their parents to go live with their husbands. They didn?’t even protest. It has literally been ingrained into their heads since the time they were kids that they are expected to grow up, get married, stay at home and have kids. And the thing is, when such a notion is being put into your head right from the time that you were a little kid, its pretty obvious that unless your extremely determined and rebellious, you’re most certainly going to follow through with what your being told.

Indian Muslim women barely have any established organizations that will allow them to voice their views and allow them to protest and be there for them to fall back on once they do decide to protest. They’ve been brought up in a culture where they are raised to be dependent on their parents and then transferred from their parents to their husbands. They spend their entire life being protected and shielded, never once taking chances or choosing to be different because they know that they will be shunned by their own society.

But the thing is they just need to step up and take a stand. I mean, sure it?s going to be hard. Even when Mahatma Gandhi decided to fight for Indian freedom, it wasn?t an easy feat. But he did it and ended up prevailing against the British.

If you fight long enough and hard enough for something you truly believe in you can achieve it. After all, it’s their own life, they have exactly one shot to make the most of it, to live it to the fullest and be given the freedom to do what they want to. And when such an opportunity (The Dar-ul-Uloom?s fatwa has managed to generate a significant amount of sympathy towards the plight of Indian Muslim women) as this arises they have to step up, take a stand, and be brave. Sure you’re leaping towards the unknown. You don?t know what exactly is going to come your way. But at the same time, you have to hope that there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

"what happened to the dreams of a girl president? / She's dancing in the video next to 50 cent"

UK TV Channel BBC3 once in a while produces something worth taking a look at, and the minute I saw an advert for their latest one-off documentary endeavour – “Music, Money and Hip-Hop Honeys” – exploring the job that is ‘The Music Video Girl’ – I was intrigued.

Music videos are a subject that I often bring attention to. It is impossible to turn on the latest music channel without being bombarded with a series of greased up women jiggling their bits around in front of the camera. Of course, we can’t forget the men parading around them with the,‘Yes, these are my bitches,’ attitude. Unfortunately, apart from pop starlets like Katy Perry – that’s a post worth of discussion right there –  this is mostly a ‘Hip-Hop’ mentality, and Hip-Hop is obviously going to have a series of hurdles to overcome the subjection of women in its mainstream videos.

The programme itself never really reached a conclusion, which wasn’t a particular surprise; an hour’s worth of footage wasn’t enough time to dive into the subject. There was some insight into the music video world, where men are undoubtedly reigning supreme over women. We got a look at the hopeful dreamers who long to be a successful music video girl. One had been sexually harassed, but still wanted to continue her dream of stardom and when the presenter jetted off to America, she got to meet the likes of LoLa – the star of 50 Cent, Kanye West, Lloyd Banks’ music videos – who reportedly was paid $12,000 for two days work. She went on to stick up for the music video girls, giving some fairly valid points of how some girls take the job to get by in life – even when a lot of these girls don’t get paid – and also, happily admitting that it was her way of forging her own music career in the process.

This isn’t a review of the programme itself, but a question of: When does something become exploitive? And who is to judge how a woman makes her money? As long as she is happy doing what she’s doing is it really any of our business? But then is this view of women really benefiting society and having some kind of lasting effect on how we view the female gender – where men always come out on top? There always seems to be this close divide where no one can win, when both sides have valid points.

Just because a woman is walking around in a bikini in some music video, doesn’t mean that she is being exploited or that she isn’t independent in her own right. If she is aware of how she is going to be treated then she is aware of the consequences. But then that still doesn’t give  someone the right to subjectively use her as if she wasn’t a human being or less than an equal.

One member of the UK garage band, So Solid Crew, admitted that in this world, “sex and violence sell.” So instead of trying to break that barrier down, introduce new ways of filming a music video without a barely clad girl shaking the only thing that is apparently worth anything, her body, it is now just excepted. We all have to get over it, and deal. Chuck in a bunch of oily girls gyrating next to the said male artist and you’ve got yourself a hit. That’s the 21st century music industry, right there.

why do we prefer baby boys?

It breaks my heart whenever I hear that women in China and India are having abortions or killing their new born babies just because they turn out to be girls. I’m pro-choice, but having an abortion because your baby is a girl instead of a boy is just beyond disturbing, sexist, and repulsive. The worst part is, the same attitude is prevalent in North America. We may not be killing our new born daughters (not that I know of at least) but a lot of women are definitely devaluing their gender and have become active participants in our good ol’ patriarchy.

Think of all the times you’ve heard women say that they would rather have a boy if they ever became pregnant. Now think of why they say that. My friends always say that they really want a boy only because it is much more “fun” in terms of the clothes and toys you get for them. After all, “You don’t have to worry about boys as much. They can be independent! and that is so cool”. And it’s not just my friends who say that. I’ve heard almost all my relatives say it, random strangers on the bus, and even celebrities. Am I the only one who thinks that there’s something really wrong with this picture?

Whenever I hear these comments I can’t help but think “did feminism ever happen, people?!”
If you have a baby girl, you don’t have to make sure she wears pink dresses all the time, or that she’s playing with barbies and tea sets, or that she’s a useless pretty doll who will depend on someone for the rest of her life. It is just so retro to think that way. Why can’t we raise our boys and girls the same way? Let’s get them the same clothing with the same colors. And no, I’m not talking about “gender neutral colors” like green and yellow, but let’s get them every piece of clothing in every color that is available. Let’s buy every type of toy out there for our children to stimulate their minds in every way. Let’s raise them to be independent, successful, and smart people someday. We are really damaging our children by raising them based on gender roles. If children are treated the same way, then they will see that. And they will never think of a reason why sexism should exist.

And why are women devaluing their gender? Are we really ashamed of the characteristics attached to the female gender? Now is the time to change that. Let’s not “prefer” boys and give in to patriarchy. Let us raise our daughters with confidence and an open mind. Let’s raise our daughters the same way would raise our sons. The same way we would like to have been raised. As cliche as it sounds, children are the future, and the way we raise them will determine the state of feminism tomorrow.

Newsweek: Man Up

With all of this talk of the new woman, it only makes sense that society would begin to contemplate the new man. Newsweek attempted to transform a worn down male identity into a modern lifestyle. Though this may have been the goal of “Man Up!”, I felt personally insulted by this story. The message it sent to me was much less appealing, and frankly, quite narrow-minded.

According to this article, masculinity can only be defined within the domain of an archetypal American household. The modern man defines himself, as always, by his home, his wife, and his 2.3 children All the article suggests that men do is start to look after the kids some more. I have more faith in men than that.

To be a modern man, apparently six-pack Joe (dare I even use this banal paradigm?) just has to put down his bottle of beer and make sure that little Suzie isn’t choking on whatever it is children asphyxiate on these days. What kind of model is this for the modern man? Is it really progressive to essentially tell men to be who they have always been? The opening line states “guys need to embrace girly jobs.” Progress cannot be achieved if masculinity is being defined by its correlation to female gender roles, and gender reform cannot take place when we still assume these traditional positions. A man’s evolution can only happen when he begins to cultivate a true sense of masculinity that is related to who he is as an individual. Reinventing the masculine identity is not making yourself more feminine; rather, it is striving to become you.  Viewing yourself in an inverse relationship with femininity will not change a thing.

Newsweek suggested that the homosexual, or otherwise non-hetero population did not fall under this new definition of masculinity. I think that it is truly heinous to even imply that a new definition of masculinity has arrived if the sole criterion has not changed. This article limits masculinity to the typical heterosexual male, and does not even begin to consider everyone else that is out there (just a blanket statement for every type of person who identifies with the male gender). Also, if one follows this logic, if heterosexual males are the only men entitled to masculinity, then the heterosexual household is the only correct model that exists within this narrow mindset, taking away the legitimacy of homosexual couples and their families. Instead of rallying for progress, this article insists that men preserve their conservative views on masculinity with renewed fervor.

This terrifies me to be completely honest. I don’t really want to live through the 4^th Great Awakening. This article is an attempt at conserving antiquated values through sugarcoating them with taking on women’s responsibilities. One can even point to the author’s flippant use of the phrase ‘coming out,’ and declaring oneself to be a father that needs to participate in the running of the household. Though the idea is great, it diminishes the power of the coming out experience, something that hurts me on a personal level. These men don’t have to radically change the way society will view them, they simply have to pick up some of the slack at home. This masculine institution blatantly rejects the homosexual male, and everyone who identifies with this gender.

By the end of this essay of ideas, the authors end up advocating “decorative masculinity.” It is deemed a form of escapism, in which men can assume the role of hunter, or Tarzan, or other stereotypical macho roles. “When the actual substance of their lives felt tight,” men should escape into a dream world instead of attempting to effect actual change in their lives where they could live with a fulfilling masculinity, and not a forgery. If men need to hide behind old idols of masculinity in order to feel manly, then masculinity in its current form is inherently false. Newsweek tells me that masculinity is escape from, well, masculine responsibilities, which is an intrinsic contradiction.  Men should not uphold a code that does not satisfy them, and we should aim to live lives that we can bear while still maintaining an adapted masculine model.

Though I found a good bone to pick with this piece of writing, it was informative nonetheless. It had interesting information about the current job market and the male/female ratios and how women have successfully infiltrated that market over the past several decades. Corporations are also recognizing the new responsibilities that a father has in the home, and many are offering a paternity leave so that fathers can spend time with their newborns. I laud what has been done to make men and women’s lives more equitable. I just question the idea of masculine progress that is presented here.

For men to advance, it has to be a change within the male community, and it cannot be a reaction to the changing needs of women. Also, a new masculinity requires that the definition of this identity be expanded to include every type of man, and all households in America. Inter-gender relations are still improving, but men seriously need to reconsider their premises. The article states that the “New Macho” is a paradox. It is a paradox because men are expected to change socially without transforming emotionally. The desired effect cannot happen without the appropriate cause.

Alec also writes for his own blog: B.A.M. Be A Man