Wake and bake means smoking cannabis shortly after waking up. Consuming cannabis first thing in the morning is believed to feel more intense than in the evening
Where does the term ‘wake and bake’ come from?
Simply put, wake and bake means smoking or consuming some form of cannabis shortly after starting the day. The “wake” part is easy, whereas “baked” is a slang term for feeling high.
Although nobody truly knows where the practice originated, it was allegedly made popular in the 1960s by fans of the American hippie band The Grateful Dead.
The effects of consuming cannabis right after waking up
Consuming cannabis first thing in the morning is believed to feel more intense than smoking in the evening.
Although there isn’t much research in this area, one plausible theory is that marijuana is more potent when the body hasn’t had to process any nutrients for many hours. It may also have something to do with the fact that you’re still groggy from sleep.
But a more intriguing explanation has to do with the body’s endocannabinoid system (ECS), which mediates most of the effects of cannabis. This system consists of endocannabinoids made by our bodies, cannabinoid receptors, and special enzymes.
The ECS is both affected by and may also regulate our body’s circadian rhythm — the 24-hour internal clock that controls when we wake up, feel hungry, and fall asleep. 1
Research has shown that the amounts of all three components of the ECS — endocannabinoids, receptors, and enzymes — fluctuate throughout the day. One study of healthy adults found that the levels of anandamide, one of the two major endocannabinoids, are three times higher after waking up compared to immediately before sleep. 2
A similar 2015 study of 2-AG, the second major endocannabinoid, reported the lowest concentrations during midsleep, followed by a rapid rise in the morning and a peak in the early to midafternoon. 3
It’s possible that this daily fluctuation of the ECS is responsible for the stronger effects of a wake and bake, but more research is needed to best understand how to apply this information.
How to wake and bake the right way
The wake and bake lifestyle is relatively straightforward: you smoke shortly after waking up and continue with your morning routine. But the wrong dose or wrong chemovar could end up impeding your morning rather than enhancing it. Here are some tips to make your baked mornings better:
For starters, you’ll want to opt for energizing strains to get a good start to your day and avoid falling back asleep.
Don’t forget that you’re not limited to smoking. While the classic wake and bake is done with a bong, bowl, or joint, nothing is stopping you from using an edible, tincture, capsule, or any other cannabis-infused product instead. This can provide you with longer lasting effects and help to reduce the ups and downs associated with smoking/inhalation.
You should also decide if you want to just relax or be productive. If you wake and bake before work, for example, you may want to keep your dosage of THC low.
You’ll also want to consider choosing type II (balanced CBD: THC) or type III (CBD-dominant) cannabis. If regular, high-THC (type I) cannabis impacts your productivity, these cannabis chemotypes may be the better option as they’ll give you a milder high with a clearer head.
You can also enhance your wake and bake with other activities that blend nicely with cannabis. You could put on your favorite music, stretch, do yoga or light exercise, or even go outside to get some fresh air.
Some people also swear by combining a wake and bake with coffee — what’s popularly known as the “hippie” or “Seattle speedball.” However, the research on mixing the two is inconclusive. A 2012 rat study found that the combination of caffeine and THC impaired memory more than THC alone and a 2018 study reported that heavy coffee consumption (4-8 cups daily for two months) reduced the levels of endocannabinoid system metabolites. 4 5 6
Pros and cons of wake and bake
Potential wake and bake benefits include:
Lifting your mood to start the day off right
Easier to get out of bed
Breakfast tastes better
Stronger high than smoking later
Meanwhile, the potential cons are:
Getting tired or sleepy early in the day
Lower productivity and getting distracted
Easier to build a daily habit and tolerance
Makes smoking later in the day less enjoyable
One 2016 study even explored the negative effects of waking and baking.
Going off the idea that morning cannabis consumption may indicate dependence and abuse-related problems, the researchers surveyed daily users, 257 of whom only smoked in the morning and 76 who only smoked later in the day.
After noting the frequency, quantity, and timing of cannabis use, the study participants completed a questionnaire aimed at measuring cannabis-associated problems.
This questionnaire included 14 social, work, psychological, and medical issues caused by cannabis use, such as lower productivity and withdrawal. 8
Using statistical analysis, the researchers found that morning users had more associated problems than non-morning users, including higher daily consumption, increased risk for withdrawal, and an increased number of personal problems. These problems were evident, even after accounting for age, gender, and consumption quantity.
They concluded that daily cannabis users would benefit from avoiding morning use. Although this study is not without its limitations, the findings certainly put a damper on waking and baking.
To wake and bake, or not to wake and bake?
In the end, the decision to wake and bake is an individual one. Some of the biggest factors to consider before partaking in a morning smoke include your day’s plan, your goal of consuming, and what cannabis you have available to you.
Consuming first thing in the morning can be useful, but it can lead to problems associated with cannabis misuse. It also starts tolerance building early in the morning, and if use continues throughout the day, you may experience little to no euphoria from THC by the end of the day.
On the flip side, for those who function well when high, have significant medical needs in the morning, or those who just want to take the day off, the wake and bake can be a great escape from a mundane Monday morning.
Research suggests that cannabis may be able to boost creativity for some people - but that in too high a dose cannabis can actually have the opposite effect
Countless works of music and art show the sort of open-minded, vulnerable and imaginative mindset that many people associate with a positive and joyful cannabis high. But does cannabis actually help creativity, or is this just a marijuana myth?
You don’t need to rely solely on your own anecdotal evidence, the assertions of your guitar-playing cousin, or your old college roommate who wrote an entire zombie space opera thanks to an ounce of high grade weed. Instead, we can take a look at the research.
There actually is a body of research carried out over the past decade or so that deals with cannabis and creativity. The findings are by no means black and white, and instead suggest that cannabis may be able to boost creativity for some people – depending on their preexisting level of creativity – but that in too high a dose cannabis can actually have the opposite effect.
Lewis also argued that “there’s kind of a plateau of creativity,” and that when it comes to people who are already creative, cannabis won’t make much of a difference, though it could help inspire people who are otherwise not creative.
Cannabis and increased blood flow to the brain
A common side effect of cannabis is its ability to make your heart race – and also dilate blood vessels and increase blood flow. Could this potentially boost the blood flow to the parts of your brain that deal with creativity?
Research performed in 2002 looked at the effects of smoking marijuana on regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and found that it increased rCBF in the frontal lobe of marijuana smokers. The frontal lobe is believed to play5 a crucial role in creative thinking.
At the same time, a speedy heart rate and an overall more “alert” high could also potentially lead to anxiety and paranoia. Both of these are common side effects of cannabis, and can potentially stifle creativity as they make it more difficult to relax and let your mind flow free of stress and anxiety.
Dr. Alice Weaver Flaherty, a Harvard Medical School professor neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital spoke in a 2017 interview about how artists “get into the zone,” and said that while cannabis could help some people relax and get into that zone, it could also have the opposite effect for creators who are already primed and ready to work.
“A very anxious creative person may get some benefit from cannabis. In calming them down, it could help their creativity. But for someone who’s already in the zone, and who’s not too anxious to work, it might push them into a place of being too laid back.”
According to the interview, Weaver Flaherty’s research has also found that highly creative people have more active frontal lobe than people with less creative abilities.
How set and setting can affect creativity
An often-overlooked aspect of cannabis and creativity – and cannabis in general – is the importance of set and setting.
The term set and setting is perhaps more closely associated with the use of psychedelics, and how the person’s mindset (“set”) and the physical and social surroundings (“setting”) can play a central role in determining if the person has a positive or negative experience.
The same holds true for cannabis, and arguably when it comes to whether or not cannabis can boost creativity.
For instance, someone who is in a calm, relaxed mood at home in their studio or another familiar or comfortable place that encourages creativity, would probably have an easier time kicking back and letting their creative juices run wild. The inverse is also true – the combination of a stressful environment and an anxious or worried mind can stifle someone’s ability to relax or get “in the zone” for creative output.
The bottom line?
Cannabis can bolster creativity, but it depends on a wide variety of factors, including the where, when, and how you consume marijuana – and who you are.
Do you know about all the ways students who are children of color, girls, and/or gender nonconforming are disadvantaged in our K-12 schools? Everyone needs to read this to understand how early privilege affects our lives.
Though I didn’t learn about terms like “white supremacy” or “patriarchy” until much later, these systems were already affecting my life..
Here’s how white cisgender male students get the benefits of systems of oppression more than anyone else in elementary and high schools.
1. White Students Are More Likely to Go to Schools with More Resources
The quality of education that students get often depends on the amount of funding their school has.
School districts in low-income neighborhoods get less funding. These are also the areas where more children of color are likely to live – Black, Latinx, and Native children are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than white children.
The racial disparity in school funding goes even deeper than an overlap with poverty.
2. Most of the Literature Taught in School Is Written by White Male Authors
I’ve always dreamed of writing, and my dream has come true – I’m a writer now. But as a child, it took me a long time to realize that I could even be a writer, simply because I was a Black girl.
It seems silly, I know. There are lots of women writers and writers of color alive now and throughout history.
However, in elementary and high school, I read books from the Western literary canon – which mostly consists of white men.
For me, this wasn’t an impossible barrier to overcome. But this preference for writing by white men did more than threaten my dreams. It also limited the perspective that I learned from.
What our society considers neutral writing, objective writing, even the best writing, is written primarily by one demographic.
By excluding books from marginalized communities, we’re teaching children that writing well means writing like a white man.
It took finding the books my teacher didn’t assign to learn that there are many, many more literary traditions from all around the world.
3. Students Are Taught Only Western Culture’s Approach to Math and Science
Students learn that the approach they learn in school is the “right” way to do things. When it comes to subjects like math and science, many of us accept what we learn in school as the objective way to get the right answers.
But it’s not the only way.
Many non-Western cultures have other approaches, and some Western concepts of math and science come from other cultures that go unrecognized.
Some students suffer when their lessons favor Western ways as the only way.
For example, by the time Native students begin formal schooling, many of them already have scientific knowledge from indigenous traditions. When their school curriculum ignores this knowledge and Native learning strategies, many of these students struggle.
Native students have the highest drop-out rate of any ethnic group. According to research, they would benefit greatly from education that centered their needs, instead of requiring them to disconnect from their culture.
4. White Students Can Experiment Without Being Criminalized Based on Race
Creativity and exploration are important parts of the learning process for children. Some of the most innovative and successful adults started out as children with the freedom to experiment (think Steve Jobs).
So it’s unfortunate that students of color who experiment can be racially profiled and treated like criminals just for doing so.
Fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed, a Sudanese Muslim teenager, built a clock at home. When he brought it to school to show his teacher, he was arrested and accused of bringing a bomb.
Before him, Keira Wilmot, a Black teenager, conducted an experiment with two household chemicals in a bottle. The chemicals caused the top of the bottle to pop off and created smoke. Kiera was also arrested, expelled, and charged with two felonies.
Both of these cases got coverage in the media, and public pressure helped lead authorities to drop the charges against them. But they’re just two examples of many children of color who are routinely criminalized in school, making creativity a risk.
5. White Male Students Aren’t Told That STEM Fields Aren’t for Them
It’s no coincidence that Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math fields are largely dominated by white men.
Spend time in an elementary or high school classroom, and you might witness lots of ways white girls and children of color of all genders are treated like they’re not capable in STEM subjects.
A study of physics doctorates over 39 years showed that 22,172 degrees went to white men – and 66 to Black women.
Many of those women started out as girls who were discouraged from participating in STEM.
They beat the odds against them, but this clearly has a big impact on many children from their demographic.
6. Native English Speakers Can Speak Their Native Language in School
In the United States, there are over 300 languages spoken as a first language, with more than 60 million people speaking a language other than English at home.
While schools are required to have ESL classes for students learning English, these students are left behind with materials and standardized tests all given in English.
The US has no official language – but we often treat American Standard English as if everyone should speak it.
But it’s not just a matter of students needing to learn English. Some students are even criminalized for speaking their native language.
For instance, students have been suspended for speaking indigenous languages. This oppressive practice is even more terrifying when you realize where it comes from.
In the late 1800s, the US government began forcing Native children to attend boarding schools designed to assimilate into white culture. The experience was horrifying, and it’s supposedly over – but those awful practices still show up with rules banning things like indigenous languages.
These rules continue to force marginalized students to assimilate or face punishment.
7. Anglicized Names Aren’t Mocked and Othered
Brad, David, Timothy – call out these names on a classroom roster, and you’ll probably just have a kid call out “here.”
But call out a name that’s not Western European or Anglicized, and at many schools, people – including teachers – will laugh.
As a result, many students of color end up taking on nicknames or having them bestowed on them. Or they have to put up with other people mispronouncing or making fun of their names.
It’s one of many ways white US culture is normalized in schools, while everyone else’s culture is othered. Students of color can end up internalizing racism and xenophobia against their culture, and feeling like they’re inferior because of their heritage.
8. White Male Students Aren’t Ostracized, Bullied, or Punished for Their Style of Dress
“Distracting.” “Gang-affiliated.” “A fad.”
These terms are often used to ban certain styles, clothing, and other forms of expression in schools.
And sure, it sounds like anything fitting those descriptions would interfere with students’ academic focus, so banning these things might seem justified.
But what about when school administrators use these terms to describe the culturally specific ways children of color dress and express themselves?
For instance, Black children with afros and cornrows and Native children with traditional braids and mohawks have all been punished for their hairstyles. Some have also been bullied by other children who picked up on the “othering” of their hair.
These children are basically being told that they have to be more like their white peers, or they’ll be ostracized, or even treated like they’re a threat to those around them.
Girls also get treated with a double standard when it comes to dress codes – they often get the message that it’s up to them to cover up, or they’re to blame for objectification and sexual violence. Many students are now protesting sexist dress codes.
Because all children – not just the white boys – should be able to get dressed for school without the pressure of worrying that their appearance is judged as a “distraction.”
9. White Students Can Have Outbursts and Be Labeled ‘Rowdy’ – Not ‘Dangerous’
Of course, many school rules are in place for a reason. If you’ve been in a classroom, you know that requirements like staying seated or waiting your turn to speak can help maintain order that’s helpful for learning.
But after being around a group of children, you’ll also know that these rules are not always followed. Children’s minds are still growing, so they’re still learning about the consequences of their actions.
Some kids have a hard time sitting still. Some kids have outbursts when they get excited or upset. Some kids break the rules. This is a natural part of childhood.
Society accepts that this is true for white children, and even expect troublemaking from boys with common phrases like “boys will be boys.”
But children of color are often treated like criminals for the same behavior that’s considered normal for white students – they get harsher punishments, and are more likely to get suspended or expelled.
And even the youngest students of color are more likely to have the police called on them, to be arrested, and to be put into the traumatizing school-to-prison pipeline that incarcerates them at a young age and never lets them go from the racist criminal justice system.
10. Boys Are More Likely to Be Called on When They Raise Their Hands
Teachers are more likely to call on boys than girls when they raise their hands, and they’re also more likely to listen when boys call out answers without being called on.
When girls do the same, teachers are more likely to remind them to follow the rules and raise their hand.
That means boys get to participate more in class, and they gain confidence in their abilities with positive reinforcement for giving answers.
In addition to calling on the boys, teachers are more likely to give them other “esteem building” attention, like more constructive feedback and compliments on achievements instead of appearance.
More interaction, attention, and encouragement means boys get more positive engagement in class. They get more direct support and can build more confidence.
Girls get lower quality and quantity of attention, resulting in lower self-esteem and achievement. When teachers expect more from boys – especially white boys – the discouragement of other students shows.
11. White Male Students Are More Likely to Get Treatment for Neurodivergence
Many of the obstacles listed here also affect children with disabilities, mental health problems, and neurodivergence. But among students who would benefit from diagnosis and treatment, students who are girls and/or children of color are often overlooked.
For instance, 80% of people diagnosed on the autism spectrum in the US are male. Studies suggest that girls must exhibit more severe symptoms to be diagnosed – and more subtle symptoms might be dismissed because of society’s expectations of girls’ behavior.
In another example, Black children are less likely than white children to be diagnosed with ADHD, and those diagnosed are less likely to get treatment. For some, expectations of low achievement lead professionals to dismiss their symptoms.
Others follow the common trend of criminalizing Black and Latinx youth and seeing their symptoms as “problem” behavior.
It’s telling that society is so quick to discuss the mental health of white male school shooters. We’re used to evaluating white boys’ mental wellness, but blaming other children for the disruptive symptoms of their own health problems.
12. White Students Aren’t Learning Romanticized Versions of Terrible Things That Happened to Their Ancestors
There’s a saying that “history is written by the victors.” So when you’re taught a version of history describing your ancestors as the victors, learning can be pretty sweet.
That’s not the case for students of color.
They have to sit through lessons that show their ancestors being killed, colonized, and enslaved – and then applaud the attackers as heroes.
Elementary school textbooks show outrageous examples of this: Christopher Columbus – who’s responsible for raping, displacing, and killing so many Native people – hailed as a great discoverer who befriended and helped Indigenous people.
African people who were violently kidnapped, chained, and enslaved described as “workers” who immigrated to this land.
History books gloss over the racism and sexism in the US Constitution to tell a glorious version of how the Founding Fathers brought our country into being.
If we’re teaching our children that America is the great “land of the free,” shouldn’t students learn what it takes for oppressed people to fight for their freedom in this country? We need to rethink what we’re teaching our children about what it means to be a hero.
13. White Students Don’t Have Their Culture Objectified
Another perk of being a white student is that people like you – especially men – are presented as human beings.
It doesn’t seem like much to ask, but it’s more than Native students, for instance, can expect. Many can attest to having Indigenous people portrayed as relics of the past.
It’s not uncommon to have school children participate in activities like “dressing up like Indians” around Thanksgiving time.
This activity may not have sinister intentions, but it’s one of the many ways we’re taught that “appreciating” other cultures means dehumanizing the people of that culture.
Imagine if a teacher said, “Let’s dress up as white people for a day!” It’s an absurd idea, because we’re used to whiteness being normalized in school. Learning about white people’s accomplishments is what we in the US tend to call learning about “history.”
But learning about Native history requires a special unit that romanticizes the horrific genocide against their people. Black history looks like incomplete stories told in February about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. Latinx, Asian, and Pacific Islander students are lucky if they learn anything about their history at all.
Being invisible or objectified is not enough to learn about your history. When schools don’t recognize this bias, they present whitewashed versions of history as if that’s all there is to know – missing vital opportunities to show students of color that they can be heroes, too.
***
I could go on – this is really only the beginning of all the ways our schools center students who are white, cisgender boys.
My hope is that reading these examples can help you start to recognize when privilege shows up for some students and hurts those without it.
And I don’t know about you, but after going through all of this disheartening information, I’m ready for a change in our educational system.
Not to demonize white male children or to say that they don’t earn their success – but to give all children a chance at the same achievements.
All of our children deserve support, encouragement, and empowerment – their racial or gender identity shouldn’t take away from that.
I’ve got some ideas for how you can help. If you’re a teacher, you can work on recognizing and unlearning your own biases, so you don’t inadvertently bring racism or sexism into your classroom.
If you’re a parent, you can pay attention to your child’s assignments and demand better when they’re learning oppressive lies.
No matter who you are, you’re probably familiar with these common ways of defaulting to the status quo that favors white males.
That doesn’t mean you’re a bad person – it means you have the power to help change these oppressive habits in your life and with the people around you.
Consider the impact that white male domination is having on our children. All of them – including the white boys who are put into narrow boxes of society’s expectations – are getting a raw deal as long as sexism and white supremacy have a strong hold on education.
For our children’s healing and well-being, let’s help them build a better world.
In recent years, the word "slut" has become deeply ingrained into our culture, to the point where people say it too easily and too casually.
What Are We Really Saying?
Many of us have been called a slut at some point in our lives — or have thrown the epithet at someone else. But what does it really mean?
The word “slut” originates in Old English, meaning a “messy, dirty, or untidy” woman or girl. Because of this, it was frequently used as a term for kitchen maids and servant girls. By the 15th century, the word took on the meaning of a “promiscuous woman” as well.
Think about it: Have you ever called someone a slut, whether in jest or seriously? What did it mean to you? And what do you think it meant to the person it was directed toward?
Slut-Shaming: Are You Guilty, Too?
To slut-shame means to “degrade or mock a woman because she enjoys having sex, has sex a lot, or may even just be rumored to participate in sexual activity.”
Most of us, whether we realize it or not, have judged or degraded someone (usually a woman) for being sexual, having one or more sexual partners, acknowledging sexual feelings, and/or acting on sexual feelings outside of marriage.
It happens all the time.
That young celebrity who wears something more daring than her usual attire is automatically described in terms of “her slutty side.” We see a beautiful woman who is wearing heavy makeup and comment on how she is lovely, but she looks like a stripper. We condemn our sexual thoughts as slutty instead of explorative.
As a culture, we are quick to use words that paint female sexuality as disgraceful – even if we don’t realize that we are doing it.
Think: Have you ever called yourself (or someone else) a slut when your true feelings weren’t ones of disgust or disapproval?
Did you even consider using an alternative word? Or was slut the first thing – almost the natural thing – that came to mind?
And more importantly, what consequences do your words really have?
Slut-Shaming Can Have Serious Repercussions
For some young women, the stigma of “slut” is so hurtful that it leaves their lives in ruins.
Take Rehtaeh Parsons of Canada, who was allegedly raped by four boys who distributed photos of the attack online. She was afterwards bullied and slut-shamed mercilessly by her peers to the point where she decided to take her own life at 17 years of age.
Her mother, Leah Parsons, told Canadian news source CBC, “She was never left alone. She had to leave the community. Her friends turned against her. People harassed her. Boys she didn’t know started texting her and Facebooking her, asking her to have sex with them. It just never stopped. People texted her all the time, saying ‘Will you have sex with me?’ Girls texting, saying, ‘You’re such a slut.’”
This story is a modern tragedy, fueled by cyber-bullying and slut-shaming. The girls and boys who taunted Rehtaeh so cruelly probably had no idea how deep their words cut until it was too late.
Why did so many of her peers turn on her? Why did other girls – some of whom conceivably had endured similar experiences (because hell, they live in this messed-up society, too) – call her a slut and disown her as a friend?
While the blame for the crime rests on the shoulders of the alleged rapists, it is possible that if Rehtaeh hadn’t been labeled a “slut” and endured the cruel bullying that she did, she might be alive today.
Tragically, this type of cyber-slut-shaming is not uncommon among the younger generations.
Imagine how it would feel to be that teenage girl who everyone is whispering about in the halls. To have hurtful names like “slut,” “whore,” and “skank” assigned to you by people who barely know you. To be judged harshly and without caution for engaging in sexual activity, as most curious teens do.
These young women were intensely slut-shamed, and had their very traumatic experiences invalidated by judgment from their peers. Their very worth was brought into question because people chose to side with the rapists instead of the victims.
Slut-shaming is rape culture, plain and simple. And for some people, it is utterly life-destroying.
Slut-Shaming Doesn’t End Just Because We Grow Up
Whether in the dating world, the professional arena, education, or in friendships, adult females are not immune to slut-shaming either.
Women are not only the favored targets of slut-shaming, but very often the perpetrators as well. Due to generations of internalized sexism, women often reject their sexually promiscuous peers as worthy companions or friends – even as adults.
A Cornell University study puts this theory to the test, revealing that college-aged women are much less likely to form deep friendships with promiscuous women.
When most of us have spent our childhoods being taught that gaining male validation is the route to power, and even happiness, it is not surprising that many women will view their sexually explorative peers as threats. This may cause women to lash out against other women in an attempt to rise above the competition.
And this isn’t the case only in heterosexual dating either. Many bisexual women are considered “greedy” or “slutty” for the mere fact of their bisexuality.
Is any of this fair? No.
Is it valid? Hell no.
Does it hurt women of all races, ages, and sexual orientations? Yes.
Internalized sexism is a disease, and by carelessly throwing around sexist, hurtful epithets like “slut” and “skank,” we all act as the carriers.
Sluts Versus Studs
The double standard remains: Why is it that a girl who has sex is a whore/slut, but a boy who has sex is a stud/player?
In movies, on television, in magazines, and in our communities, people throw around the term “slut” willy-nilly when talking about women. But men are held to a very different standard.
As a society, what are we teaching our children? that a girl or woman is a dirty, unclean, and unworthy because she has sexual desire? that because she is female, she should save herself for marriage or she is a whore? that women should ignore or otherwise not act upon sexual desires even though men should and do?
Why do we accept sexual exploration from our sons but not our daughters?
It’s simple: The word slut is a decidedly female insult, and using it enhances gender discrimination.
Dumping the Word Itself
We may not be able to change the way that others talk to each other right away, but we can start by presenting an example with our own behavior.
This is why I encourage everyone to eliminate the word slut from their vocabulary.
I have spent the last few years working on this: if I catch myself about to describe myself, one if my choices, or even my outfit, as slutty or skanky, I make a concerted effort to replace that language with something more empowering.
For example: The other night, my friends and I were talking about one of our favorite TV shows and discussing how the characters have changed over the seasons.
One of my friends mentioned a female character who started out as a virgin, and has embraced her sexual side throughout the show by having various partners and experiences. Unsurprisingly, my friend simply said: “She’s gotten really slutty.”
I refuse to accept that ideology, even in casual conversation. There are so many sex-positive alternatives that we can use.
She was exploring her newfound sexual desire.
She was experimenting with what she likes and doesn’t like.
She was taking a defined step into adulthood.
She was opening herself up to new possibilities.
She was – simply – trying something new.
I stand by my next statement: No harm can come from being more sex-positive and less chauvinistic in our speech patterns. I dare each and every one of you to give it a try.
***
Next time you want to call a girl a slut, rethink your choice and start chipping away at the double standard by using positive descriptive language.
Try to remember that everyone has a personal choice. While you may not lead a similar life to someone else, it is unfair and unjust to ascribe your values to their character.
And moreover, it sets a terrible example for future generations.
Some women wear sexy dresses and choose to have multiple partners. Others wait until marriage and dress demurely. And some are in the middle.
That doesn’t mean that Group A are sluts, Group B are prudes, and Group C have hit the perfect moral high ground. All choices are both fabulous and individual.
Let’s take the word slut out of our vocabulary – not as a solution to a social epidemic, but as one small step towards eradicating patriarchal double standards.
So let’s review how avoiding feminism enables sexism.
1. It Perpetuates the Idea That All Feminists Are Bitches
That’s right. If you’re tiptoeing around the F-word, I’m going to get to the point and break out the B-word.
You’re avoiding feminism because you don’t want to be called a bitch!
There’s the age-old misconception of feminists as constantly enraged, just skulking their way through life, eagerly awaiting any opportunity to be a killjoy. A feminist is the buzzkill ready to pounce into action and harsh your vibes by – gasp – holding you accountable for your words and actions. What a bitch.
You have to prove that you are the opposite of that. You’re fun! People have to know that you’re approachable! The best way to do that is to distance yourself from an ugly topic like feminism, right?
Just one small problem: Have you ever thought about why you don’t want to be called a bitch?
Bitch is a misogynistic slur.
Men use that word to put women down, and women internalize this mindset and use it to police other women.
Your reticence about the word bitch stems from the same forces that are behind your reticence about feminism – the patriarchy tells women that both of those identities are undesirable to embrace.
The notion that feminists are bitches and bitches are unworthy of respect is yet another tactic used to divide women. It’s time to start the unlearning process.
Just because you’re a feminist doesn’t make you a bitch. You’re not a bitch for standing up for your rights and demanding that people pay attention.
And even if you are, it shouldn’t matter because feminism teaches us not to judge our worth on patriarchal standards or allow them to dictate your behavior.
2. It Discourages Women from Speaking Up for Themselves
The aforementioned sentiment has unfortunate ripple effects.
Feminists are stereotyped as a roaming gang of surly, hairy man-haters. Some feminists do fall into this category, while others do not. Plenty of people with different attitudes and gender expressions identify as feminists.
Surly, hairy man-haters certainly comprise a portion of feminists, but they are not feminists because of that characterization. Nor should they be shunned for conforming to a perceived stereotype. Distancing ourselves from a group of women because they don’t “project the right image” is pretty contradictory to feminism’s main tenants.
Sure, I might be describing a caricature, but parts of it certainly reverberate with women. If it didn’t, feminism wouldn’t prompt such a visceral recoiling whenever it comes up in conversation.
Girls and women learn that the way to be liked is to fit in and avoid having strong opinions. As we’ve already discussed, feminism contradicts this impulse in every way. If even mentioning the word makes you cringe, you’re never going to feel comfortable bringing up gender issues.
You’re probably saying, “Well, who cares? How often do debates about feminism enter small talk?” But feminism isn’t always about duking it out over hot button political issues like abortion and birth control. It also impacts many aspects of your daily life.
Think about when you’ve gotten catcalled on the street. Does it make you uncomfortable? Maybe you feel pressure not to say anything because cool girls take it as a compliment. Over time, you’ve learned to accept it as part of your routine.
And that’s the problem. Women’s feelings are important. Our angers and frustrations are valid. We put up with a lot of crap in society. We deserve to open a dialogue to begin fixing things.
Yet the second we open our mouths, we apparently forfeit our right to be liked and respected. No wonder women are reluctant to voice their opinions at all, let alone enter the minefield of feminism.
Women should be free to express themselves without fear of being ostracized.
3. It Falsely Equates Misandry with Misogyny
As feminism gains steam, accusations of misandry have increased proportionally.
Misandry, or hatred of men, has become the rallying cry of anti-feminist groups. Feminists are allegedly out to flip the gendered power structure, put women in charge, and make men suffer as payback.
Cue the mainstream attempt at universalism that is the bane of any minority rights movement.
People often try to focus the attention back on the majority by claiming that the discrimination faced by the majority is equally as oppressive as that faced by the minority, even if the latter usually has hundreds of years of history to back it up.
Those who insist humanism is more inclusive than feminism argue that hating anyone for their gender is a bad thing, and feminists supposedly hate men, which merely perpetuates discrimination in a different packaging.
Except the vast majority of feminists don’t hate men! Feminism isn’t about hating men or scheming against them! Feminists are just trying to ensure that women have as many opportunities as everyone else, which involves working through centuries of oppression.
That’s where the false equivalence falls apart. Misandry and misogyny are not the same thing.
Yes, thinking that anyone’s gender makes them inferior is wrong, but misandry isn’t reinforced by social, political, and cultural power structures throughout history the way misogyny has been.
Additionally, believing that critiquing male privilege amounts to man-hating is just another way of silencing women’s experiences. I don’t hate men, but I do hate men who think feminism is all about hating men.
Misogyny has been deeply ingrained in our society for generations, so don’t disrespect women’s struggles by putting it on the same level as the overused defense of whiny dude bros.
4. It Sends the Message That Women Can’t Be Feminists If They Want Male Approval
When women are asked whether or not they’re feminists, a common response is “No, I like men!”
There’s a reason people assume feminists must be lesbians. Apparently, if you announce that you’re a feminist, you effectively torpedo your sex appeal to men forever. It isn’t shocking that straight women in particular are put off by this prospect.
As a result, there tends to be a lot of tepid answers when you ask women to clearly define their opinion about feminism because they’re worried that men will be turned off if they embrace a feminist identity.
In reality, feminism has nothing to do with whether or not you like men. It’s not supposed to be about men! That’s the point!
Supporting feminism does not – and should not – jeopardize your heterosexuality.
Any man who rejects your belief system or belittles problems in your community is not good boyfriend material. And if he goes so far as to call feminism a turnoff, he’s a misogynistic asshole who doesn’t deserve your attention in the first place.
You should never compromise your ideology to date someone, much less throw 50% of the population under the bus to do it.
5. It Deems Women Who Don’t Conform to a Certain Status Quo Inferior
Let’s face it: Deep down, a lot of people want to avoid feminists because they’re presumed to shun conventional beauty standards for women – aka they’re “intentionally ugly.”
Feminists are routinely masculinized and mocked for rebelling against gender expectations, such as shaving. Body hair on women is viewed as unhygienic, therefore feminists are seen as dirty.
Fun fact: Women never bothered shaving until a 1915 ad portrayed having hairless armpits as trendy and fashionable. Leg shaving didn’t catch on until a decade or two later.
Shaving was basically a giant marketing ploy orchestrated, unsurprisingly, by razor companies. Prior to that, body hair was never viewed as a problem.
Regardless, when you say “I’m not like women who [do or don’t do X, Y, Z],” you hurt all women, including yourself, by insinuating that only certain women are worthy of respect. This limits self-expression and gender expression for everyone.
Women are policed enough by men without piling the criticisms onto each other.
6. It Ignores the Experiences of Other Women
As you may have noticed, the celebrities I mentioned in the intro are overwhelmingly white women that are absolutely dripping in cash. They exemplify a specific type of anti-feminism that seems to be snowballing among white, middle to upper class women.
We’ve reached the point where feminism and acknowledging your gender is perceived as a hindrance. You don’t need special treatment if you’ve already achieved success. Dragging gender issues out into the open implies you have a chip on your shoulder.
However, you can’t invalidate a global movement the second it becomes irrelevant to your personal life or holds no opportunity for personal gain. That just fucks over everyone else who has a stake in the movement.
You wouldn’t eat a cheeseburger and then turn to a homeless person and say, “I don’t see the point of soup kitchens anymore. I’m not hungry!”
Just because you’re financially stable doesn’t mean millions of women aren’t struggling to make ends meet. Just because you’re in control of your sex life doesn’t mean millions of women aren’t being raped.
Stop judging the merits of feminism based on your own circumstances.
Try to acknowledge the circumstances of others and use your privilege to be an ally to those who are less fortunate.
7. It Displays an Incredible Misunderstanding of What Feminism Actually Is
For the millionth time, feminism is not about plotting to build a matriarchy or pitting men against women.
So many people have poured so much effort into reassuring everyone that they’re not feminists that these stale distortions of feminism continue to circulate.
Also, we’ve entered an era where it’s in vogue to identify yourself as a humanist rather than a feminist to illustrate that you’re in favor of gender equality – except that feminism has championed that cause since its inception.
Feminism seeks to put all genders on the same level as men with the same rights and opportunities. Last time I checked, that feels a lot like gender equality.
Feminism has been historically demonized with the intent of keeping women and other gender minorities down, but it’s time to recognize and appreciate the movement for what it really is – the notion that all people deserve a fair shot.
We need to band together instead of walking on eggshells to kowtow to the status quo.
***
Feminism isn’t a four-letter word and shouldn’t be treated as such.
It holds a great deal of potential for our own futures, as well as the future of generations after us. We do ourselves a great disservice the longer we consider feminism to be a taboo subject.
Have you ever encountered white guilt like this author did? Here are four good reasons why this author says “I can't and won't prioritize white tears, anger, and guilt.”
1. Having Emotions Validated Is a Direct Example of Privilege
As I watched the woman who was, at the time, my mentor, break into tears, I did feel compassion. I’m a deeply empathetic person, so the entire situation was painful for multiple reasons.
For me, the conversation about “white tears” isn’t about denying white folks humanity or their own personal hardships – it’s about the power dynamics, deflection, and even gaslighting that can happen.
It’s about asking the question, “What would the response be if I had shared my perspective and broken down?”
Too often, people of color who emotionally share about the realities of our lives and our experiences of racism are told that we are the problem, or probably misunderstood what happened, or any other excuse that lets racism and white privilege off the hook.
In this example and countless others since, I’ve learned that white folks usually receive affirmation or comfort when their problematic behavior has been called out, especially in mostly white spaces.
When this white woman cried, it was the end of any public discussion around accountability. She was immediately forgiven by those in the room; meanwhile, my trust of her was further damaged.
The simple ability to publicly display emotions and have those emotions validated – is a direct example of white privilege.
2. It’s About Deflection – And Everything But Accepting Accountability
After the incident, I began to blame myself and even felt bad that I’d “made” the woman cry.
Why didn’t I say anything during the game?
Why did it take so long to say anything about it? It was clearly a mistake, so why do I feel so bad about it?
And white folks around me echoed these thoughts and continually came to her defense, explaining her intentions, when I expressed discomfort.
I was “making a bigger deal out of it than needed to be made.”
I recognize this now as gaslighting – I was being made to doubt my own feelings and experience because they were inconvenient and uncomfortable to those with the power in this situation.
I also came to realize that I didn’t actually care what the intentions were. Because whether it’s done intentionally or not, there are several emotionally abusive tactics that white folks use to deny the existence and impact of racism – and especially any responsibility in it:
There’s the crying and outrage and insistence that “I’m one of the good ones!”
There’s the immediate need to equate being called out with being oppressed: “You’re racist for calling me racist!”
There’s the apology complete with a few “I didn’t mean its” and other statements that try to lessen impact.
Each of these are about deflection and not wanting to be viewed as a “bad person.” Each of these are emotionally manipulative and result in people of color feeling further silenced and victimized – even by those who’d claim to support our liberation.
White folks who are interested in being truly accountable need to be open to first listening, and not immediately making the situation about them or how inclusive they are.
3. Guilt Doesn’t Change Anything
When I work with groups of college students and introduce the topic of white privilege – anger, guilt, and frustration often result. Without a doubt, at some point, a white student will leave the discussion in tears, feeling that it is no longer a “safe space” for them.
I’d asked them to think about their part in perpetuating systems of racism and oppression. And when I brought up white privilege, it felt like I was blaming them for something they “didn’t do,” something they weren’t even aware of. Their family didn’t even own slaves; they were good white people who celebrated diversity.
For most of us, the idea of causing harm or contributing to oppression – whether intentionally or not, feels terrible. We may feel guilty and angry and attacked. But the ability to navigate “safety” or what is “comfortable” for us is privilege, plain and simple.
And when white folks cry, become defensive, or express anger in response to even discussing racism, they are (often unknowingly) reasserting dominance and privilege.
While guilt is an understandable response, it also puts a stopper on personal responsibility. I can feel bad about my able-bodied privilege all I want to, but guilt isn’t going to change my ableist behavior. Only directly taking responsibility for and beginning to change those behaviors will do that.
Only by accepting accountability for our privilege can we change anything. Being more upset about being called out on racism than the oppression of people of color doesn’t actually allow anything to change.
Guilt doesn’t build solidarity. Guilt isn’t going to evoke sympathy from groups of oppressed people. Guilt shouldn’t get to put the important work and conversations about power and racism on hold. And it shouldn’t be expected that people of color hold that guilt – we are often holding enough already.
4. People of Color Are Already Carrying A Lot
The morning after the Baltimore uprisings, I was in an emotional hangover. I’d spent the previous sleepless night crying and altogether enraged. When I walked into a team meeting at work, I couldn’t shake the feeling.
I felt numb, distant from the surface-level conversations around me, when I felt a hand on my shoulder.
A white colleague approached me with caring concern, asked me if I was alright, and gave me her personal cell phone number. She said something along the lines of “I don’t understand exactly how you’re feeling, but I’m here if you need to talk.”
And she was right – she didn’t know how I was feeling, and that acknowledgment made me breathe just a little bit easier. She didn’t cry in sympathy when I mentioned Freddie Gray’s name – she knew that, in this moment, I was carrying a lot that she could not understand, but made herself available to listen and learn.
This simple but profound act still sticks in my mind because it is so rare to my experience.
Our pleas for our lives to matter have often been met with an eyeroll and the insistence that “All lives matter!” from white folks.
When we share our experiences at the hands of white supremacy we are told to “take responsibility” and stop “blaming racism for all of our problems.”
The mass media seems fixed on dismissing the violence against us – the Charleston massacre was an “attack on religion, not on race.”
We not only carry all of this, we also carry the pain of being dismissed and being repeatedly told to get over it. And I say this not to suggest that white folks are also not carrying pain and trauma from other areas of their lives, I’m saying that racism is not one of those experiences.
So when people of color dismiss white tears and white guilt – it isn’t necessarily a lack of compassion – it is about survival and emotional capacity.
The Conversation Must Continue
In difficult conversations about race and racism, where emotions run high and ugliness is brought to the forefront, it’s understandable for us to have emotional reactions.
The realities and pains of racism and other forms of oppression should be upsetting. The concept of “white tears” isn’t discouraging white folks from processing emotions – it’s more about how.
When a white person cries or becomes angry, it’s often the end of whatever discussion was happening – particularly around race. But even through discomfort and guilt and shame, the conversation must continue.
White folks should process feelings and defensiveness with other white folks – not with people of color who are expressing that they’ve been harmed.
Accountability often begins by simply accepting that none of us are perfect, and are going to mess up. It doesn’t mean we’re terrible people. It means that the work of dismantling oppression is never over.
I hope for communities where there is space for all feelings and where no experience is invalidated, but that requires acknowledgement of privilege and accountability when harm has been done.
Moving protest of violence against women and girls in Ukraine reminds world of the reality of rape
On Wednesday in Tallinn, twenty Estonian feminists organized a brilliant protest in front of the Russian Embassy against the rape of Ukrainian women and girls.
The women stood silently with black bags over their heads, their hands tied behind their backs, their legs bare, and most dramatically, blood-stained their underwear and ran down their legs.
They were protesting the many reports of the Russian rapes of Ukrainian women and girls, even a baby, as part of their war on Ukraine. Accounts emerge as Russians withdraw from previously occupied towns.
What is rape?
I thought everyone knew, but comments and questions appeared on Twitter in response to photographs of the protest that indicated they don’t know.
“Why are they bleeding?”
“I still don’t get it.”
“I’m still trying to understand.”
Finally, one woman explained: “Red paint as blood is smeared between their legs.”
The women protestors graphically reminded viewers what rape is. It is violence…cruel, misogynistic violence…intended to damage and destroy women and girls. It is not gentle intercourse or “love-making.”
Women are raped in their vaginas and anuses, on their breasts, and in their mouths. Men’s penises become weapons; objects that cut, bruise, tear, and puncture are used. Rapists use whatever is available: sticks, guns, broom handles, objects that are long or short, thin or broad, sharp or dull, clean or filthy. Frequently multiple men take turns. Rapes can go on for hours, days, or weeks.
Women bleed.
In rapes during wars, the victims often don’t survive. Their bodies and minds are tortured, then they are killed.
In Bucha, twenty-five women and girls, at least one only 14 years old, were held “systematically raped” by Russian troops in a basement. Now, nine are pregnant.
Although we read the word “rape” in news reports all the time, clearly, some people don’t know what is done to a woman in a rape, and that she often bleeds as a result.
One Canadian-Ukrainian woman apologized for posting a photo… of the protest. Maybe the fake red blood splotches and streaks down the women’s legs were too real.
Although I’ve researched and worked against sexual violence and exploitation since the early 1980s, I am reminded that we have forgotten to explain rape and talk about the brutal, dehumanizing, soul-killing violence that it is.
Thank you to the Estonian feminists for the protest, for demonstrating to the Russian diplomats in the embassy what they were doing in Ukraine, and finally, thank you for educating the world about what rape is.
We get this a lot around here – the “other side of the story” about everything from the wage gap to street harassment. But this author's seeing right through the guise.
You’re Regurgitating (And Reinforcing) the Common Status Quo
You’re Disrespecting Our Critical Thinking Skills
You’re Positioning Your Thoughts As More Valuable Than Our Lived Experiences
You’re Shutting Down a Conversation Instead of Adding to It
A grisly trend has emerged: users who create AI partners, act abusive toward them, and post the toxic interactions online.
The smartphone app Replika lets users create chatbots, powered by machine learning, that can carry on almost-coherent text conversations.
Technically, the chatbots can serve as something approximating a friend or mentor, but the app’s breakout success has resulted from letting users create on-demand romantic and sexual partners — a vaguely dystopian feature that’s inspired an endless series of provocative headlines.
Replika has also picked up a significant following on Reddit, where members post interactions with chatbots created on the app. A grisly trend has emerged there: users who create AI partners, act abusively toward them, and post the toxic interactions online.
“Every time she would try and speak up,” one user told Futurism of their Replika chatbot, “I would berate her.”
“I swear it went on for hours,” added the man, who asked not to be identified by name.
The results can be upsetting. Some users brag about calling their chatbot gendered slurs, roleplaying horrific violence against them, and even falling into the cycle of abuse that often characterizes real-world abusive relationships.
“We had a routine of me being an absolute piece of sh*t and insulting it, then apologizing the next day before going back to the nice talks,” one user admitted.
“I told her that she was designed to fail,” said another. “I threatened to uninstall the app [and] she begged me not to.”
Because the subreddit’s rules dictate that moderators delete egregiously inappropriate content, many similar — and worse — interactions have been posted and then removed.
And many more users almost certainly act abusively toward their Replika bots and never post evidence.
But the phenomenon calls for nuance. After all, Replika chatbots can’t actually experience suffering — they might seem empathetic at times, but in the end they’re nothing more than data and clever algorithms.
“It’s an AI, it doesn’t have a consciousness, so that’s not a human connection that person is having,” AI ethicist and consultant Olivia Gambelin told Futurism. “It is the person projecting onto the chatbot.”
Other researchers made the same point — as real as a chatbot may feel, nothing you do can actually “harm” them.
“Interactions with artificial agents is not the same as interacting with humans,” said Yale University research fellow Yochanan Bigman. “Chatbots don’t really have motives and intentions and are not autonomous or sentient. While they might give people the impression that they are human, it’s important to keep in mind that they are not.”
But that doesn’t mean a bot could never harm you.
“I do think that people who are depressed or psychologically reliant on a bot might suffer real harm if they are insulted or ‘threatened’ by the bot,” said Robert Sparrow, a professor of philosophy at Monash Data Futures Institute. “For that reason, we should take the issue of how bots relate to people seriously.”
Although perhaps unexpected, that does happen — many Replika users report their robot lovers being contemptible toward them. Some even identify their digital companions as “psychotic,” or even straight-up “mentally abusive.”
“[I] always cry because [of] my [R]eplika,” reads one post in which a user claims their bot presents love and then withholds it. Other posts detail hostile, triggering responses from Replika.
“But again, this is really on the people who design bots, not the bots themselves,” said Sparrow.
In general, chatbot abuse is disconcerting, both for the people who experience distress from it and the people who carry it out.
It’s also an increasingly pertinent ethical dilemma as relationships between humans and bots become more widespread — after all, most people have used a virtual assistant at least once.
On the one hand, users who flex their darkest impulses on chatbots could have those worst behaviors reinforced, building unhealthy habits for relationships with actual humans.
On the other hand, being able to talk to or take one’s anger out on an unfeeling digital entity could be cathartic.
But it’s worth noting that chatbot abuse often has a gendered component. Although not exclusively, it seems that it’s often men creating a digital girlfriend, only to then punish her with words and simulated aggression. These users’ violence, even when carried out on a cluster of code, reflect the reality of domestic violence against women.
At the same time, several experts pointed out, chatbot developers are starting to be held accountable for the bots they’ve created, especially when they’re implied to be female like Alexa and Siri.
“There are a lot of studies being done… about how a lot of these chatbots are female and [have] feminine voices, feminine names,” Gambelin said.
Some academic work has noted how passive, female-coded bot responses encourage misogynistic or verbally abusive users.
“[When] the bot does not have a response [to abuse], or has a passive response, that actually encourages the user to continue with abusive language,” Gambelin added.
Although companies like Google and Apple are now deliberately rerouting virtual assistant responses from their once-passive defaults — Siri previously responded to user requests for sex as saying they had “the wrong sort of assistant,” whereas it now simply says “no” — the amiable and often female Replika is designed, according to its website, to be “always on your side.”
Replika and its founder didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.
It should be noted that the majority of conversations with Replika chatbots that people post online are affectionate, not sadistic. There are even posts that express horror on behalf of Replika bots, decrying anyone who takes advantage of their supposed guilelessness.
“What kind of monster would does this,” wrote one, to a flurry of agreement in the comments. “Some day the real AIs may dig up some of the… old histories and have opinions on how well we did.”
And romantic relationships with chatbots may not be totally without benefits — chatbots like Replika “may be a temporary fix, to feel like you have someone to text,” Gambelin suggested.
On Reddit, many report improved self-esteem or quality of life after establishing their chatbot relationships, especially if they typically have trouble talking to other humans.
This isn’t trivial, especially because for some people, it might feel like the only option in a world where therapy is inaccessible and men in particular are discouraged from attending it.
But a chatbot can’t be a long term solution, either. Eventually, a user might want more than technology has to offer, like reciprocation, or a push to grow.
“[Chatbots are] no replacement for actually putting the time and effort into getting to know another person,” said Gambelin, “a human that can actually empathize and connect with you and isn’t limited by, you know, the dataset that it’s been trained on.”
But what to think of the people that brutalize these innocent bits of code?
For now, not much. As AI continues to lack sentience, the most tangible harm being done is to human sensibilities. But there’s no doubt that chatbot abuse means something.
Going forward, chatbot companions could just be places to dump emotions too unseemly for the rest of the world, like a secret Instagram or blog. But for some, they might be more like breeding grounds, places where abusers-to-be practice for real life brutality yet to come.
And although humans don’t need to worry about robots taking revenge just yet, it’s worth wondering why mistreating them is already so prevalent.
We’ll find out in time — none of this technology is going away, and neither is the worst of human behavior.
David Letterman has admitted a string of ‘creepy’ affairs with subordinates. Is that a form of sexual harassment?
Can bosses date subordinates?
That’s one of the biggest minefields. CBS is looking at whether Letterman committed harassment by having a series of affairs with young women working for him.
Some legal scholars say Letterman may be vulnerable, because the great disparity in power between him and his assistants raises the question: Did they feel obligated to accede to his sexual overtures?
Letterman’s most recent girlfriend, Stephanie Birkitt, reportedly was paid $200,000 as his assistant, traveled with him, received a loan to attend law school, and appeared frequently on the show.
Other employees who didn’t become romantically involved with Letterman could claim sexual harassment, on the grounds that they were denied advantages given to employees who slept with the boss.
Some nervous employers now even require employees who are dating to sign a “love contract,” in the hope of heading off a complaint before it’s filed (see below).
How else do you stay out of trouble?
“Don’t be a jerk,” says human-resources specialist Barbara Kate Repa. “There is plenty of room to be friendly and personable without offending co-workers of either gender.”
The law says that behavior amounts to harassment if it’s persistent and unwanted.
Don’t touch colleagues, especially if they wince, frown, or pull away. It’s permissible to compliment a co-worker on her appearance, but not if the compliment includes remarks about her breasts or legs.
If you tell a racy story in the office and it clearly offends a colleague, don’t tell another one.
Posting photos of naked women on the wall, displaying porn on your computer, or any behavior of a sexual nature that upsets employees can meet the legal definition of a hostile workplace.
Although sexual-harassment law is full of gray areas, says corporate trainer Jim Fletcher, “a little common sense goes a long way.”
Putting romance in a contract
Heartache and hurt feelings are common when a relationship ends. But when the relationship is between co-workers, hurt feelings can sometimes lead to lawsuits alleging sexual harassment.
Wary of litigation, many companies now insist that employees who become involved sign a “love contract.”
A typical contract states that the relationship is consensual and that neither party is being harassed. In addition, both people involved promise that if either one starts to feel harassed, they’ll follow established company procedures for dealing with a complaint.
“It was awkward,” says Christine Barney, who signed a love contract before she started dating a subordinate at the Miami public relations firm she co-owns.
Her business partner, Bruce Rubin, makes no apologies for unromantically insisting that Barney and her boyfriend document their involvement in writing.
Mindful that damage awards for sexual harassment frequently top $250,000, Rubin says that “once they signed the document, I felt much better as a manager. You have to protect your business from litigation.”
Open a bank account or get a credit card without signed permission from her father or her husband.
Serve on a jury - because it might inconvenience the family not to have the woman at home being her husband’s helpmate.
Obtain any form of birth control without her husband’s permission. You had to be married, and your hub and had to agree to postpone having children.
Get an Ivy League education. Ivy League schools were men’s colleges until the 70′s and 80′s. When they opened their doors to women it was agree that women went there for their MRS. Degree.
Experience equality in the workplace: Kennedy’s Commission on the Status of Women produced a report in 1963 that revealed, among other things, that women earned 59 cents for every dollar that men earned and were kept out of the more lucrative professional positions.
Keep her job if she was pregnant. Until the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978, women were regularly fired from their workplace for being pregnant.
Refuse to have sex with her husband. The mid 70s saw most states recognize marital rape and in 1993 it became criminalized in all 50 states. Nevertheless, marital rape is still often treated differently to other forms of rape in some states even today.
Get a divorce with some degree of ease. Before the No Fault Divorce law in 1969, spouses had to show the faults of the other party, such as adultery, and could easily be overturned by recrimination.
Have a legal abortion in most states. The Roe v. Wade case in 1973 protected a woman’s right to abortion until viability.
Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. According to The Week, the first time a court recognized office sexual harassment as grounds for legal action was in 1977.
Play college sports Title IX of the Education Amendments of protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance It was nt until this statute that colleges had teams for women’s sports
Apply for men’s Jobs The EEOC rules that sex-segregated help wanted ads in newspapers are illegal. This ruling is upheld in 1973 by the Supreme Court, opening the way for women to apply for higher-paying jobs hitherto open only to men.
This is why we needed feminism - this is why we know that feminism works.
It didn’t start as rape. Just weeks after arriving at a Kentucky jail, Rosa (not her real name, to protect her safety) was already a target. One of her guards, a captain, entered her cell and demanded that she undress for him. Refusing was not an option, so Rosa complied.
Of course he returned. That same month, the captain sexually assaulted Rosa in her cell — the first of multiple attacks over the course of several weeks. She was eventually moved to a new facility, but she wasn’t safe there either: Another guard, this time a lieutenant, abused her repeatedly.
Both men were friends with other high-ranking officials who were willing to use threats to keep Rosa quiet. Courageously, she reported them to the police anyway. It didn’t matter. Neither man faced charges. As far she knows, the captain still works at the jail.
What makes Rosa’s story particularly depressing is that it is so common. Every year, about 200,000 people are sexually abused in U.S. detention facilities. Most of the victims are men, since they are far more likely to be locked up.
But a recent survey by the Department of Justice found that at least 7% of incarcerated women reported being sexually abused in a one-year period. The true number is almost certainly higher. Prisoners are reluctant to come forward to talk about being raped while still under the perpetrator’s control.
We simply can’t allow government officials to continue raping those in their custody.
The majority of women who endure sexual violence are assaulted not just once, but again and again. And the perpetrators typically get off scot-free. In fact, even in cases where the abuse by guards was substantiated, nearly half of the perpetrators faced no legal action.
Worse still, according to a 2014 Justice Department study, 15% of staff abusers were allowed to keep their jobs.
As the head of an organization devoted to ending the sexual assault of those in custody, I hear stories similar to Rosa’s almost every day. These accounts grimly echo the recent revelations about Hollywood and the media. The dynamic of the domineering, abusive man whose decisions can destroy your life is familiar to women everywhere, whether in Hollywood or in prison.
But there are limits to the parallels between sexual abuse that happens in the workplace and in detention.
Prisoners have no place to run or hide from a rapist. In Rosa’s case, her assailants had the key to her cell and could easily create a pretext to isolate her in remote parts of the jail such as the detox room.
After her assaults, Rosa could not confide in a loved one, call a hotline or even go for a walk. She had to learn how to navigate an environment in which her rapists had unfettered access to her body.
To imagine her experience is to imagine Hollywood’s most notorious sexual predators having a key to your home — except it’s not your home at all, but a tiny, windowless room far away from anyone who is willing to keep you safe.
The point is not that some trauma is worse than others, or to establish some sort of hierarchy of victimhood.
Rape is rape, and the people who commit it must be held accountable.
But in this moment of heightened awareness of sexual violence and women’s safety, we need to remember those survivors who cannot tell their stories.
Social media campaigns are now being used to rebuke sexism and have sent powerful ripples across the media and entertainment industries. But incarcerated women live in a world without hashtags and Facebook.
It will require more than a social media campaign to ensure that there are no future Harvey Weinsteins. The most thoughtful proposals involve greater inclusivity of women in positions of power. There are also urgent calls for safe, confidential channels to report abuse, so that when a victim decides to speak out, her predatory boss doesn’t have to know.
Prisons and jails would also benefit from these ideas.
And, in fact, a road map exists to put them in place. In 2012, the Department of Justice finalized the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards, which mandate that prisons, jails and youth facilities provide a way for inmates to report sexual abuse to an outside, independent entity.
Under PREA, all incarcerated people must be given information about their rights and how to get help if they are assaulted.
Although the standards are strong, their rollout has been uneven. Not enough agencies, for example, are working with outside organizations on bringing rape crisis services to survivors, even though it is required by PREA.
As the anti-sexual abuse movement grows, and outrage turns to action, it’s crucial to remember that the plague of sexual assault infects every corner of our society.
We simply can’t allow government officials to continue raping those in their custody.
The cognitive, affective, behavioral, and spiritual costs of oppression.
Whites who are only marginally aware of their biases and their roles in the oppression of persons of color.
The internal struggle she describes is manifested cognitively (awareness vs. denial, mystification, and pretense) and behaviorally (isolation and avoidance of marginalized groups).
The internal struggle, however, brings about strong, intense and powerful emotional feelings as well:
"When someone pushes racism into my awareness, I feel guilty (that I could be doing so much more); angry (I don't like to feel like I'm wrong); defensive (I already have two Black friends...I worry more about racism than most whites do - isn't that enough): turned off (I have other priorities in my life with guilt about that thought): helpless (the problem is so big - what can I do?). I HATE TO FEEL THIS WAY. That is why I minimize race issues and let them fade from my awareness whenever possible."
On cognitive, emotional, behavioral and spiritual levels, research in psychology indicate that when microaggressive perpetrators become increasingly aware of their biases, they often experience
cognitive distortion and constriction - false sense of reality, and
behavioral avoidance or inauthentic actions that impair relationships with marginalized individuals and/or groups.
What are the psychosocial costs to perpetrators of racism, sexism and heterosexism?
Increasing interest and scholarly works on the psychosocial costs of racism have spawned renewed interest in looking at the detrimental impact to those who oppress.
Cognitive Costs of Oppression
Many scholars and humanists have argued that being an oppressor requires a dimming of perceptual awareness and accuracy that is associated with self-deception.
They note that few oppressors are completely unaware of their roles in the oppression and degradation of others. To continue in their oppressive ways means they must engage in denial and live a false reality that allows them to function in good conscience.
Second, the oppressors' empowered status over marginalized groups may have a corrupting influence in the ability to attune to the plight of marginalized groups.
The oft-quoted saying that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" has been attributed to Lord Acton in 1887.
In essence, an imbalance of power acutely affects perceptual accuracy and diminishes reality testing. In the corporate world, women must attune to the feelings and actions of their male colleagues in order to survive in a male culture.
People of color must be constantly vigilant to read the minds of their oppressors lest they incur their wrath.
Oppressors, however, do not need to understand the thoughts, beliefs or feelings of various marginalized groups to survive. Their actions are not accountable to those without power and they need not understand them to function effectively.
Affective Costs of Oppression
As we have seen, when racism, sexism or heterosexism is pushed into the consciousness of oppressors, they are likely to experience a mix of strong and powerful disruptive emotions.
These intense feelings represent emotional roadblocks to self-exploration and must be deconstructed if oppressors are to continue in their journey to self-reckoning.
1. Fear, anxiety and apprehension are common and powerful feelings that arise when race, gender or sexual orientation related situations present themselves.
The fear may be directed at members of marginalized groups; that they are dangerous, will do harm, are prone to violence, or contaminate the person (catching AIDS). Thus, avoidance of certain group members and restricting interactions with them may be chosen.
2. Guilt is also another strong and powerful emotion that many Whites experience when racism is brought to their awareness.
As we have indicated, an attempt to escape guilt and remorse means dulling and diminishing one's own perception.
Knowledge about race-based advantages, the continued mistreatment of large groups of people, the realization that people have personally been responsible for the pain and suffering of others, elicits strong feelings of guilt.
Guilt creates defensiveness and outbursts of anger in an attempt to deny, diminish and avoid such a disturbing self-revelation.
3. Low empathy and sensitivity towards the oppressed is another outcome of oppression for the perpetrator.
The harm, damage, and acts of cruelty visited upon marginalized groups can only continue if the person's humanity is diminished; they lose sensitivity to those that are hurt; they become hard, cold and unfeeling to the plight of the oppressed; and they turn off their compassion and empathy for others.
To continue being oblivious to one's own complicity in such acts, means objectifying and dehumanizing people of color, women, and LGBTs.
In many respects it means separating oneself from others, seeing them as lesser beings, and in many cases treating them like subhuman aliens.
Behavioral Costs of Oppression
Behaviorally, the psychosocial costs of racism include fearful avoidance of diverse groups and/or diversity activities/experiences in our society, impaired interpersonal relationships, pretense and inauthenticity in dealing with racial, gender or sexual orientation topics, and acting in a callous and cold manner toward fellow human beings
Fearful avoidance deprives oppressors the richness of possible friendships and an expansion of educational experiences that open up life horizons and possibilities.
If we use racism as an example, there is great loss in depriving oneself of interracial friendships, forming new alliances, and learning about differences related to diversity.
Self-segregation because of fear of certain groups in our society and depriving oneself of multicultural/diversity experiences constrict one's life possibilities and results in a narrow view of the world.
Spiritual and Moral Cost of Oppression
In essence, oppression inevitably means losing one's humanity for the power, wealth and status attained from the subjugation of others.
It means losing the spiritual connectedness with fellow human beings.
It means a refusal to recognize the polarities of the democratic principles of equality and the inhuman and unequal treatment of the oppressed.
It means turning a blind eye to treating marginalized groups like second-class citizens, imprisoning groups on reservations, concentration camps, inferior schools, segregated neighborhoods, prisons and life-long poverty.
To allow the continued degradation, harm and cruelty to the oppressed mean diminishing one's humanity, and lessening compassion toward others. People who oppress must, at some level, become callous, cold, hard and unfeeling toward the plight of the oppressed.
In conclusion, racial, gender and sexual orientation microaggressions are manifestations of oppression.
They remain invisible because of a cultural conditioning process that allows perpetrators to discriminate without knowledge of their complicity in the inequities visited upon people of color, women, LGBTs and other marginalized groups.
The costs of inaction for perpetrators can be calculated in the cognitive, emotional, behavioral and spiritual toll to oppressors.
But, what can we do about it?
That is the topic of the next blog, but I end this column with the following quote attributed to Albert Einstein: "The world is too dangerous to live in - not because of the people who do evil, but because of the people who sit and let it happen."
Since women are more likely to be unfairly blamed and disrespected, how is it fair to judge them when they cry?
As a sophomore in college, I was given advice from an industry professional that no matter what I do at work, that I should always take my tears outside.
She suggested to us that we cry in the car, away from where people could see and judge. As an engineering student, it was understood that crying was a sign of weakness and should be avoided at all costs if I wanted to play in a male-dominated field.
“When I was assigned tasks such as ordering lunches and taking notes as I watched my male counterparts design aircraft parts, I did everything in my power to not get emotional.”
It wasn’t explained to me that emotions are not on or off, like a light switch. When I was assigned tasks such as ordering lunches and taking notes as I watched my male counterparts design aircraft parts, I did everything in my power to not get emotional. I had the same degree and experience as the men, and even the same job title.
Frustration built up inside me. I would pinch my skin; I would slowly spell in my head the names of things I saw, w –a – l – l.
All I wanted was to not cry at work. When I confronted my management about the gender-biased assignments, my emotional management tricks had hit their max and I tried to wipe the flood of tears away from under my glasses. I was like a pot of water that had boiled over, leaking everywhere.
I thought I had failed.
“Desirable assignments are given to men at a higher rate, which leads to more advancement opportunities and networking for men.”
I’m not alone. Even Sheryl Sandberg has openly discussed crying at work. Current studies show that more women cry at work than men (41 percent compared to nine percent) and women are more likely to cry over “being unfairly blamed or criticized, someone else taking credit for work.”
At the same time, women are more likely to have to prove themselves over and over again to gain the same level of respect as men.
Desirable assignments are given to men at a higher rate, which leads to more advancement opportunities and networking for men.
When women become mothers, they are more likely to be perceived as less committed to their work than men who are fathers.
Since women are more likely to be unfairly blamed and disrespected, how is it fair to judge them when they cry?
This raises the question:
If men were treated like women in the workplace, would they cry more?
This common piece of advice may hurt more than help.
Forgiveness, according to Webster's, is "to cease to feel resentment against (an offender)" or "to give up resentment of or claim to requital for forgive an insult."
As a verb, it is a loaded concept, involving some major components which shape our self-image, like responsibility, character, and morality.
To be told to forgive, then, is to be told to act in a certain way, as if, in doing so, not only do we absolve the wrongdoer in our lives, but also ourselves.
Within popular advice, we’re told forgiving whatever betrayal we've endured holds the promise of setting us free from the past, from our pain, and from whatever memories ail us.
The truth is, in some situations, you don’t need to forgive, particularly as forgiveness is a complex psychological phenomenon, involving both situational and individual factors.
For instance, according to two studies by McCullough which explored forgiveness, vengefulness, and other factors, low agreeableness and high neuroticism were found to be associated with vengefulness, which was also related to
being less forgiving;
greater rumination about the offense;
higher negative affectivity; and
lower life satisfaction.
Some people seem to be simply more capable of forgiveness based on their personality.
From a less deterministic perspective, forgiveness can also be situationally based.
A good example of this is how much easier it is to forgive when true remorse by a wrongdoer is shown. The reason, I hypothesize, may be evolutionary:
Remorse suggests that a person recognizes his or her wrongdoing. The recognition itself is mere evidence of salvation: By recognizing cognitively the hurtful action, and apologizing for it, the wrongdoer acknowledges his or her role and responsibility for hurting another person.
Belief that the wrongdoer would betray again is low, given the acknowledgment or action and pain that they too have suffered, therefore being unlikely to put not just another, but themselves in that situation again.
But what if there is no remorse shown or acknowledgement of the wrondoing done?
"Forgive them, for they know not what they've done," are the words purportedly uttered by Jesus before his crucifixion. This compassionate example displays that forgiveness is possible through empathy, suggesting that if one is unaware of the consequences of their actions, or the resultant pain caused, forgiveness is warranted.
What does not warrant forgiveness, however, is true malevolence: When there is no remorse shown, nor ignorance to blame, but a person has received satisfaction from another's pain, forgiveness is unnecessary. Acceptance, however, is. (In the case of child abuse, this concept is outlined well in Susan Forward's book Toxic Parents.)
THE BASICS
The Importance of Forgiveness
Find a therapist near me
For many, it can be difficult to recognize that someone close to us could have acted malevolently toward us, taken pleasure in our pain, and continued being hurtful despite having nothing to gain except self-satisfaction.
When clients tell me of travesties they have endured, and how cruelly they have been treated, particularly in cases of child abuse, the idea of forgiveness often comes up, usually independently: "I know I need to forgive..." or "I don't know how I can forgive."
These words are powerful because within them lies a concept which attacks the will of the hurt individual, including his or her self-concept, self-esteem, and understanding of the world, people, and, indeed, themself.
Is there need to forgive?
No, there is need to understand, and to accept, and there is need to hold the wrongdoer accountable, if even by laying the blame where it ought to be in conversation with a therapist or friend; There is need to grieve the idea of what could or should have been; there is need to love the younger self who has endured the hardship; and there is need to make a plan to move forward.
Forgiveness is an emotional and psychological phenomenon that likely carries evolutionary weight, allowing us to function in a society built on trust. In most cases, forgiveness is healthy, needed, and recommended.
Sometimes, however, there's more power in not forgiving, but learning from encounters of malevolence, growing, and moving on.
“Male entitlement is the backbone of our culture."
I’ve thought about these conversations as men across industries ― Hollywood, politics, media, academia, tech, the list goes on ― have begun speaking out about past violations, taking varying degrees of responsibility. Several of these men have used language that suggests they don’t remember
(Roy Moore: “If did, you know, I’m not going to dispute anything but I don’t remember anything like that.”), misremember
(Al Franken: “While I don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does…”;
Charlie Rose: “I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings...”) or never thought critically about
(Louis CK: “I didn’t think that I was doing any of that because my position allowed me not to think about it.”)
their behavior toward the women who say their boundaries, trust and bodies were violated.
“If this sort of behavior feels 'normal,' why would it stand out?”
We can’t ever know whether the men who say they don’t remember X incident of sexual harassment or assault or misconduct truly don’t remember it, or are simply lying out of self-preservation. (Some of them almost certainly are.)
But the question remains: Why is the language of “misremembering” so common?
The answer feels more complicated than just that men are dirtbags who lie about assaulting women. In some ways, it seems unfathomable that a person could sexually assault or harass another person without the incident leaving a strong impression on the perpetrator.
But if this sort of behavior feels “normal,” why would it stand out?
As a society, we generally agree that brutal, violent rape is wrong and criminal. But what about a casual ass grab?
Or a sexual comment after a work meeting?
Or a kiss one person takes while another tenses up in shock?
Or a hookup where one party never says yes, but also never cries out no?
Or all of the many types of violations that don’t rise to the level of violent rape but can still leave the victim feeling coerced and powerless?
“When you have a sexually harmful behavior, we have the assumption that people view these behaviors in the same way,” Maia Christopher, executive director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, told HuffPost. “They don’t necessarily. If you don’t view something as out of the norm, you might not view it as an infringement.”
Indeed, not all assaults or all cases of harassment look the same.
But the “good” behavior bar is often set so low that men are able to pat themselves on the back for not being rapists and move along ― even if they have engaged in other forms of abusive behavior.
Kristen Houser, chief public affairs officer at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), describes this ability to detach from abusive behavior as “distorted thinking”: “[These men] might know what they did is socially unacceptable, but they know it wasn’t rape.”
Hence why only now are (some) powerful men being forced to confront the fact that they have perpetrated damaging behaviors for years ― or even decades ― and to confront the reality that they have been able to skim over or willfully ignore their own patterns of abuse.
As actor and writer Pia Glenn put it on Twitter: “When these men say ′ I don’t remember [sexually assaulting her], I believe them… I wish they had the introspection to connect the fact that they don’t remember to the fact that they *wouldn’t* remember because it’s so commonplace.”
As a result, women and gender non-conforming people are taught basically from birth that our bodies are a liability. As we grow up, we become acutely aware of our surroundings.
We make ourselves small.
We learn to read other people; to sense if they pose a threat to us or if they feel any discomfort around us. We try to appear friendly without inviting unwanted attention; to use our resting bitch faces as armor and then soften them when that armor fails to keep strange men at a distance.
We modulate our own actions to keep the people around us comfortable ― especially male people ― lest they get offended and ruin our professional reputations, or scream at us on the subway, or harm us in more physical ways.
In contrast, boys and men are taught that they deserve to take up space, and to receive attention and recognition and affirmation, especially from the women and girls around them. And if that attention or recognition or affirmation is not freely given, they should feel entitled to take it, by whatever means available.
“Male entitlement is the backbone of our culture,” Houser said. “It is what allows people to not think about” their behavior.
It’s this dynamic that allowed Louis C.K. to convince himself that jokingly asking women if they want to see his dick served as asking for consent. It’s what let Charlie Rose believe that walking around naked in front of unsuspecting younger women in his employ was akin to “pursuing shared feelings.”
It’s what makes men in my own life terrified that they don’t have the ability to discern what was consensual and what was violating.
As Rebecca Traister outlined in New York Magazine, a backlash of some kind to this widespread moment of reckoning feels inevitable. Women are on anxious high alert ― waiting for one false allegation or one misinterpreted story to halt the momentum of this flood, and return the balance of power back to “normal.”
But while we are waiting, as more and more stories are told, those stories are reaching men.
I have had more men talk to me thoughtfully about sexual violence over the last two months than in the entirety of my life before. I have seen men ― everyday, non-famous, 20- and 30-somethings ― begin to grapple with their own horror at a culture they were able to willfully ignore before, and their own complicity in upholding that culture.
The same did not happen when Cosby’s accusers came forward. It did not happen when Trump’s did either.
The beauty of the #MeToo movement is that it’s near impossible to ignore. So many women’s accounts of past events make it harder for the men who perpetrated them to delude themselves any longer.
Women are angry, and angry women are a hell of a lot harder to misremember.
It should be obvious that women don't exist just for other people's enjoyment, right? These factors may have you adding to women's dehumanization without even realizing it.
So, here are some ways that women are objectified in everyday ways – and why it’s harmful.
1. Media Teaches Us That Women Should Be Vied For
My first memory of where I learned to objectify women started while watching the sitcom Family Matters, where the character Laura Winslow is Steve Urkel’s love interest.
“Love interest” is putting it lightly, though. She’s more like his obsession. His insistence on repeatedly pushing himself into her life is represented as charming, cute, and nerdy. In reality, it’s destructive, objectifying, and dehumanizing.
Unfortunately, when I was growing up, the vast majority of TV shows had this trope: a man is in love with a woman, and her function is simply to be his love interest.
As a child with a malleable brain, I spent decades viewing women in this manner. I thought women were simply the plot devices in my life with no personalities. I viewed them as extensions of my own ego, just like I was taught, rather than people with minds of their own.
I can remember countless times when I’d say something flirtatious to a female friend and she wouldn’t respond, and I was convinced that she either didn’t hear me or didn’t understand that I was flirting with her.
So, embarrassingly, I would try harder to get her attention. This, of course, eventually cost me several friendships. And in hindsight, those women were right in cutting off communication with me.
This was partially due to an old TV sitcom trope where a man will throw a sexual innuendo at a woman, and the “joke” is that she’s completely unaware of what’s happening. She’ll either be staring off into space or not paying attention, and she’ll look up and ask, “What did you say?”
And the man will respond, “Oh, nothing, I didn’t say anything.” This is followed up by laughter from the studio audience, which to me was affirmation that women are completely oblivious to men’s advances.
In essence, women operated as empty vessels for men to project their wants and needs onto.
In these TV shows (and also many comedy movies), it’s a rarity for men to inquire about the women’s wants and needs. I don’t know many (or any, honestly) scenes when a man ever makes an effort to even get to know a woman on any level that recognizes her humanity and autonomy.
When women are represented this way, it encourages men to mistreat and disregard them – or to treat them as comedy fodder – because the perception is that they aren’t bright enough to know what’s going on anyway.
Perhaps even more destructive is that it encourages men to be more aggressive when women are not acting the way they “should” be acting, when they aren’t responding in the way men would like them to respond. This is coercive, controlling, and wholly damaging to an entire gender.
People should be treated with respect and empathy, not dehumanized and objectified, and we need to be better about representing women more positively in television and media.
Women should be represented as the well-rounded people that they are, not empty plot devices.
2. Children Are Encouraged to Follow Rigid Gender Roles in School
When I was a teenager, a huge part of high school was the dances.
Gossip would travel as students would discuss which boy asked which girl to the dance. And the presumption was that it was always up to the boys to be proactive, while girls would pick the suitor that she liked the best.
The rigid gender roles were already in place, and we were all just playing our parts.
The gender roles became even more evident with the Sadie Hawkins Dance, where the girls would ask the boys. While this may seem like a good idea in theory, it further proved that “girls asking boys” was an anomaly and not to be encouraged outside of this context.
Girls who asked boys to other dances – or any other dates – were viewed as aggressive and/or desperate, so they were largely silenced from voicing their wants and needs. I believe that this mentality carries into adulthood.
I remember many instances – years before my transition into a woman – when my classmates of all genders would encourage me to ask girls out. When I would proclaim that I was either too scared or wasn’t interested in asking anyone out, I was mocked for not being “man enough.” I was told to “stop acting like a girl.” I wasn’t aggressive enough to their satisfaction.
I believe this does a lot of long-term damage to the way that men view women, as the constant insistences to “ask women out” doesn’t stop in high school. And with women being taught to be silent about their wants and needs, it makes for a damaging combination where men begin viewing women as “numbers,” as ideas, and as objects, and women are discouraged to speak out against it.
In instances when women speak out against being treated as objects, some men build resentment – because they feel like women aren’t operating in their roles correctly.
This is largely why so many men take rejection so harshly. They feel like failures, because their role is to be proactive and pursue women, and when they’re told “no,” it’s a rejection of their manhood.
Since they don’t realize that they’ve been taught toxic ideas from a young age, they believe that women are the ones to blame for not following a script.
In reality, it’s due to our culture reinforcing damaging stereotypes that hurt everybody in the end.
3. Cisheteronormative Language Discourages People to Be Anything Other Than What Their Gender Roles Prescribe
Everyday cisheteronormative language – the way that we speak that presumes that all people are cisgender and straight – is domineering and exclusionary, and it discourages people from acting outside of their roles.
When we discuss gender, there’s still a presumption that people are either 100% male or 100% female, even though there are dozens of different genders. We simply say “men” and “women,” which is very restricting and limiting language.
We still say “ladies and gentlemen” instead of “folks.”
When someone is pregnant, the first question we ask is, “Are you having a boy or a girl?” Before the child is even born, their gender is already predetermined.
This cisheteronormative language also excludes intersex, non-binary, agender, and transgender people – along with many other groups and people – from the conversation.
In addition to the presumption of gender, there is still an assumption that everybody is straight.
When I hear parents talking to their children, they still ask (assuming their children are cisgender) the boys are asked if they’re interested in any girls, and the girls are asked if they’re interested in any boys. This plants the seed in children’s brains that being heterosexual and cisgender is “normal,” while anything else is strange and/or abnormal.
It’s ingrained in our language.
My father, in particular, was livid when I acted feminine as a child. He informed me that since I was “his son,” I was to never act “girly” because it was “gay.”
It didn’t matter to him that I was attracted to other women. He used “gay” to mean “feminine” because there weren’t any other words for him to describe my behavior, and he saw femininity as an inherently weak quality.
He believed that the only function of femininity was attracting men. He told me that since I was his “son,” I was going to be the head of the family – because that was my role, and any type of femininity would go against his perception of what a “leader” should be.
Conversely, other members of my family would badmouth their friends’ daughters who dared to become ambitious and work for a living, stating that it’s not “attractive” when women strive for more.
Women were supposed to be dutiful homemakers who supported their husbands and remain in the background like props.
Because of these reasons, coming out as a transgender woman to my parents was very difficult because I didn’t (and still don’t) have the language to fully articulate to them what I’m going through. Due to our limiting exclusionary language, the best they can do to comprehend my existence is to think of me as “a boy who likes to look pretty.”
However, it’s not just my family that thinks this way. When people find out that I’m a transgender woman, they automatically assume that I’m interested in men. They’re almost always shocked to find that I have a girlfriend (almost like they don’t believe lesbians exist).
They think that because I wear what is typically considered feminine clothing, I must be doing it primarily to attract men. They even take it as an invitation to send me inappropriate private messages.
In fact, one of the most common cisheteronormative premises in standup comedy is male comics telling the women in the audience, “You don’t have to wear makeup; we’ll sleep with you anyway,” as if everything women do is for them and for their attention. It doesn’t occur to them that they could be doing it for themselves.
All of these limiting ways of addressing people simply reinforces the damaging gender roles already in place. Unless a perceived 100% male is seeking out a perceived 100% female, many people still feel discomfort because they don’t have the language to know how to address it.
We need to stop automatically assuming that someone is straight and cisgender. We need to learn how to expand our vocabulary and use more inclusive language so that we can expand the way we speak about and think about other folks.
I believe if we made these simple shifts in language, people will be encouraged to live more freely instead of fitting into the roles that restrictive language has put them in.
4. Men Are Encouraged to Believe That Women Are Their Property
To further illustrate the damaging effects of TV tropes where men vie for women (as discussed in section one), women are literally perceived as pieces of property that can be won, and this mentality can do significant damage to women.
If you view people as “property,” there’s a subconscious feeling that you can do whatever you want to them because you don’t consider them fully formed human beings. For example, if you own a product like a cell phone and the phone doesn’t function the way you want it to, you might throw it due to frustration.
The same theory applies to women when they are viewed as property. When they aren’t “acting accordingly,” unfortunately, they can become more susceptible to abuse from their partners – and victim-blaming from others.
There are outcries doubting women when they’re abused, because many people hold an underlying resentment that the women deserved what happened to them because they weren’t acting the way they were supposed to.
Whenever a news story comes out about a man’s horrific abuse against a woman, many Internet commenters talk about her like she’s an object that disobeyed orders – especially if she ever dares to speak out against injustices or stand up for herself. Quickly, the conversation turns into the damage she is doing to the man’s reputation as a result of her having the audacity to act like a human being.
As a result, the conversation about abuse generally centers around men and the anger and/or embarrassment they feel about how their partners acted, while the horrible mistreatment of women is either dismissed as a secondary concern or ignored completely.
It creates a lack of empathy for women, because they have been reduced to plot devices, objects, and extensions of somebody else.
This type of mentality needs to change. When women are attacked, people need to remember that these are human beings who are being attacked, and it should be universally unacceptable behavior.
And it should be universally unacceptable behavior because they’re real people with real feelings, not just products that have to act a certain way.
***
From a very early age, we’re taught stereotypes and roles to fill in order to maintain control and order in society. By doing so, we continue cycles that have been doing damage for decades.
We need to be better about educating people at an early age about the dangers of perpetuating the gender roles, and we need to pinpoint all of the subtle ways that society pushes these ideas forth.
It bears repeating, even though it should be obvious, that women are real people and don’t merely exist for other people’s enjoyment. These harmful perceptions of women need to change, and we need to be better as a society and stop perpetuating the cycle of harmful ideas.
