# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The kingdom of women: the society where a man is never the boss

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s a place where women rule, marriage doesn’t exist and everything follows the maternal bloodline. But is it as good for women as it sounds – and how long can it last?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hijra (for translations, see [n 1]) is a term used in South Asia - in particular, in India - to refer to transwomen (male-to-female transsexual or transgender individuals).[1][2] In other areas of India, transgender people are also known as Aravani, Aruvani or Jagappa.[3]

In Pakistan and Bangladesh, the hijras are officially recognized as third gender by the government,[4][5] being neither completely male nor female. The term more commonly advocated by social workers and transgender community members themselves is khwaaja sira (Urdu: ‎) and can identify the individual as a transsexual person, transgender person ( khusras), cross-dresser ( zenanas) or eunuch ( narnbans).[6][7]

Hijras have a recorded history in the Indian subcontinent from antiquity onwards as suggested by the Kama Sutra period. This history features a number of well-known roles within subcontinental cultures, part gender-liminal, part spiritual and part survival.

In South Asia, many hijras live in well-defined and organised all- hijra communities, led by a guru.[8][9] These communities have sustained themselves over generations by "adopting" young boys who are rejected by, or flee, their family of origin.[10] Many work as sex workers for survival.[11]

The word " hijra" is an Urdu-Hindustani word derived from the Semitic Arabic root hjr in its sense of "leaving one's tribe,"[12] and has been borrowed into Hindi. The Indian usage has traditionally been translated into English as "eunuch" or "hermaphrodite," where "the irregularity of the male genitalia is central to the definition."[13] However, in general hijras are born with typically male physiology, only a few having been born with intersex variations.[14] Some Hijras undergo an initiation rite into the hijra community called nirwaan, which refers to the removal of the penis, scrotum and testicles.[11]

Since the late 20th century, some hijra activists and Western non-government organizations (NGOs) have lobbied for official recognition of the hijra as a kind of "third sex" or "third gender," as neither man nor woman.[15] Hijras have successfully gained this recognition in Bangladesh and are eligible for priority in education.[16] In India, the Supreme Court in April 2014 recognized hijra and transgender people as a 'third gender' in law.[17][18][19]

Nepal, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have all legally recognized the existence of a third gender, including on passports and other official documents.[20]

Terminology

The Urdu and Hindi word hijra may alternately be romanized as hijira, hijda, hijada, hijara, hijrah and is pronounced [ˈɦɪdʒɽaː]. This term is generally considered derogatory in Urdu and the word Khwaja Saraa is used instead. Another such term is khasuaa (खसुआ) or khusaraa (खुसरा). In Bengali hijra is called হিজড়া, hijra, hijla, hijre, hizra, or hizre.

A number of terms across the culturally and linguistically diverse Indian subcontinent represent similar sex or gender categories. While these are rough synonyms, they may be better understood as separate identities due to regional cultural differences. In Odia, a hijra is referred to as hinjida, hinjda or napunsaka, in Telugu, as napunsakudu(నపుంసకుడు), kojja (కొజ్జ) or maada (మాడ), in Tamil Nadu, Thiru nangai (mister woman), Ali, aravanni, aravani, or aruvani, in Punjabi, khusra and jankha, in Sindhi khadra, inGujarati, pavaiyaa (પાવૈયા).

In North India, the goddess Bahuchara Mata is worshipped by Pavaiyaa (પાવૈયા). In South India, the goddess Renuka is believed to have the power to change one's sex. Male devotees in female clothing are known as Jogappa. They perform similar roles to hijra, such as dancing and singing at birth ceremonies and weddings.[21]

The word kothi (or koti) is common across India, similar to the Kathoey of Thailand, although kothis are often distinguished from hijras. Kothis are regarded as feminine men or boys who take a feminine role in sex with men, but do not live in the kind of intentional communities that hijras usually live in. Additionally, not all kothis have undergone initiation rites or the body modification steps to become a hijra.[22] Local equivalents include durani (Kolkata), menaka (Cochin),[23] meti (Nepal), and zenana (Pakistan).

Hijra used to be translated in English as "eunuch" or "hermaphrodite,"[13] although LGBT historians or human rights activists have sought to include them as being transgender.[24] In a series of meetings convened between October 2013 and Jan 2014 by the transgender experts committee of India's Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, hijra and other trans activists asked that the term "eunuch" be discontinued from usage in government documents, as it is not a term with which the communities identify.

Gender and sexuality

These identities have no exact match in the modern Western taxonomy of gender and sexual orientation,[24] and challenge Western ideas of sex and gender.[11]

In India, some Hijras do not define themselves by specific sexual orientation, but rather by renouncing sexuality altogether. Sexual energy is transformed into sacred powers. However, these notions can come in conflict with the practical, which is that hijras are often employed as prostitutes.[25] Furthermore, in India a feminine male who takes a "receptive" role in sex with a man will often identify as a kothi (or the local equivalent term). While kothis are usually distinguished from hijras as a separate gender identity, they often dress as women and act in a feminine manner in public spaces, even using feminine language to refer to themselves and each other. The usual partners of hijras and kothis are men who consider themselves heterosexual as they are the ones who penetrate.[26] These male partners are often married, and any relationships or sex with "kothis" or hijras are usually kept secret from the community at large. Some hijras may form relationships with men and even marry,[27] although their marriage is not usually recognized by law or religion. Hijras and kothis often have a name for these masculine sexual or romantic partners; for example, panthi in Bangladesh, giriya in Delhi or sridhar in Cochin.[23]

Social status and economic circumstances

Most hijras live at the margins of society with very low status; the very word "hijra" is sometimes used in a derogatory manner. The Indian lawyer and author Rajesh Talwar has written a book highlighting the human rights abuses suffered by the community titled 'The Third Sex and Human Rights.'[28] Few employment opportunities are available to hijras. Many get their income from extortion (forced payment by disrupting work/life using demonstrations and interference), performing at ceremonies (toli), begging (dheengna), or sex work ('raarha')-an occupation of eunuchs also recorded in premodern times. Violence against hijras, especially hijra sex workers, is often brutal, and occurs in public spaces, police stations, prisons, and their homes.[29] As with transgender people in most of the world, they face extreme discrimination in health, housing, education, employment, immigration, law, and any bureaucracy that is unable to place them into male or female gender categories.[30]

In 2008, HIV prevalence was 27.6% amongst hijra sex workers in Larkana.[6] The general prevalence of HIV among the adult Pakistani population is estimated at 0.1%.[31]

In October 2013, Pakistani Christians and Muslims (Shia and Sunni) were putting pressure on the landlords of Imamia Colony to evict any transgender residents. "Generally in Pakistan, Khwaja Saraa are not under threat. But they are in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province because of a 'new Islam' under way", I.A. Rehman, the director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.[32]

In a study of Bangladeshi hijras, participants reported not being allowed to seek healthcare at the private chambers of doctors, and experiencing abuse if they go to government hospitals.[33]

Beginning in 2006, hijras were engaged to accompany Patna city revenue officials to collect unpaid taxes, receiving a 4-percent commission.[34]

Since India's Supreme Court re-criminalized homosexuality and bisexuality on 13 December 2013, there has been a sharp increase in the physical, psychological and sexual violence against the transgender community by the Indian Police Service, nor are they investigating even when sexual assault against them is reported.[35]

On 15 April 2014, in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India ruled that transgender people should be treated as a third category of gender and as a socially and economically "backward" class entitled to proportional access and representation in education and jobs.[36]

~

References

1. Jump up^ Sharma, Preeti (2012). "Historical Background and Legal Status of Third Gender in Indian Society" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 February 2014.

2. "Awareness about sexually transmitted infections among Hijra sex workers of Rawalpindi/Islamabad" (PDF). Pakistan Journal of Public Health. 2012.

3. "The most significant relationship in the hijra community is that of the Jump up^ guru (master, teacher) and chela (disciple)." Serena Nanda, "The hijras of India: Cultural and Individual Dimensions of an Institutionalized Third Gender Role", Journal of Homosexuality 11 (1986): 35-54.

4. Nanda, S. "Hijras: An Alternative Sex and Gender Role in India (in Herdt, G. (1996) Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. Zone Books.)

5. "Jump up^ hjr (main meanings): a) to break with, leave, forsake, renounce, emigrate, flee" Lahzar Zanned, "Root formation and polysemic organization", in Mohammad T. Alhawary and Elabbas Benmamoun (eds), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XVII-XVIII: papers from the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics, (John Benjamins, 2005), p. 97.

6. Serena Nanda, Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijras of India, (1999).

7. "Among thirty of my informants, only one appeared to have been born intersexed." Serena Nanda, "Deviant careers: the Jump up^ hijras of India", chapter 7 in Morris Freilich, Douglas Raybeck and Joel S. Savishinsky (eds), Deviance: anthropological perspectives, (Greenwood Publishing, 1991).

8. Jump up^ Agrawal, Anuja (1997). "Gendered Bodies: The Case of the 'Third Gender' in India".Contributions to Indian Sociology 31: 273-97. doi:10.1177/006996697031002005.

9. Naz Foundation International, Briefing Paper 3: Developing community-based sexual health services for males who have sex with males in South Asia. August 1999. Paper online (Microsoft Word file).

10. Towle, R.B. and Morgan, L.M. Romancing the Transgender Native: Rethinking the Use of the "Third Gender" Concept (in Stryker, S. and Whittle, S. (2006) Transgender Studies Reader. Routledge: New York, London)

11. Jump up^ Ravaging the Vulnerable: Abuses Against Persons at High Risk of HIV Infection in Bangladesh, Human Rights Watch, August 2003. Report online.
See also: Peoples Union of Civil Liberties (Karnataka) Report on Human Rights Violations Against the Transgender Community, released in September 2003. Reported in Being a Eunuch, By Siddarth Narrain, for Frontline, 14 October 2003.

12. Jump up^ "HIV risk in Karachi and Lahore, Pakistan: an emerging epidemic in injecting and commercial sex networks" (PDF). 2007.

13. Jump up^ "Living on the Extreme Margin: Social Exclusion of the Transgender Population (Hijra) in Bangladesh". J Health Popul Nutr 27 (4): 441-51. 2009. doi:10.3329/jhpn.v27i4.3388.PMC 2928103. PMID 19761079.

Bibliography

Agrawal, Anuja (1997). "Gendered Bodies: The Case of the 'Third Gender' in India". Contributions to Indian Sociology 31: 273-97. doi:10.1177/006996697031002005.

Ahmed, Mona and Dayanita Singh (photographer). Myself Mona Ahmed. Scalo Publishers, 15 September 2001. ISBN 3-908247-46-2

Bakshi, Sandeep. "A Comparative Analysis of Hijras and Drag Queens: The Subversive Possibilities and Limits of Parading Effeminacy and Negotiating Masculinity." Ed. Stephen Hunt, Religions of the East. Surrey: Ashgate, 2010.

Gannon, Shane Patrick. Translating the hijra: The symbolic reconstruction of the British Empire in India. PhD Thesis. University of Alberta, 2009.

Jami, Humaira. "Condition and Status of Hijras (Transgender, Transvestites etc.) in Pakistan", National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University (nd, 2005?)

Malloy, Ruth Lor, Meen Balaji and others. Hijras: Who We Are. Toronto: Think Asia, 1997.

Money, John. Lovemaps. Irvington Publishers, 1988. Page 106. ISBN 0-87975-456-7

Nanda, Serena. Neither Man Nor Woman: The Hijras of India. Wadsworth Publishing, 1998. ISBN 0-534-50903-7

Patel, Geeta. Home, Homo, Hybrid: Translating Gender. In A Companion to Postcolonial Studies. Malden MA: Blackwell, 2000. 410-27.

Reddy, Gayatri (2003), "'Men' Who Would Be Kings: Celibacy, Emasculation, and the Re-Production of Hijras in Contemporary Indian Politics", Social Research 70 (1): 163-200

Reddy, Gayatri (2005), With Respect to Sex: Negotiating Hijra Identity in South India, Chicago: University of Chicago

Zipfel, Isabell ' 'Hijras, the third sex' ' eBook with 34 photographs http://www.amazon.com/Hijras-the-third-sex-ebook/dp/B009ETN58C

Further reading

Basim Usmani. "Pakistan to register "third sex" hijras" The Guardian.

Jami, Humaira. "Condition and Status of Hijras (Transgender, Transvestites, etc.) in Pakistan." Country Report, Quaid-i-Azam University.

Kugle, Scott. Sufis & Saints' Bodies: Mysticism, Corporeality & Sacred Power in Islam. University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Pamment, Claire (2010). "Hijraism Jostling for a Third Space in Pakistani Politics". The Drama Review 54 (2): 29-48. doi:10.1162/dram.2010.54.2.29.

Jaffrey, Zia. "The Invisibles: A Tale of the Eunuchs of India." Vintage, 1998.

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hijra (for translations, see [n 1]) is a term used in South Asia - in particular, in India - to refer to transwomen (male-to-female transsexual or transgender individuals).[1] [2] In other areas of India, transgender people are also known as Aravani, Aruvani or Jagappa.[3] In Pakistan and Bangladesh, the hijras are officially recognized as third gender by the government,[4] [5] being neither completely male nor female.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Women's March T-shirts being sold at the Women's March On Washington in Washington, DC. Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

You could almost set your watch to it: Less than 24 hours after Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a "nasty woman" at the third presidential debate in October, the first nasty-themed merch-including a T-shirt with a heart shaped logo that ended up raising $100,000 for Planned Parenthood-began appearing online.

Then, in January, when the Women's March on Washington was about to become one of the largest political demonstrations in US history, Instagram was awash in slogan T-shirts to wear on the big day. "Feminist AF" and "The Future is Female" were popular, while more recently, "Nevertheless, She Persisted" has cropped up. Everyone seems to want one; few seem concerned with where they are coming from.
Read more: How Fashion Brands Like Zara Can Get Away with Stealing Artists' Designs

Activist merch has existed for decades, but it's never existed at a time when it's possible to create, market, and sell a mass-produced T-shirt quite literally overnight. Combine that with the kind of woke social media posting that is de rigueur in our unstable political times- if you went to the Women's March and didn't Instagram it, were you really there? -and you get a lot of T-shirts ostensibly about women's equality that could potentially be undermining the women who make them.

Enter Amy DuFault, ethical fashion activist, writer, and director of communications at the Pratt Institute-funded Brooklyn Fashion and Design and Accelerator. In early January, before the march, she noticed that the local chapter of the march she had signed up for in Massachusetts was selling merchandise-and that it some of them were manufactured by mass producer Gildan, a company which has been r eported in the past for using sweatshop labor in Central America. Aghast, she took it upon herself to begin contacting organizations, designers, and brands directly asking: "Who made your feminist T-shirts?"

"At this point, where we're consuming so much fashion, it's not a controlled campaign like it was in the 60s and 70s. It's so cheap to make, it's so fast to make, and we're all total hypocrites for wearing it," said DuFault. "Because if we're wearing something about women's rights and it wasn't made right by a woman-how ironic and tragic is that? Who really, if they knew how things were made, would want to wear that?"

Indeed, in the cacophony of discourse that transpired around the march, many prominent critics pointed out the major issue of intersectionality or and the need to include all women in the feminist movement, not just those who can afford to hop on a plane to DC. While that certainly includes American women of color, who will be more affected by President Trump's policies-and who notably didn't vote for him at anywhere near the rate white women did -shouldn't it also include the women making the T-shirts, too?

By all accounts, the DC march organizers went out of their way to ensure their T-shirts did take into account the women making them. (According to the Clean Clothes Campaign, about three quarters of garment workers worldwide are female.) Though they could not be reached for comment, the Women's March merch page notes that all items were "made and printed in the USA." In addition, the US-based company that made their official merchandise, Bonfire, said that the march organizers approached them and specifically requested apparel that was made in the US. Bonfire told Broadly they used US-made inventory from American Apparel, Bayside Apparel, or Royal Apparel.

While American Apparel's January acquisition by Gildan raises ambiguity about whether the specific inventory used was, in fact, made in the USA, a Bonfire rep said "We're not aware of Gildan manufacturing any American Apparel shirts since the acquisition and recent changes to their operations." She went on to confirm that "every item we fulfill for the Women's March on Washington campaign is sourced from USA-made American Apparel, Bayside Apparel, or Royal Apparel inventories."

However, confirming the provenance of other kinds feminist merch has not been so easy, and DuFault notes that she has seen instances of "knock-offs" of the official DC march shirt sold online. When Dufault reached out to designers at New York Fashion Week who showed clothing with a feminist message-including Jonathan Simkhai, Prabal Gurung, and Christian Siriano-as well as several online outlets and organizations like Nasty Women Society and Planned Parenthood (who partnered with Fashion Week organizers CFDA this season ), she received mixed responses.

Every meme does not need to be made into a T-shirt.

While Jonathan Simkhai noted their shirts were "produced by a small business in the US," they provided no clarification as to where. Rock Roll Repeat, which sells an "Abort Unwanted Presidencies" T-shirt, said their clothing was "assembled in Nicaragua with US components in a WRAP [Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production] certified sweatshop free facility." Prabal Gurung noted their shirts were sourced locally in New York City and workers were paid a "fair and equal wage," while the Nasty Women Society were doing more homework on their sourcing, though they believed they were from an ethical provider. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood and Christian Siriano did not respond to DuFault.

Part of the problem with producing ethical T-shirts is that knowing where your T-shirt comes from is not as straightforward as tracing a carton of eggs or head of broccoli. Elizabeth Cline, an expert on fast fashion and the author of the book Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion, explains just why T-shirts are so hard to trace and make ethically.
Watch: Stella McCartney on Fake Fur, Rihanna, and Well-Fitted Bras
"Unlike food, fashion combines agriculture, manufacturing, technology and manual labor," Cline told Broadly. "Spreading those steps around the world [and] letting different countries specialize in different areas has made apparel such as T-shirts incredibly affordable and plentiful, but getting information on that process has become murkier-and protecting the people in these supply chains has become that much harder."

DuFault says her mission isn't to shame people; but rather, to use the social media fueled enthusiasm for activist merchandise to underline the reality that everything comes from somewhere. And if we want to be good activists, DuFault says, it is our job to think about that.

"For a lot of these women, this is their first time being activists and they don't know as much as I know-so I don't want to shame or take their power away," DuFault said. "However for these designers, if they want to put themselves out there [by having a cause T-shirt in their show]-they know how and where things are made, that's their job. So I thought it was a great opportunity for these designers during NYFW to really start calling them out."

DuFault says the difficulty around producing ethical T-shirts right should spur activists to be more intentional about what they produce, when they do it, and how. She helped assemble a list of questions to ask oneself when choosing a provider, as well as some brands who are doing good work.

For More Stories Like This, Sign Up for Our Newsletter

"Every meme does not need to be made into a T-shirt," DuFault said. "Smaller, ethical brands are going to cost you more, and you don't need to make tons of these T-shirts anyway. The main thing you might want to consider when you're making a T-shirt is: Do I really need to do this?"

Still, DuFault is not pulling any punches when it comes to putting the responsibility on activists to make sure their merchandise is intersectional in a supply chain context and not undermining the very values it seeks to promote.

"In 2017 when we have access to so much information and we're posting these pictures of ourselves all over social saying, 'Look I'm an activist,' realize that it came from somewhere and it has to be disposed of in some way as well," DuFault said. "There's a rabbit hole for every single choice you make. So, I want people to go down the right rabbit holes when you're deciding to create merchandise with your activist cause."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Was Your Feminist T-Shirt Made by Factory Workers in Exploitative Conditions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Women's March T-shirts being sold at the Women's March On Washington in Washington, DC. Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images You could almost set your watch to it: Less than 24 hours after Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a "nasty woman" at the third presidential debate in October, the first nasty-themed merch-including a T-shirt with a heart shaped logo that ended up raising $100,000 for Planned Parenthood-began appearing online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You know what's cool? Feminism.

Emma Watson has publicly fought for gender equality, and more and more male celebrities (like Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo and Matt McGorry) have recently declared their dedication to women's rights advocacy. You can, too -- regardless of your gender!

Want to hop aboard the Feminist Express but aren't sure how to start? We've partnered with Chevy Equinox to spotlight female-focused charities doing their part to advance women around the world. Learn about the different ways these groups are leading the charge, and find out how you can lend your support.

Women On Wings

India is a huge and rapidly expanding economy, but its underclass -- a population upward of 700 million people -- still lives on $2 per day. To help rural families struggling with work opportunities, Ellen Tacoma and Maria van de Heijden founded Women on Wings in 2007. The organization connects women with entrepreneurs, who employ them and market their crafts. This gives women an independent income, providing a better life for themselves and their families. As of December 2014, a total of 182,000 women in rural areas of India were employed and taking home an income thanks to successful partnerships between Women on Wings and Indian social entrepreneurs. The organization's goal is to create 1 million jobs for women by 2018. You can get involved or support the cause by visiting womenonwings.com/get-involved.

Girls Not Brides

Did you know that every year 15 million girls are married off before they turn 18, essentially forcing them into adulthood? That's 28 child brides entering (often unwanted) wedlock every minute. When this happens, girls are routinely denied their rights to health, education and, perhaps most important of all, opportunity. Fighting back against these horrific statistics are Girls Not Brides, a global partnership of more than 450 civil society organizations committed to ending child marriage so girls can more freely strive for their full potential. By connecting those working to end child marriage worldwide, Girls Not Brides aims to bring child marriage to global attention, and end the practice once and for all. You can help by signing the petition asking the United States to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to end child marriage at girlsnotbrides.org/take-action.

Tostan

While Tostan advocates for human rights for people of all ages and genders, its community empowerment and sustainable development programs have brought measurable benefits to women and girls. Through its three-year nonformal education programs, which help communities develop their own vision for how they will progress, Tostan has had a profound influence: 19,000 women have been selected into community leadership positions, 3 million-plus voices have publicly condemned female genital mutilation, and 7,000 communities have committed to upending the tradition of child marriages -- all strides that would have been hard to imagine 10 years ago. To get involved, visit tostan.org/get-involved.

Days For Girls

Imagine being unable to access sanitary feminine products during your time of the month, resorting to using leaves, mattress stuffing, newspaper or even rocks in lieu of pads or tampons. That's the grim reality for many girls and women around the world, and this lack of sanitary supplies can cause them to miss up to two months of school or work every year. Holding the belief that every girl in the world deserves education, safety and dignity -- and that the poverty cycle can be broken by girls' staying in school -- Days for Girls helps promote quality, sustainable feminine hygiene for girls worldwide. This grassroots nonprofit partners with other groups and organizations to distribute sustainable feminine hygiene kits and raise awareness about how communities can start their own like-minded programs. To date, Days for Girls has helped women and girls in more than 75 countries on six continents. Learn how you can help by visiting daysforgirls.org/#!get-involved/c1yux.

Girls On The Run

Not all lessons are taught inside a classroom. Girls on the Run proves this with a fun, experience-based curriculum that creatively integrates exercise with lesson plans. Inspiring girls to be joyful, healthy and confident, Girls On The Run programs teach important life skills designed to develop and improve competence and confidence, while simultaneously introducing girls to the benefits of running and exercise. Teams of eight to 15 girls, led by a Girls on the Run coach, are taught life skills through dynamic, conversation-based lessons and running games. The end of every program is celebrated with a 5K to inspire girls to set and achieve their life (and running) goals. Become a coach or show your support by visiting girlsontherun.org/Get-Involved.

From elevating everyday life, to making a bigger impact in your community or those abroad, Chevrolet Equinox is designed for possibilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These Female-Focused Charities Are Advancing Women Around The World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You know what's cool? Feminism. Emma Watson has publicly fought for gender equality, and more and more male celebrities (like Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo and Matt McGorry) have recently declared their dedication to women's rights advocacy. You can, too -- regardless of your gender!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The largest protest march in America's history began with a Facebook post.

This may seem an extraordinary feat-and it was. But for Alison Dahl Crossley, PhD, who has examined the mobilizing capacity of Facebook over the past decade, the nearly five million women and their allies who gathered in Washington D.C. and at sister marches around the world on January 21, 2017, is a testament to how the "Internet promotes feminist mobilization."

In her article " Facebook Feminism: Social Media, Blogs, and New Technologies of Contemporary U.S. Feminism," Crossley distills years of research she conducted at colleges across America to show how Facebook became the platform for feminist activism that it is today. "Facebook is a unique infrastructure for mobilization and recruitment," Crossley writes, "in that respondents had large and diverse friendship networks that were used to spread feminism and raise feminist consciousness." It is the digital platform itself, abetted by advancements in technology that have rapidly facilitated the "communication patterns and information flow" that have made Facebook the preeminent tool for social justice activism in the twenty-first century.

Facebook was never imagined to be the premiere platform for feminism activism, Crossley observes, noting that many, including investors, conceived of it as a "marketing tool." But the social network has not only streamlined and facilitated feminist bonding and discussions of gender issues online, Crossley contends, it has fundamentally changed our very understanding of what feminist activism looks like, both strategically and tactically-and literally, thanks to the plethora of "diverse friendship networks" that have broadened people's social circles overnight.

In her research, Crossley analyzes how Facebook has made feminist activism more dynamic and more intersectional, as well as more readily available to people who live in remote areas. "In contrast to previous forms of feminism," Crossley notes, "the Internet allows for interaction with other activists and adversaries at an unparalleled speed and frequency." And also ease and efficiency. Taking her queries about new forms of feminist mobilization to college campuses, Crossley discovered that "[f]eminist student organizations used their Facebook networks as a free organizational resource and as a tactic to expand the reach of their offline campaigns."

The dozens of student interviews she conducted across three different college campuses support her findings: "'I feel like Facebook is very powerful as far as social change,' Elizabeth, a white bisexual Smith [College] student active in off-campus social justice organizing," said to Crossley. And, "'I think it's important to recognize that Facebook can be one of the best feminist resources in the world,'" UCSB student Camille, "a heterosexual Armenian woman active in a number of organizations," said in her interview.

Undergraduate students at Stanford University agree that Facebook has transformed their activism and student-organizing experience. For example, Madeleine Lippy ('18), a Clayman Institute Research Assistant and the director of the Fearless Conference, said in an email statement to Gender News that "social media and activism have become inextricably intertwined; it's how we reach masses [of people], how we communicate information, [and] how we share our stories and opinions." Noting how she used Facebook to launch the NO MORE Campaign in order to raise awareness and initiate conversation about rape culture on campus, she believes that "[s]ocial media, in some ways, has become activism, especially for my generation."

And this new digital landscape that has enabled feminism to flourish is also responsible for feminism's diversification of interests and centering of intersectionality. Crossley's critical insight produced by her research crystalizes around Facebook's network that is built upon the notion of "friendship." Crossley explains, "strong friendship ties cultivate community and organizations, and weak ties created opportunities for activists to expand recruitment bases and reach a wide number of individuals with whom they would not come into contact in their offline lives." She further clarifies how these varying types of Facebook friendships create manifold avenues for feminism activism: "More than simply providing information within their netowrks, activists taught feminism and spread feminist ideology, drawing in individuals who would not typically engage in feminist discussion."

Make no mistake: this type of online feminist mobilization, Crossley suggests, "is similar to previous conceptions of feminism, in that friendship networks and communities are critical to the sustenance and advancement of the movement." The critical difference is that these new networks are online, "not the offline women's clubs or consciousness-raising groups of the past."

Facebook provides a dynamic virtual environment for geographically-disparate people to share ideas, have discussions, and recruit participants for activist causes. Today, a march or protest is not a private, geographically-isolated event; rather, because of Facebook-the world's most popular social media platform with an estimated 1.86 billion users-local activism is immediately made global. With a single "post." And, arguably, it is only because of social media that countless disparate interest groups could converge on the Capitol under the umbrella cause of the Women's March.

During her March address, Gloria Steinem observed that "sometimes we must put our bodies where our beliefs are" when it comes to mobilized political action "IRL"-or, in real life. Steinem continued, "Sometimes pressing send is not enough."

While, indeed, pressing send, or "post," is not enough to create sustained social and political change, it is undoubtedly a start. "While some people may wonder where feminists have gone, it is clear that many feminists are online, fueling the feminist movement," Crossley concludes in her article. In fact, in the digital age, mobilizing online to create visibility, raise awareness, and foster feminist conversation, is the first step in creating this change. It is critical to keep this in mind when we feel helpless: the tools for resistance lay at our very fingertips.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Feminist activism in the 21st century begins with a post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The largest protest march in America's history began with a Facebook post. This may seem an extraordinary feat-and it was. But for Alison Dahl Crossley, PhD, who has examined the mobilizing capacity of Facebook over the past decade, the nearly five million women and their allies who gathered in Washington D.C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I have a university seminar on gendered security to thank for one of the biggest epiphanies I've had about myself - or rather, about the politics of being me. In the midst of a heated debate about how gender is used to control people's movements, suddenly it hit me: So much of modern feminism relies on the ideal of female bodies that work as expected. For me and lots of other disabled people, that's a model we simply don't fit.

I'm a life-long feminist and disability activist, yet it took until that very moment for me to see that I am not simply a woman and disabled: I am a disabled woman. That well-known feminist rallying call, "the personal is political", suddenly took on new meaning. I realised that things that had always seemed to me mere facts of life, like inaccessible shops or restaurants that don't provide a disabled toilet, are obviously exclusionary. And that every time someone is patronising to me, say, or assumes I am unable to read, they are not just making unfounded assumptions about the clinical nature of my disability, they are labelling me as different - as abnormal. Nothing could possibly be more political than applying these labels, not just to me, but to a whole group of people who are consistently devalued and dehumanised.

And feminism showed me how I should respond to this: by asserting my humanity and being proud of my differences. My politics degree exposed me to feminist writing as it isn't seen in the media: post-colonial feminism, queer feminism, black feminism. This literature was written by women who faced multiple oppressions and found strength in challenging them all; in doing so, they showed me a way forward. Ultimately, feminism allowed me to see that, like being a woman or a person of colour, being disabled is not a condition, it is an identity - and with that knowledge comes a personal power I had never experienced before. I see more clearly now that the problem does not lie in my cerebral palsy but in society's reaction to it. I sit a little prouder in my wheelchair these days.

Yet it is in this intersection of being a disabled woman that I find myself unsatisfied with the feminism I see all around me; there's not much mention of disability. On many issues that dominate my life, the easy answers of slogan-jumper feminism - in which image-perfect celebrities encourage us to "slay" while hanging out with our "squad" of identikit friends, and where individual female empowerment, rather than a remodelled society, is somehow enough - just don't cut it.

Feminism taught me to assert my humanity and be proud of my differences. But feminist discourse rarely makes much mention of disability.

As a young woman, I find that questions about body image are never far away. Mainstream feminism tells us to embrace ourselves, to like who we are and our appearances while understanding that they are separate things: We are not defined by what we look like. And of course, in theory I couldn't agree more. But we still live in a society where, more than anyone else, physically disabled people are defined by the visibility of our impairments. I am willing to bet that every single person I meet notices my wheelchair before they notice my choice of outfit. Honestly, that's fine, but feminist discourse needs to acknowledge that my body does dictate some of my identity, from how I socialise to the career decisions I make. (Feminism would tell me that I should be able to do any job for which I am qualified, but the reality is I will never be a foreign correspondent or a roving reporter. I simply can't rove.) Mainstream feminism needs to allow this to be OK, to not be something I feel obliged to fight all day, every day.

We also need to acknowledge the difficulty of liking a body that inherently doesn't work. While it is true that I have never worried about getting my makeup spot-on, I have quietly agonised over whether a dress accentuates the dodgy curve of my spine. No matter how much I tell myself otherwise, I am trying to blend in and go unnoticed: I am trying to look "less disabled". What does feminism have to say about that? Where does the mantra of embracing your body go when your hand is stubbornly refusing to answer the phone or do up a button?

Body image discussions are not the only place where my feminist and disabled identities clash. While women have fought long and hard to be simultaneously free of sexualisation and allowed to express their sexuality, disabled people - especially disabled women - have been left behind in an uncomfortable world of infantilisation and fetishism. Let me tell you, this is a skin-crawling place to be. Yet shows such as Channel 4's The Undateables prove that this idea remains oddly acceptable throughout society, and even I find myself wondering if I'm doomed to choose between eternal celibacy or someone who is turned on by my inability to walk (cue more skin-crawling). This is not an abstract concern; I have witnessed many guys, having chatted to me for a while, return to their friends for a laugh and a high-five - for them, the idea that anyone could really be attracted to a disabled woman is clearly risible.

Most feminists will admit that the sexual revolution remains a work in progress, but I have never heard a single one of them argue for widening it beyond the able-bodied. Even in liberal and open-minded circles, the mixing of disability and sex remains a taboo. Despite having gone to a girls' school that prided itself on its full-on embrace of feminism, I was never given sex education at all relevant to my situation - all bodies were assumed to operate in the same way. I spent way too long wondering if sex was even a possibility for me, and yet I didn't raise this with anyone until a drunken and emotional conversation with a close friend when I was 19.

At university, endless conversations about my friends' romantic lives awkwardly avoided the topic of sex until, eventually, I awkwardly told them that I had just as much interest in sex as they did. There were girls who got it, and I just want to take a moment to say to them: Thank you for understanding - and for introducing me to Ann Summers. For obvious reasons, of course, but also because it was such a perfect acknowledgement that my sexuality was fine with you. I finally felt I was being seen as a real adult, not a tween playing grown-up.

I was never given sex education at all relevant to my situation - all bodies were assumed to operate in the same way.

Feminism seems to struggle with disability because disabled women are subject to stereotypes diametrically opposed to those saddled on our able-bodied counterparts. But this shouldn't make them any less feminist issues; any false assumption foisted on women should come under the same scrutiny. Nowhere is the difference between attitudes towards able-bodied and disabled women starker than on the subject of motherhood. The other big taboo.

Feminists are rightfully campaigning against the centuries-old idea that women are primarily, if not solely, homemakers and caregivers whose ultimate goal is raising a family. But what about women who are faced with the opposite assumptions: that for us to be mothers is either impossible or wrong? The internet is dotted with stories of the disapproval faced by disabled mums when out with their kids. This must be intensely hurtful; and it is, I confess, something that plays on my mind. Will I be able to have children (especially given the difficulty of finding a partner), and will I get the support I need to care for them? Will they be singled out as different just because I am disabled, and how am I to deal with this?

Many of my able-bodied friends, themselves women in their early twenties, simply do not understand why I worry quite so much about this aspect of our distant futures. "Can you stop panicking about something that may or may not happen in a decade's time?" they ask, and I guess to some extent they're right. But I also feel that this confusion comes from a place of privilege: Being well-educated and generally surrounded by liberal-minded types, they can reasonably hope to be able to make their own decisions about their bodies and families. I, and many others, do not have that luxury, and the feminist assertion that we should make our own choices falls flat. Once again, while the mainstream internet feminists are right, they fail to think of the women who do not fit the mould.

I am proud to be a disabled woman. I am also proud to be a feminist. But I wish the latter didn't force me, often, to ignore the specific challenges posed by the former. I wish that mainstream feminism gave me a baseline from which to confront the issues disabled women face with body image, sexuality, and motherhood - but for now I am trapped in the middle. As I go forward into adult life, I hope I can reconcile this tension and maybe, just maybe, find some answers along the way. For now I am just holding on to the one thing I do know for certain: I am going to make this identity work for me. Thanks, feminism, for that. ●

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What I Wish People Knew About Disability And Feminism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So much of modern feminism relies on the ideal of female bodies that work as expected. For me and lots of other disabled people, that's a model we simply don't fit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the course of time, I've learned to stop being surprised by anything that comes out of certain people's mouths. Speaking as a transgender woman myself, Caitlyn Jenner is at the top of that list. I've honestly even looked up her fan mail address with the serious consideration of sending her a gift-wrapped roll of duct tape complete with a nice, well thought out card including instructions on how to break off a piece to cover her mouth any time she feels like speaking up on the rest of our behalves. If you'd asked me about her a just over year ago last week, when she gave the acceptance speech for her Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the 2015 ESPYs, I would have only had good things to say. Since then, however, her mouth has become a veritable font of internalized transphobia and ignorance to the privilege she still carries as a famous and excessively wealthy white woman.

While I have nothing against her as a person, it's clear that she has a lot to learn if she wants to continue being a "spokesperson" of sorts for our community, a role which was initially merely thrust upon her by the media circus, but which she seems to have since gladly accepted, even volunteering at times to serve as our community's "Ambassador" to the Republican party. Because of course, as is the case with many other rich white people, Caitlyn Jenner identifies as a Republican, a revelation which found me at a rare loss for words:

Because while that party affiliation would seem to make a lot of sense for a rich, white, cis, straight person, Miss Jenner seems to be forgetting that she is transgender. Bless her heart.
Now Obviously, it goes without saying that not every individual who registers as a voting Republican is necessarily intentionally hateful towards LGBT people.
The problem is that these mindsets are entirely out of sync with GOP leadership, whose platform still advocates for the reversal of marriage equality as well as legislation banning trans individuals from being able to use public restrooms in some cases, and forcing us to have special ID's (post-op only, which is still transphobic,) or to wear identifying green bracelets as though we were living in a fascist state in others.

Perhaps most concerning of all, Trump's VP pick (I still can't believe I'm even writing those words,) has advocated heavily for the defunding of AIDS research in order to funnel government money into religious "conversion therapy" intended to "pray the gay away," a practice which is rooted in pseudoscience and has been proven time and time again as demonstrated so poignantly by Leelah Alcorn's suicide in 2014, among other incidents, to lead to mental illness and even suicide in addition to not actually "turning" anyone straight or cis, and which has been thoroughly debunked and disavowed by nearly every respectable mental health body in the nation including the APA, because, big surprise, being gay or trans is not a mental illness. (You can ask the APA about that one too.)

And this is why, in my own not-so-humble opinion, it is not possible to vote Republican in support of LGBT rights. Make no mistake, I'm not here pushing for anyone to vote Democrat either, or for any other specific party for that matter. Political views are complex after all, and I've personally had it with this two party nonsense anyway. My point is simply that the Republican Party leadership's platform could not possibly be more at odds with the human rights of LGBT people. Transphobic "bathroom laws" place trans people at an even further increased risk of violence than we already are, and conversion therapy kills.
This means that in order to make the decision to vote for current GOP leadership, under their current platform, one must also make the decision that some political agenda, be it gun control, economics, foreign policy, or anything else for that matter, is somehow more valuable than LGBT lives.
It's really no wonder Caitlyn recently made a statement to the effect that it was harder for her to "come out" as a Republican than it was for her to come out as a transgender woman. Because while her wealth and white privilege do serve to protect her from the overwhelming bulk of violence against transgender people, which seems to be reserved for impoverished transgender women of color, they do not protect her from the truth: That GOP leadership and the GOP platform are overwhelmingly anti-LGBT, and should mark this party as a clear non-option for anyone who is LGBT, or who cares about the rights and lives of LGBT people at all.

There are "third option" right wing parties with less homophobic and transphobic agendas if that happens to be the way you lean, or you may even find a more moderate, or even left wing party whose views on the whole may actually line up with yours much better while still including whatever that one agenda is that's making your decision, but LGBT lives are human lives, not a political agenda, and no political agenda should ever trump the importance of human lives.
Be Sure to Subscribe to Delia Melody on Youtube:www.youtube.com/deliamelody

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Last Thing This Transgender Woman Has To Say About Caitlyn Jenner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In my own not-so-humble opinion, it is not possible to vote Republican in support of LGBT rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images News/Getty Images

White feminism is a term that has been on the tip of everyone's tongue since actor Emma Watson addressed past criticisms of her feminism in statement to her book club about the topic in early January. Though it's difficult to find an exact definition for " white feminism," it has come to describe a not-quite-feminist mindset that doesn't take into account the ways the women of color experience sexism, and how it differs from the way white women experience it. Simply put, white feminism is for white women who don't want to examine their white privilege. The term "intersectional feminism," which stands in opposition to white feminism, was coined by civil rights advocate and law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to help describe the experiences of Black women who not only face sexism, but systemic racism.

Understanding the ways race, gender, and other factors (such as disability, class, or sexuality) intersect is crucial to making our feminism more effective and impactful. Let's face the cold, hard truth: every white woman has (wittingly or unwittingly) benefitted from systemic racism. And because it comes from a systemic issue, many of us don't realize when white feminism is sneaks into our life. Here are seven times that white feminism rears its head in our daily lives, and what you can do to combat it.

1You Don't Think "White Feminism" Exists

Sure, white feminism isn't truly feminism at all if you take an intersectional approach to dismantling oppressive systems. But to deny that "white feminism" is real just erases women of color and their voices even more. If you're not actively speaking out against white feminism and dismantling it, then you're still benefitting from systemic racism.

2You "Not All" Somebody

Conversations about race and racism can be uncomfortable, especially if you have benefitted from racism - which, ahem, all white people have. If you find yourself wanting to respond to a thought-starter with "not all white people" or "not all white women" upon hearing people of color talk about systemic racism, you may want to reflect on why whatever was said resonated with you on a personal level. Not all-ing may indicate you need to work on a certain area of your feminism to make it more intersectional.

3You Jump To The Defensive

Giphy

Getting called out or receiving feedback - especially on a public social media platform - can be uncomfortable. However, if you find yourself regularly becoming defensive when discussing racism or receiving feedback in regards to your activism, that's probably a sign that white feminism is sneaking into your life. Learning from your mistakes and examining your privileges as a white person are crucial to developing a deeper understanding of the ways gender and race intersect. Being defensive when you're called out only leads to further misunderstanding and mistrust - sometimes, simply apologizing and learning from your mistake is all it takes to make a difference.

4You Don't Learn From Feedback

Giphy

Even if you don't get defensive about feedback, do you actually hear what is being said? Do you make an active effort to improve yourself? White feminists often dismiss women of color the same exact way men dismiss them - by tone policing, by centering themselves, or by flat out ignoring them. If you are called out, set aside time to actually learn about why you were called out - and what you can do to avoid that behavior in the future.

5You Only Show Up When It's Convenient

Balancing your activism with self-care is an important part of not getting burned out, but ask yourself a few questions: Do you show up for issues that that don't directly have a negative impact on you? Do you sit in on Black Lives Matter meetings in addition to going to your local women's march? Or attend events about school-to-prison pipeline and the 13th Amendment? If you answered "no" to any of these questions, you might be being a bit of a white feminist. Make an effort to step outside your perspective, and participate in events, rallies, and marches focused on issues that your privilege has protected you from experiencing.

6You Tone Police

Much like not all-ing or getting defensive in conversations about systemic racism, white feminists are known for tone policing the feelings of women of color. Basically, tone policing is a way to deflect criticism by focusing on the anger or emotions being expressed, rather than the issue that's being discussed. Just like men sometimes dismiss women as "irrational" or "unstable" for emotionally talking about an issue that negatively affects them, white feminists use this technique to invalidate the feelings of people of color in an argument. If you find yourself more concerned with how something is being said said versus the substance of a conversation, you should probably take a second to refocus and de-center your feelings.

7You Only Center Women Of Color When You Tokenize Them

If you include women of color in events or discussions for the sake of appearing diverse, but you are not actually helping to make actionable change, you're probably tokenizing them. There are many ways in which white feminists tokenize people of color, and if you are unsure if you are doing this, simply ask yourself: Are you including women of color just to keep from being seen or perceived as exclusionary? If that is your main priority, you're probably being tokenizing - and that's white feminist AF.

White feminism may be tricky to recognize at times, especially because it's a pretty ingrained thought process. However, increasing your awareness around your actions may help you more proactively catch yourself being a white feminist, and stop white feminism from sneaking into your life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Ways White Feminism Is Sneaking Into Your Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
White feminism is a term that has been on the tip of everyone's tongue since actor Emma Watson addressed past criticisms of her feminism in statement to her book club about the topic in early January. Though it's difficult to find an exact...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am five-foot-four, 125 pounds.

My measurements are 36-28-38.

I wear size medium shirts, size seven jeans, and (in case you were wondering) size eight shoes.

I have never walked into a clothing store unable to find items in my size. I have never been asked to pay more for a seat on an airplane. I have never had someone dismiss me as a dating prospect based on my body type, nor had someone scoff, openly, while watching me eat French fries in public.

I have never experienced a doctor dismissing my concerns with a "lose weight, feel great!" remedy. And I can open an article with my measurements without fear of judgment.

I walk through this world as a thin person. And as such, I have never experienced fat discrimination.

That said, I want you to know two things:
1. I am writing this article from a privileged perspective; and 2. I am not here to damn, guilt, or embarrass thin people.
But I think we need to have a talk.
Because it's so easy to fall back on tired old excuses for why we're not privileged - and I see this a lot when the topic of thin privilege is broached.
"How can I have thin privilege? I feel like shit about my body all the time! That's not privilege! Besides, someone called me out on my 'chicken legs' the other day, and how is that different from calling someone fat? And I'm only thin anyway because I have an eating disorder, and trust me, that is not a privilege."

And I hear what you're saying.

But I think it's time for us to look at these excuses (and how they don't hold up in the grand scheme of things) a little more closely.

Grievances vs. Oppression

Let me start off by saying this: Having your feelings hurt sucks.

And I would never tell you to just "suck it up" or "get over it."

Because yes, sticks and stones may break your bones, but damn it, words really can hurt you. And so can the general attitudes and behaviors of others.

I'm not here to tell you that your personal grievances don't matter.

Rather, I'm here to put those feelings into perspective.

Because personal emotional impacts simply are not the same as oppression.

Oppression involves "the systematic subjugation of a group of people by another group of people who have access to social power, the result of which benefits one group over the other, and is maintained by social beliefs and practices."

In other words, oppression is a special kind of problem.

Here are four reasons why:

1. It is pervasive.

It is woven throughout social institutions, as well as embedded within individual consciousness.

For example, if you make a "fat joke," everyone around you is going to understand it - because the cultural belief that fat is something to laugh at is widespread.

2. It is restricting.

Structural limits significantly shape a person's life chances and sense of possibility in ways beyond the individual's control.

Take a look at these examples of thin privilege. By virtue of not having access to these privileges, the lives of larger people are limited.

3. It is hierarchical.

Dominant or privileged groups benefit, often in unconscious ways, from the disempowerment of subordinated or targeted groups.

Think of the example that I gave earlier about not being passed over as a dating prospect. I benefit from fat discrimination because I'm more likely to have my OKCupid message opened since I have 'Thin' or 'Average' checked off in the 'Body Type' box. I'm more likely to get a date.

4. The dominant group has the power to define and name reality.

That is, they determine the status quo: what is "normal," "real," or "correct."

Take a look at (almost) any store window mannequins or fashion magazine. If thinness is heralded as the status quo, then that continues to put thin people in positions of power when it comes to determining what "average" (or "preferable") is.

When you have hurt feelings - legitimate as they are - it isn't the result of subjugation.

The negative attitudes toward you as a privileged person aren't pervasive, restricting, or hierarchal.
You aren't losing out on anything just because someone's words, actions, or beliefs had an emotional impact on you.
And when you move past it - even if it takes years of work, which it very well may - that's it. It's over.

Oppression doesn't work the same way.

Oppression never goes away because everywhere you go, everything you see, and everyone you know reiterates and reinforces it.

And that's a significant difference.

But Thin People Can Hate Their Bodies

I made a video this summer called 'How to Get a Bikini Body.' It repeated the oft-seen-on-social-media body-positive mantra "Put a bikini on your body!" theme.

And people were quick to comment that my message lost its meaning because my body adheres to societal beauty standards. "Easy for you to say," they said.

And this pissed me off.

Because I wanted to be like, "Well, thin people can hate their bodies, too, ya know! Just because you think it's 'perfect' doesn't mean that I don't struggle with it!"

But then I realized that they were right.

Because here's the thing: Can a thin person have body image struggles? Can a thin person be at war with their self-image? Can a thin person hate to look in the mirror?

Absolutely.

And does that suck?

Absolutely.

But the difference between these negative feelings and fatphobia is this: The only person worrying about whether or not I'm meeting beauty standards is me.

And that's not the same for fat folk.

When you're not thin, other people on the beach actually do take offense. When you're not thin, people really do think that you shouldn't be in a bathing suit. When you're not thin, people really do make your body their moral obligation.

And while your internal struggle is real and significant, the point is: You might hate your body, but society doesn't.

That's thin privilege.

But-But-But-Skinny-Shaming!

Before you worry that I'm going to disregard or otherwise undermine the bullying involved in skinny-shaming, let me reassure you: I'm not going to do that.

Let me address here and now (and loudly) that no one should ever be shamed for their body. I believe whole-heartedly that the body-positive community needs to be open to all body types. And absolutely, it is problematic that people engage in making fun of thin bodies.

I would never tell you that jabs at your "chicken legs" or insinuations (or outright proclamations) that you must have an eating disorder aren't hurtful or that their effects aren't far-reaching.

Because they are.

But what I am going to argue is this: As horrible as skinny-shaming is (and it is!), what makes it different is that it does not involve a pervasive fear or hatred of thin bodies.

And while its personal effects are certainly influential, it is not restrictive on a social level.

Let me be clear on two theories that explain how skinny-shaming is fundamentally different from fat-shaming:

1. Skinny-Shaming as a Response to Fat-Shaming

Have you ever heard the supposed-to-be-empowering phrase "Real Women Have Curves?" What about the cringe-worthy assertion that "Only Dogs Want Bones?"

Thin people aren't really crazy about these. Obviously.

Real women are such because they identify as women, curves or not. And referring to someone's partner as a dog just because they like someone's body is degrading. Right?

Right.

But these types of reclamations of fat pride wouldn't need to exist if fat-shaming wasn't a thing.

These types of phrases and attitudes were born of a need to say "I'm beautiful, too!" They're responses to social norms.

And while you can argue that they're misguided, they're actually challenging fatphobia.

And while you certainly shouldn't encourage them if they feel like put-downs, what you need to remember about these phrases, in the words of Lindy West is, "'I'm proud to be fat' is still a radical statement. 'I'm proud to be thin' is the status quo.'"

2. Skinny-Shaming as Rooted in Sexism

It's absolutely true that regardless of what our bodies look like, society polices them.

And that's because patriarchal structures benefit from this policing.

And arguably, skinny-shaming is rooted in this type of sexism.
Society wants you to recognize that being thin is "in" - but not too thin, not that thin - because the goal is to keep you insecure.
Take a look at any tabloid cover.

The "So-and-So Has Cellulite!" headline is right next to the "Does So-and-So Have an Eating Disorder?" story. And they both convey the same message: "Ew! Gross!"

For fuck's sake, we just can't win.

And not to go all conspiracy theory on you, but that's exactly what they want.

They (and you can insert anyone you want here for "they" - society, the media, the dieting industry, the executive board for Patriarchy, Inc.) want women to continue to chase after unattainable goals.

But the difference is that the discrimination that fat people experience is at the intersection of sexism and fatphobia.

That is, there's another layer to it.

So while, yes, shaming anyone is wrong and bad and sexist, fat-shaming is rooted in extra factors that skinny-shaming is not.

So they're not the same.

Well, I Have an Eating Disorder, So 'Privilege' Doesn't Apply to Me

The blog This Is Thin Privilege details, "When we explain that thin privilege exists despite eating-disordered status, we've had thin people with [eating disorders] take offense."

And I get why that is.

Because having an eating disorder is serious.

And when you feel trapped in and controlled by your body, when you've reached that level of self-consciousness, when you're suffering every single day just to make it through, it's unlikely that you'll feel like you're experiencing privilege.

Because an eating disorder feels like a curse.

But, as This Is Thin Privilege explains, "I think it's important to note that disability is its own underprivileged status, and in this case, thin people with [eating disorders] are conflating the oppression they feel for lacking able-bodied privilege with a negation of their thin privilege."

That is: The marginalization that you experience as a person living with an eating disorder is a result of the disorder, not a result of your body.

You experience illness. You experience stigma. You experience symptoms and effects of your disorder.

But that doesn't negate your thin privilege.

A Man of Color can experience racism and still benefit from his male privilege. An able-bodied woman can experience sexism and still benefit from her able-bodied privilege. A poor white farmer can experience classism and still benefit from his white privilege.

A person with an eating disorder can experience ableism and still benefit from their thin privilege.

Being marginalized in one area doesn't negate your privilege in another.

***

Privilege can be a difficult thing to talk about. It's easy to feel defensive when you mistake someone's asking you to check your privilege for their making assumptions about your life.

But the bottom line that we have to remember is this: Are my negative experiences related to my body grievances, or are they pervasive issues on a societal level?

And if you have your thin privilege in check, you'll be better able to recognize that most of the time, these issues fall into the former category.
Melissa A. Fabello, Managing Editor of Everyday Feminism, is a domestic violence prevention and sexuality educator, eating disorder and body image activist, and media literacy vlogger based out of Philadelphia. She enjoys rainy days, Jurassic Park, and the occasional Taylor Swift song and can be found on YouTube and Tumblr. She holds a B.S. in English Education from Boston University and an M.Ed. in Human Sexuality from Widener University. She can be reached on Twitter @fyeahmfabello. Read her articles here and book her for speaking engagements here.

Filed Under: Tagged With: Articles, Health & Body Featured Posts, Posts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Let's Talk About Thin Privilege - Everyday Feminism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I am five-foot-four, 125 pounds. My measurements are 36-28-38. I wear size medium shirts, size seven jeans, and (in case you were wondering) size eight shoes. I have never walked into a clothing store unable to find items in my size. I have never been asked to pay more for a seat on an airplane.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week we're talking about middle-class America. Need a primer? Catch up here.
Richard Reeves is a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. His book, "Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It," will be published early next year.

How easy it is for U.S. politicians! No matter what their party or ideology, they never have to think about which social class they "wake up every day to work for." It's always the middle class.

That's just smart politics in a nation where the overwhelming majority has defined themselves in one way for a long time. Back in 1939, 88 percent adopted the middle-class label, according to Gallup poll. Today the number is 85 percent, the Pew Research Center reports.

[Who is the American 'Everyman'?]

This idea and ideal of a middle-class society makes sense when incomes are reasonably equal. Some people may be better off than others, but if most are broadly in the same economic boat, it makes sense for that boat to be the USS Middle Class. But growing income inequality has stretched the definition of middle class to the breaking point, especially toward the top.

Across the pond, British politicians tie themselves in linguistic knots trying to show that they are for ordinary people. Former Labour leader Ed Miliband was for the " squeezed middle class." Tony Blair was for " hard-working families." New Prime Minister Theresa May is for " just-managing families." It's a mess.

In America - where almost everyone is middle class - the distinctions that matter are within that broad category. So in its polling, Pew has to break down class categories into "lower," "lower middle," "middle," "upper middle" and "upper." It is true that the portion of the public identifying as just "middle" middle class shrank from 53 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 2014, with a marked post-recession shift toward "lower middle class" and "lower class." But only 1 in 10 will accept the label "lower class," and just 1 or 2 percent ever admit to being "upper class." America does not have a bourgeoisie: It is a bourgeoisie, at least in its own eyes.

It is important to remember that there has been no increase in income inequality for the bottom 80 percent of the U.S. population. All the inequality action is at the top, with the group who occupy the top rung of the ladder - who likely see themselves as just upper middle class - steadily separating from the majority. This separation is economic, visible in income and wealth trends. But the separation is seen through education, as college graduates see their incomes rise. It is visible on maps, with affluent households zoning themselves off in upscale enclaves. It shows up in studies of family life, as the upper middle class form stable marital unions and invest intensively in their children.

Inequality in America is not about the gap between the bottom and the middle. It is about the one between the top and everybody else. We are witnessing a dangerous separation of the upper middle class from the majority. The danger lies not just in the costs of inequality today, but in the perpetuation of class status across generations.

[Is 'middle class' an outdated term?]

Yet politicians - even those on the political left - are reluctant to demand more from the upper middle class, typically restricting their attention to those at the very top, the much-vilified "1 percent." But we can't create a more equal society just on the back of the upper class. Nor should we, given that the economic gains of the past few years have been felt not just by the super-rich, but by a much broader swath at the top. The cry of "we are the 99 percent" simply obscures the inequalities opening up further down the distribution.

But Americans who see themselves as middle class are reluctant to make any sacrifices. And most people with household incomes stretching well into six figures see themselves as middle class, just like everybody else, even if they have to add the "upper" modifier. They might be persuaded that the rich should pay more taxes, but not that they might be rich themselves: Half of those making more than $100,000 a year think you need to be making at least half a million a year to count as "rich," according to a Roper Center analysis of 2011 Gallup data.

Right now, even Americans who are rich by any reasonable standard fiercely resist any attempt to pay more. Exhibit A: the furious upper-middle-class reaction to President Obama's attempt in 2014 to limit the value of 529 tax-favored savings plans, which overwhelming give benefits to those with higher incomes.

Members of the upper middle class are doing very well and should be asked to contribute a greater share to the common good. This requires them first to look in the mirror and see that they are not the victims of inequality, but the victors.
Read more: Is 'middle class' an outdated term? Who is the American 'Everyman'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Check your privilege, upper middle class

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week we're talking about middle-class America. Need a primer? Catch up here. Richard Reeves is a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Years ago some feminist on the Internet told me I was "privileged."

"THE F&CK!?!?" I said.

I came from the kind of poor that people don't want to believe still exists in this country. Have you ever spent a frigid northern-Illinois winter without heat or running water? I have. At 12 years old were you making ramen noodles in a coffee maker with water you fetched from a public bathroom? I was. Have you ever lived in a camper year-round and used a random relative's apartment as your mailing address? We did. Did you attend so many different elementary schools that you can only remember a quarter of their names? Welcome to my childhood.

This is actually a much nicer trailer setup than the one I grew up in.

So when that feminist told me I had "white privilege," I told her that my white skin didn't do shit to prevent me from experiencing poverty. Then, like any good, educated feminist would, she directed me to Peggy McIntosh's now-famous 1988 piece " White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack."

After one reads McIntosh's powerful essay, it's impossible to deny that being born with white skin in America affords people certain unearned privileges in life that people of other skin colors simply are not afforded. For example:
"I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented."
"When I am told about our national heritage or about 'civilization,' I am shown that people of my color made it what it is."

"If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race."

"I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time."

If you read through the rest of the list, you can see how white people and people of color experience the world in very different ways. But listen: This is not said to make white people feel guilty about their privilege. It's not your fault that you were born with white skin and experience these privileges. But whether you realize it or not, you do benefit from it, and it is your fault if you don't maintain awareness of that fact.

I do understand that McIntosh's essay may rub some people the wrong way. There are several points on the list that I felt spoke more to the author's status as a middle-class person than to her status as a white person. For example:
"If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area, which I can afford and in which I would want to live."
"I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me."

"I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed."

"If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege."

And there are so many more points in the essay where the word "class" could be substituted for the word "race," which would ultimately paint a very different picture. That is why I had such a hard time identifying with this essay for so long. When I first wrote about white privilege years ago, I demanded to know why this white woman felt that my experiences were the same as hers when, no, my family most certainly could not rent housing "in an area which we could afford and want to live," and no, I couldn't go shopping without fear in our low-income neighborhoods.

The idea that any ol' white person can find a publisher for a piece is most certainly a symptom of class privilege. Having come from a family of people who didn't even graduate from high school, who knew not a single academic or intellectual person, it would never occur to me to assume that I could be published. It is absolutely a freak anomaly that I'm in graduate school, considering that not one person on either side of my family has a college degree. And it took me until my 30s to ever believe that someone from my stock could achieve such a thing. Poverty colors nearly everything about your perspective on opportunities for advancement in life. Middle-class, educated people assume that anyone can achieve their goals if they work hard enough. Folks steeped in poverty rarely see a life past working at the gas station, making the rent on their trailer, and self-medicating with cigarettes and prescription drugs until they die of a heart attack. (I've just described one whole side of my family and the life I assumed I'd be living before I lucked out of it.)

I, maybe more than most people, can completely understand why broke white folks get pissed when the word "privilege" is thrown around. As a child I was constantly discriminated against because of my poverty, and those wounds still run very deep. But luckily my college education introduced me to a more nuanced concept of privilege: the term "intersectionality." The concept of intersectionality recognizes that people can be privileged in some ways and definitely not privileged in others. There are many different types of privilege, not just skin-color privilege, that impact the way people can move through the world or are discriminated against. These are all things you are born into, not things you earned, that afford you opportunities that others may not have. For example:

Citizenship: Simply being born in this country affords you certain privileges that non-citizens will never access.

Class: Being born into a financially stable family can help guarantee your health, happiness, safety, education, intelligence, and future opportunities.

Sexual orientation: If you were born straight, every state in this country affords you privileges that non-straight folks have to fight the Supreme Court for.

Sex: If you were born male, you can assume that you can walk through a parking garage without worrying that you'll be raped and then have to deal with a defense attorney blaming it on what you were wearing.

Ability: If you were born able-bodied, you probably don't have to plan your life around handicap access, braille, or other special needs.

Gender identity: If you were born cisgender (that is, your gender identity matches the sex you were assigned at birth), you don't have to worry that using the restroom or locker room will invoke public outrage.

As you can see, belonging to one or more category of privilege, especially being a straight, white, middle-class, able-bodied male, can be like winning a lottery you didn't even know you were playing. But this is not to imply that any form of privilege is exactly the same as another, or that people lacking in one area of privilege understand what it's like to be lacking in other areas. Race discrimination is not equal to sex discrimination and so forth.

And listen: Recognizing privilege doesn't mean suffering guilt or shame for your lot in life. Nobody's saying that straight, white, middle-class, able-bodied males are all a bunch of assholes who don't work hard for what they have. Recognizing privilege simply means being aware that some people have to work much harder just to experience the things you take for granted (if they ever can experience them at all).

I know now that I am privileged in many ways. I am privileged as a natural-born white citizen. I am privileged as a cisgender woman. I am privileged as an able-bodied person. I am privileged that my first language is also our national language, and that I was born with an intellect and ambition that pulled me out of the poverty that I was otherwise destined for. I was privileged to be able to marry my way "up" by partnering with a privileged, middle-class, educated male who fully expected me to earn a college degree.

There are a million ways I experience privilege, and some that I certainly don't. But thankfully, intersectionality allows us to examine these varying dimensions and degrees of discrimination while raising awareness of the results of multiple systems of oppression at work.

Tell me: Are you a white person who's felt uncomfortable with the term "white privilege"? Does a more nuanced approach help you see your own privilege more clearly?
Also on The Huffington Post:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explaining White Privilege To A Broke White Person

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Years ago some feminist on the Internet told me I was "privileged." "THE F&CK!?!?" I said. I came from the kind of poor that people don't want to believe still exists in this country. Have you ever spent a frigid northern-Illinois winter without heat or running water? I have.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NORRISTOWN, Pa. - Bill Cosby, who fell from grace as "America's Dad" to a convicted sex offender, was sentenced Tuesday to three to 10 years in state prison.

The 81-year-old comedian was seen being walked down a courthouse hallway in handcuffs after he was denied bail less than an hour after his sentencing. He was also fined $25,000 and will be required to cover the costs of prosecution, which amounts to at least $43,000, the district attorney said.

He was convicted in April of drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand, who testified that Cosby violated her at his Pennsylvania home in 2004 after she came to him for career advice. At the time, she was Temple University women's basketball administrator.

"Nobody is above the law because of where they live, who they are, wealth, fame, celebrity or even philanthropy," said Judge Steven O'Neill, who presided over both of Cosby's trials, the first of which ended in a mistrial.

"The court must consider the protection of the public and the gravity of the offense and the rehabilitation of the defendant," O'Neill said. "Thirty-four months this has gone on. Your time has come," he told Cosby.

Cosby, renowned for his role as Dr. Cliff Huxtable on "The Cosby Show," had been accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women, but was only criminally charged in Constand's case. Cosby is the first star of his caliber to be convicted of sexual assault in the age of #MeToo.

Neither Constand nor Cosby reacted visibly while the judge handed down the sentence. Later, Cosby removed his jacket and tie, while laughing with his spokesman and attorney. Former model Janice Dickinson, who has accused Cosby of rape, began laughing uncontrollably until a sheriff told her to stop.

"I am victorious," Dickinson said after the sentencing.

Chelan Lashaan, who testified during the trial that the actor sexually assaulted her when she was 17 in 1986: "I wanted 30 years, but I am very happy to know that Mr. Cosby will do time in prison. He is touchable as he touched us."

Cosby has repeatedly denied all allegations of sexual misconduct.

His longtime spokesman told reporters after the sentencing that the decision was "racist and sexist." He said accusations brought upon Judge Brett Kavanaugh in Washington were part of the same "sex war."

He added that Cosby's attorneys were preparing a motion to address "falsified evidence" used during the trial.

District Attorney Kevin Steele said he is confident in the prosecution's case, and called the potential motion by the defense "beyond a Hail Mary."

"For decades, the defendant has been able to hide his true self and hide his crimes," Steele said. "Finally, Bill Cosby has been unmasked, and we've seen the real man as he's headed off to prison."

He said Cosby would first be taken to Montgomery County Correctional Facility, then temporarily housed in one state prison before the department of corrections determines which state prison to house him in more permanently.

"Look, it's not a cause for celebration, and we take very seriously the taking of somebody's liberty. But I will not apologize for our job," Steele said. "Our job is to separate the predators from the good people in our community, and that happened today."

O'Neill ruled earlier Tuesday that Cosby is a "sexually violent predator."

The distinction under Pennsylvania law means Cosby will have to undergo monthly counseling for the rest of his life, and if freed from prison, register with police if he moves so that neighbors and schools will be alerted if he lives nearby.

Cosby asked before he was sentenced if he would have to register if he travels to another city overnight. He was told he would.

Cosby was also given a chance to speak in his defense on Tuesday, but declined. When he was asked if he wanted to add anything, he said, "I don't need any more discussion on that."

The defense also did not call any character witnesses.

Cosby's lawyers argued he should serve his time on house arrest, given his age.

"To say he is too old to [go to prison], that he should get a pass because it has taken this long to catch up for what he has done ... what they are asking for is a get out of jail free card," Steele said. "Nobody is above the law. Nobody."

Constand, 45, was given a chance to speak during the sentencing hearing Monday, and addressed the court for less than two minutes, but submitted a victim impact statement that was released Tuesday.

In the statement, Constand said she was "at the top of my game" - physically, professionally and emotionally - before Cosby assaulted her.

"I knew who I was and I liked who I was," she wrote. But "Bill Cosby took my beautiful, healthy young spirit and crushed it," Constand wrote. "He robbed me of my health and vitality, my open nature, and my trust in my self and others."

Constand said reliving the assault in court during the first trial, which ended in a mistrial in June 2017, and in the retrial, along with the criticism she took on as a result, left her feeling "traumatized all over again." But she said she knew she had to speak out in an effort to save possible future victims from Cosby, and with the hope of helping all sexual assault victims.

She said she has often expected to find a sense of peace and closure after the assault, but "almost 15 years later, I'm a middle-aged woman who's been stuck in a holding pattern most of her adult life, unable to heal fully or move forward."
Adam Reiss reported from Norristown, and Elisha Fieldstadt reported from New York.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Cosby sentenced to 3 to 10 years in prison for Andrea Constand sexual assault

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NORRISTOWN, Pa. - Bill Cosby, who fell from grace as "America's Dad" to a convicted sex offender, was sentenced Tuesday to three to 10 years in state prison. The 81-year-old comedian was seen being walked down a courthouse hallway in handcuffs after he was denied bail less than an hour after his sentencing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Social capital" is a term that refers to relationships, networks, people, money and knowledge that helps to create success in life for individuals, groups and organizations. Because of his life circumstances, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has benefited from very large amounts of social capital and has also been in places that allowed him to accrue more of it. At least until now, Kavanaugh's social capital has insulated him from the negative consequences of his behavior.

In many ways, social capital is a function of the company a person chooses to keep. What do such choices reveal about Kavanaugh, who now stands accused of sexual assault by several women, including Julie Swetnick, who claims she was the victim of a gang rape in 1982, at a party Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge attended?

Kavanaugh was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by Donald Trump, who has publicly admitted to assaulting women by grabbing them by their genitals. At least 19 women have accused him of sexual harassment and similar behavior. Trump's first wife, Ivana, alleged that he raped her (before retracting that claim, without changing the substance of her account). Donald Trump has also made lurid sexual comments about his own daughter, Ivanka.

Trump continues to enthusiastically support Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, and has gone so far as to publicly attack the character of Christine Blasey Ford and the other women who have alleged that Brett Kavanaugh engaged in sexually inappropriate or illegal conduct.

Brett Kavanaugh is a proud Republican and a conservative. In practice, and whatever its statements may be, his political party and movement does not believe that women should have equal human and civil rights with men. Most importantly, this includes denying women the right to control their own bodies and reproductive choices.

The Republican Party and the larger conservative movement are also defending Kavanaugh by deploying the logic of "rape culture," wherein women who are victims of sex crimes are somehow to blame for their own suffering. Moreover, in this worldview women are to be submissive, passive, silent and deferential to the sexual desires and demands of men.

While a student at Georgetown Prep just outside Washington, Brett Kavanaugh, by his own admission, actively participated in the school's culture of extreme partying and excessive drinking. The culture at Georgetown Prep, according to many accounts, also nurtured disrespect, harassment and objectification of girls and women.

Kavanaugh's classmate and friend Mark Judge has described their time at Georgetown Prep in his two published memoirs as "masturbation class," a place where the boys obsessively "lusted after girls" from nearby Catholic schools and sometimes drank so much they blacked out. In another context, Judge wrote about "an ambiguous middle ground, where the woman seems interested and indicates, whether verbally or not, that the man needs to prove himself to her."

That passage continues: "If that man is any kind of man, he'll allow himself to feel the awesome power, the wonderful beauty, of uncontrollable male passion."

While an undergraduate at Yale University, Kavanaugh chose to join and remain a member of DKE, a fraternity which was well-known for drunkenness and sexual harassment. In 2011, Kavanaugh's fraternity would "protest" outside the University's Women's Center, its members chanting, "No means yes! Yes means anal."

Kavanaugh was also part of a "secret society" at Yale University officially called Truth and Courage, but often called "Tit and Clit."

Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale with Brett Kavanaugh, has told the New Yorker that one night at a raucous party Kavanaugh exposed himself, thrusting his penis in her face.

Kavanaugh has consistently chosen to be part of a white male subculture -- one that exists in many fraternities and organizations around the United States -- that encourages a predatory, violent model of masculinity. Kavanugh was obviously attracted to such values. It strains credulity to believe that Kavanaugh did not, on a basic level, internalize and reproduce those values in other areas of his life.

Years later, Kavanaugh made additional choices to leverage and grow his mountains of social capital. Mother Jones, in a story about Kavanaugh's murky finances, revealed that the current U.S. circuit court judge is a member of the Chevy Chase Club, an exclusive Maryland country club located in a village that remains virtually all white.

Until 1976, the Chevy Chase Club did not admit African-Americans or Jews. A reporter from the Telegraph wrote in 2011: "Order a cocktail at the Chevy Chase country-club and you'll step back into ante-bellum Savannah. The blacks wait on Wasps, showing all the deference expected of them. You won't find many Cohens either, lounging on the well-kept lawn."

Kavanaugh's judicial record and personal behavior suggests he is a clear and present danger to the civil and human rights of all American women. He is also a threat to the civil and human rights of nonwhites as well. Nonwhite women will suffer twice if Donald Trump, and the Republican Party succeed in placing Brett Kavanaugh on the United States Supreme Court.
* * *
Class prejudice is omnipresent in the discussions and debates about Brett Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assaults and his fitness for the Supreme Court. So much so that few journalists and other commentators have discussed it. Members of America's elite class are usually loath to talk about the realities of social class.

But those Americans who are members of the working class -- myself included -- as well as those not born into families or communities possessing large amounts of social capital or other economic advantages, understand the realities of class in America very well.

Kavanaugh's defenders and apologists seem aghast that a white man of "good breeding" and "good stock," a "Georgetown Prep man" and a "Yale man," could be accused of doing something as ghastly as assaulting a vulnerable woman or girl. This is all so much willful blindness and self-serving delusion about the realities of race and gender and class in America.
READ MORE: Trump's economic boom is only for the rich - and likely won't help Republicans in midterms
White men and boys (and yes, white women and girls too) born into America's elite are insulated from the consequences of their poor decision-making. To that end, white men are infantilized. Black and brown men (and black and brown women as well) are pathologized. White women benefit from this dynamic as well -- albeit in ways that are complicated by sexism. Affluenza is one of the many ways that white privilege works for wealthy, upper-class and otherwise materially advantaged white Americans.

Social psychologists have demonstrated, for example, that America's elites --predominantly white men -- lie, cheat and engage in other unethical practices more often than other groups.

Researchers have shown that "winners" are also highly skilled at rationalizing their victories, even if the outcome is the result of cheating. America's corporate class and other members of the social and economic elite are also involved in criminal behavior which is estimated to cost the United States economy, at a minimum, $1 trillion a year.

Elite white men like Brett Kavanaugh have ruined the environment, subverted American democracy and engaged in economically destructive and ruinous behavior. These are not the collective sins of the working class or poor in America.

America's elites are mostly antisocial and self-interested. In many ways to reach the highest levels of power, especially in a capitalist society -- and to stay there -- requires a person and group to act in such a manner. But having money and other resources does not a priori deem a person to be of the "high character" and "good morals" that Kavanaugh's defenders assume.

Being born into, accruing or otherwise possessing social capital is not an automatic indicator of a given person's character or morality. It most certainly should not be a defense against charges of rape or sexual assault.

Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination is a lesson about gender and race. This moment is also a lesson about class and how it remains true that in the United States white male elites are customarily protected from the consequences of their own poor decisions and bad behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The saga of Brett Kavanaugh: Class, social capital and endless privilege

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Social capital" is a term that refers to relationships, networks, people, money and knowledge that helps to create success in life for individuals, groups and organizations. Because of his life circumstances, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has benefited from very large amounts of social capital and has also been in places that allowed him to accrue more of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I buy my daughter boys' pants because even in an age of female fighter pilots and #MeToo, boys' clothes are largely designed to be practical, while girls' are designed to be pretty.

Image

The author isn't enlisting in the color war over kids' clothes - she dresses her son and daughter in choices that challenge gender stereotypes. Credit Credit Sara Clemence

"How adorable!" crooned the woman in line behind us at the department store. "And look at those lashes. How old is he?"

I looked down at my 3-year-old daughter, Lia, who was trying to scale the counter, and paused. It's not unusual for strangers to think my little girl is a little boy. People are used to seeing boys with tumbles of curls like hers - but a girl wearing boxy olive-green pants and a sturdy space-motif T-shirt has a way of throwing off the gender radar.

Lia's bucking of clothing stereotypes isn't her choice (yet). When her older brother started outgrowing his clothing, I put a lot of it aside for Lia. The hand-me-downs saved money and let us squeeze a little more enjoyment out of those tiny jackets and sweet sailor shirts. While I was happy if they also happened to de-girlify her wardrobe, I didn't set out to turn her into a pint-size fashion iconoclast.

But by the time Lia was a year old, I was buying most of her clothes in boys' sections. When she started walking, then running and climbing and jumping, I looked for clothes that were as functional as my son's: Pants that would buffer her knees against falls and have pockets to hold the rocks and leaves she picked up in the park. Substantial shirts that would shield her arms from the sun and mask grass stains and food smears.

Instead, I found girls' sections filled with lightweight leggings, scoop-neck tops, and embellished shoes. I scoured the internet for girls' pants with capacious pockets and reinforced knees, and found maddeningly few options.

I eventually realized that, even in an age of female fighter pilots and #MeToo, boys' clothes are largely designed to be practical, while girls' are designed to be pretty. Now when I shop for Lia, I hit the boys' section first. It's not just about avoiding skinned knees, but also the subtle and discouraging message that's woven right into girls' garments: you are dressed to decorate, not to do.

Some might think I'm being sartorially oversensitive. But what we wear matters - and not just as a projection of our personalities and priorities. An abundance of research has shown that our clothes affect how other people perceive us, as well as how we see ourselves.

A 2012 study by researchers at Kenyon College showed that adults thought fifth-grade girls who wore more sexualized outfits were less intelligent and capable than girls who wore more childish clothes. In another study, published in the journal Social Behavior and Personality, ballerinas who wore tights and leotards felt worse about their bodies and their performances than those who wore loose get-ups.

How we dress can even change the way we act. Studies have found that wearing more formal work clothes can get people thinking in a more abstract, big-picture way, and that adults become more focused when they put on lab coats - even if they're not scientists. It's not a stretch to think that putting our girls in tighter, frillier, flimsier clothes can imprint them with outdated notions about what they can and should do.

Though designs obviously vary from brand to brand, experts say that overall, the gender discrepancies in kids' clothes are very real.

"Especially in the toddler years, the boys have more pockets, they have more fun active clothes than the girls," said Francesca Sammaritano, a children's wear designer and assistant professor of fashion at Parsons School of Design. "There's leg room for bending your knees."

The differences in cut - boxier for boys, narrower and more revealing for girls - have nothing to do with differences in children's frames. Designers even use the same dress forms for both genders, Ms. Sammaritano said. "The body is the same, size-wise. You're growing and developing in the same way until you reach six years, more or less."

The gender divisions are a relatively new thing, said Jo Paoletti, a fashion scholar and author of "Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys From the Girls in America."

"All you have to do is look at the last 30 years of consumer culture for children to see these stereotypes coming out more and more," she told me. One reason, she said, is the rise in the 1990s of third-wave feminism, which embraced traditionally feminine looks; another is the prevalence of tests that let parents find out a child's sex before birth, and have led to the trend of holding gender-reveal parties in pregnancy.

"Parents started reacting to that," Ms. Paoletti said. "But all it means is, it prepares you to buy all the stuff - and prepares you mentally to be able to raise a human being - according to cultural stereotypes."

A more insidious reason: With declining birthrates, clothing manufacturers have been hungry for ways to keep sales up. "If you can figure out a way to make it harder for people to share or hand down clothes, you're going to do it," Ms. Paoletti said.

To be sure, a few companies have made efforts to break gender ranks. There are unisex lines from new brands such as Primary and Svaha, and traditional ones like Carter's. Lands' End started selling girls' leggings with the same reinforced knees its boys' pants have; Girls Will Be makes shorts and pants with pockets.

But much of the industry still seems to be engaged in a color war.

I haven't enlisted. Pink isn't banned from our house; neither are flowery dresses. And Lia loves both - though she also recently asked me to replace the blue tee with a train engine on the front that she had outgrown. And I've begun mixing "girlie" colors into my son's drawers.

Increasingly, I find it silly that we have "boys'" and "girls'" clothes at all. I'd much rather buy my children clothes that speak to their actual interests rather than the interests they are presumed to have because of their genders. Why should girls be confined to pastels and kittens, boys to navy blue and construction-equipment motifs?

My 5-year-old son finds joy in rainbows, flowers and things that glitter. I've been scouring the girls' sections for a shirt for him - let me know if you see one without puffed sleeves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Gender Divide in Preschoolers' Closets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I buy my daughter boys' pants because even in an age of female fighter pilots and #MeToo, boys' clothes are largely designed to be practical, while girls' are designed to be pretty. "How adorable!" crooned the woman in line behind us at the department store. "And look at those lashes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2012, a little known Swedish press published a children's book that sparked a nationwide debate.

The debate wasn't about the plot of the book or the pictures but concerned a three-letter word used by the main character of the story.

Catch our podcast: The World in Words

Each week on The World in Words, Patrick Cox and Nina Porzucki tell stories about languages and the people who speak them.

That word was the relatively new, gender-neutral pronoun hen.

Traditionally, Swedish does not have gender-neutral pronouns for people. Hen tapped into an ongoing conversation the country was already having about gender and equality.

This week on the podcast, we go to Sweden and examine whether gender-neutral language can help shape-shift societal views on gender equality.
This is the second episode in ongoing series about language and gender in collaboration with Across Women's Lives. You can find more stories about language and gender around the globe here. Podcast contents
00:01 In 2012, Olika Press, a little-known publishing company in Sweden, put out a children's book called "Kivi & Monsterhund" that sparked a national conversation. The public debate was over the word hen, a gender-neutral pronoun used to refer to the titular character, Kivi.

05:50 The two definitions of hen

06:43 Where does hen come from? Swedish language professor Karin Milles breaks down the etymology.

08:55: In 2007, Anne Uhrgård became the poster child for hen.

10:55: The debate over hen comes out of a larger conversation taking place in Sweden about gender equality.

13:21 "Language is magic!" Linguist Mikael Parkvall breaks down the debates taking place over the pronoun.

14:49 Does language influence culture?

19:07 Thoughts about hen from the streets of Stockholm

21:45 Theories about why hen has caught on so quickly in Sweden

22:49 The new, new pronoun, en

27:19 What does Anne Uhrgård think about hen today?
Many thanks to engineer Tina Tobey and to Nathalie Rothschild for help in researching and interpreting in Sweden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The three-letter word that rocked a nation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2012, Sweden erupted in a national debate over the pronoun "hen." Traditionally, Swedish has gendered pronouns when referring to people. There is no gender-neutral pronoun for people. "Hen" was a new word meant to fill a gap in the language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some Russians who do not identify as male or female say it's time to reinvent their mother tongue.

Non-binary Russians including Sasha from Moscow are refusing to be limited by grammar.

Vkontakte

Growing up in a small town in the Tula region south of Moscow, Valeria didn't think much about gender. Valeria looked like a girl and was raised a girl, so it seemed obvious to use feminine grammar structures, too, like "she" and "her."

Then, around the age of 12, Valeria joined an online chat forum. Here, behind a screen, specifying a gender wasn't necessary. The freedom was captivating.

"Up to that point, I had only really ever talked to people in person who could tell what my gender was anyway, so it never occurred to me to hide it with language," Valeria told The Moscow Times. "But on that forum, I suddenly could."

With closely cropped blond hair and a love for men's button-down shirts and waistcoats, Valeria, now 22, does not prescribe to a male or female gender.

The global non-binary community has become increasingly visible in recent years, helped by online communities and local activism. Tellingly, media like the Washington Post and the Associated Press are adopting the gender neutral "they" instead of "he" or "she" to refer to members of the community.

But for the small, yet growing number of non-binary Russians who interact in their thousands on social media site Vkontakte, their language does not provide a similarly simple way of expressing gender fluidity.

"In Russian, every word, with the possible exception of adverbs, has a grammatical gender," explained Alex Pershai, associate professor of Slavic linguistics at the Center for Gender Studies of the European Humanities University in Vilnius. "It cannot be removed or neutralized."

Refusing to be limited by grammar, however, non-binary Russians are inventing their own language forms.

A linguistic revolution

Russian nouns have one of three genders: masculine (on), feminine (ona) or neuter (ono), which almost never refers to people or living things. The adjectives and verbs used with the three types of nouns also indicate gender.

"There's a sexist element there that people know about but don't often mention," Pershai added. "Slavic languages have their own way of reinforcing gender, which is definitely tied into a social system as well."

While granting it would be better if an entirely new gender-neutral pronoun were introduced to the Russian lexicon, Valeria uses the male and female pronouns "on" and "ona" interchangeably as a temporary fix.

"It's actually exciting to be called 'he' sometimes and it makes me happy because it shows somebody can't tell what sex I am," Valeria said.

Sasha, a non-binary student from Moscow, also alternates between "on" and "ona." A 17-year-old with floppy black hair and bold traced-on eyebrows, Sasha wears tracksuits along with ripped tights and a long silver chain necklace.

"I use whichever pronouns are most comfortable for me at any given time," Sasha said.

Other non-binary Russians have adopted the neuter gender pronoun "ono," even though it flouts grammar rules.

But for people like trans activist Seroye Fioletovoye or "Gray Violet," an adopted name, the neuter form was the obvious choice.

Seroye Fioletovoye / Vkontakte

"'Ono' was the most neutral option," Seroye Fioletovoye said in a vegetarian cafe in Moscow, brushing long brown hair over one shoulder. The two adjectives that make up Seroye Fioletovoye's name, gray and violet, are also declined as neuter.

Language trends

Like Seroye Fioletovoye, So*ni chose their own gender-neutral name and insists on it being spelled with an asterix.

So*ni, who lives in the Moscow region, was assigned male at birth but began rebelling against the label at an early age.

"I first realized that I didn't fit into society's idea of men when I was in school," So*ni recalled. "A few years later, around 2010, I first encountered the terms 'gender' and 'gender role' and realized that I did not conform to them."

In the years that followed, So*ni experimented with almost every language variant imaginable, but found that nothing seemed to fit.

Then, in 2016, So*ni joined a project called the "Language Neutralization Laboratory." Organized by Russian LGBTQ+ group Magma, the project held weekly workshops that looked for ways to make the Russian language more inclusive. It inspired So*ni to invent an entirely new and elaborate gender-neutral version of Russian.

In Russian, a verb in the past tense is conjugated with three possible endings to match the grammatical gender of the noun, "on," "ona" or "ono." So*ni instead ends all verbs in the past with "-khshi," a completely different variation that negates any reference to gender.

Take the phrase "I was reading." In Russia, a man would say "ya chital" while a woman would say "ya chitala." So*ni, however, would say "ya chitakhshi."

Listening to So*ni speak this version of Russian can feel alienating at first. But despite the initial confusion, So*ni finds that people eventually adjust.

"I often feel awkward when I use this new language system with someone for the first time," So*ni said. "But I try to overcome it, because I feel uncomfortable when I'm forced to use gendered language forms."

Still, linguists like Pershai say that lasting change will require convincing Russian speakers outside the community, too.

"As an activist, I fully support any democratic change and any innovation. But as a linguist, I'm well aware that some of the changes don't work," Pershai said. "It might be fashionable for a while but it's not going to stick."

Hindered by language

As abstract as the proposals might seem, attempts to change Russian have emotions running high.

"I once asked a person I was very close to, to use the neuter gender when referring to me. They were outraged and even insulted me," So*ni recalled. "It was really painful."

And the use of the neuter pronoun "ono," which might seem like the obvious solution, is controversial even within the community, with some arguing it is offensive.

"Addressing a human being using the neuter is strange at best and insulting at worst," explained Polina Ravlyuk, who runs a blog on the Russian language for the LGBTQ+ community.

"In my opinion, language will be far from the greatest concern for the LGBTQ+ movement in Russia as long as there is also rejection, hatred and a desire in society to 'make these people normal,'" Ravlyuk added.

"Language is important, but it's the wider culture that should be tackled," agreed Seroye Fioletovoye.

For that fight, however, Russia's non-binary community needs to find the right words, says So*ni.

"Inventing new pronouns and gender categories does not automatically solve the problem of inequality. But it does make it harder and harder to use unequal language."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lost for Words: Non-Binary Russians Fight the Limits of Their Language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Non-binary Russians including Sasha from Moscow are refusing to be limited by grammar. Vkontakte Growing up in a small town in the Tula region south of Moscow, Valeria didn't think much about gender. Valeria looked like a girl and was raised a girl, so it seemed obvious to use feminine grammar structures, too, like "she" and "her."