# data[].attributes.body
I came across this interesting (but long) video over the weekend. It highlights both sides of conversion therapy, those that support conversion therapy and those who advocate for legal sanctions outlawing conversion therapy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Living Through Gay Conversion Therapy - Profiles by VICE - VICE Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this special report, VICE gets exclusive access to one of the hundreds of gay-conversion-therapy organizations, groups, and sessions in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Upon first glance, one might wonder what deification and India's lack of toilets have to do with human sexuality. However, after reading the provided article, the connection is clear. What are your initial thoughts? What do you think we as American's can do to solve this crisis?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The author is a professor of human development at Connecticut College, a director of Friends of Shelter Associates and a fellow with the Public Voices Greenhouse through the OpEd Project.
The campaign promise was simple: "Toilets, not temples." But three years into Narendra Modi's premiership, it's clear that solving India's sanitation crisis is not as simple as building toilets. It will require engaging with the causes of structural poverty, social inequality and the lack of dignity that accompany lack of sanitation.

The Clean India (Swachh Bharat Abhiyan) campaign, launched in 2014, aims to build about 100 million toilets across India, with a budget of $29 billion. It is confronting a crisis that is more pronounced given that it has higher rates of open defecation than poorer countries such as neighboring Bangladesh and countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Indeed, the scope of the open-defecation problem is astonishing. More than 600 million Indians, including 300 million women, defecate daily in bushes, fields, rivers and gutters. I have spoken to dozens of them - as well as leading sanitation activists, social workers and urban planners - in my capacity as a scholar and a director of a nonprofit organization focused on sanitation in India.

Several women in a focus group recounted their harrowing experiences of having to defecate before sunrise or after sunset so that they could ward off sexual assaults from men. "We are scared to go alone ... because we get attacked, hit by stones, get teased a lot by men," said Saraswathi, a middle-aged woman from Sangli, Maharashtra. Hundreds of millions of women and girls in India relieve themselves only under the cover of darkness in order to avoid exposure, sexual harassment or rape. Sanitation gives these women security and an improved sense of dignity.

The women also spoke about the dreadful experience of defecating in the summer heat and in the filthy and muddy waterlogged bushes and fields during monsoons.

Some 30 percent of women from underprivileged classes are sexually assaulted, according to Dasra, a nonprofit organization based in Pune. On average, Dasra's report says, women and girls in Indian cities hold their bladders for "13 hours a day, leaving them at risk of urinary and reproductive tract infections." The report also highlights that in 2014, approximately 23 percent of adolescent girls dropped out of school due to lack of sanitation facilities.

An often underreported fact about the consequences of not having proper sanitation are the 1.3 million Indians, mostly women from the Dalit caste (the lowest caste), who make a living by removing feces from latrines, sewers, defunct toilets, roads and streets.

As part of the Clean India campaign, the Indian government has built more than 8 million toilets and started an important national conversation about the physical and health benefits of having access to sanitation. But the campaign will fail unless it also addresses how lack of access to toilets is not only about cleanliness and improved health but also the assault on human dignity that accompanies the experience of open defecation. The sanitation crisis is not an infrastructure project. It needs to be tackled as part of a broader national goal to decrease rising social inequality and persistent poverty.

The staggering statistics about hundreds of millions of Indians defecating in the open may indeed desensitize us. But behind the numbers are men, women and children who are enduring extreme hardships and human suffering on multiple levels on a daily basis. The 2017 Oxfam report shows that the richest 1 percent own 58 percent of India's wealth. A few of the 57 billionaires in India have the same wealth ($216 billion) as the bottom 70 percent of the population of the country. The affluent 10 percent of India's population own as much as 80 percent of India's wealth.

Instead of just attacking the symptom - the lack of toilets - the government must do more to eliminate the root of this inhumane set of conditions. Poverty and entrenched inequality are the causes of widespread open defecation in India.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Want to Stop India's Defecation Crisis? It's Going to Take More Than Toilets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The author is a professor of human development at Connecticut College, a director of Friends of Shelter Associates and a fellow with the Public Voices Greenhouse through the OpEd Project. The campaign promise was simple: "Toilets, not temples." But three years into Narendra Modi's premiership, it's clear that solving India's sanitation crisis is not as simple as building toilets.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a short video about a rape prevention program being implemented in the slums of Nairobi. Through this program, girls are being taught self defense, while boys are being taught consent. What do you think about this approach? Do you think something like this would work in the U.S.?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These girls are training to knock out rapists and boys are being taught consent.

# data[].attributes.body
Attached is a link to Vera House, an organization that is working to end the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual abuse. This organization promotes equality and empowerment of women who are victims of interpersonal violence. It is an interesting organization. Take some time to browse the website, learn about their mission, read survivor stories and in understand our role in fighting violence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EMAIL: Please remember that using the internet to access information or using e-mail is not safe or confidential. There are many ways that information can be accessed through the web. Your information can even remain on the hard drive of your computer after you think you've deleted it.

# data[].attributes.body
Orgasms are typically a positive and enjoyable experience. However, for Dale, orgasms are the main cause of pain and embarrassment in his daily life. What do you think of this article? Do you think that after treatment Dale will be able to enjoy sex/orgasms again?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The agony of ecstasy: Man who has suffered 100 orgasms A DAY for past two years after slipping a disc in his back - but can't enjoy sex

Dale Decker developed persistent genital arousal syndrome two years ago

The 37-year-old, from Wisconsin, experiences up to 100 orgasms every day

Father-of-two describes the condition as 'horrendous and disgusting'

He said: 'You never want another orgasm. There's nothing pleasurable in it'

Condition causes long periods of genital arousal not linked to sexual desire

Trauma to the pelvic nerves can trigger hypersensitivity in this area

For the last two years, Dale Decker has suffered 100 orgasms a day - but has not enjoyed one.

The 37-year-old is the first man to speak out about suffering persistent genital arousal syndrome.

He developed the condition in September 2012 after slipping a disc in his back while getting out of a chair.

While he was en route to the hospital, he suffered five orgasms.

Since that moment he has been plagued by the condition, he describes as 'disgusting and horrendous'.

According to medical literature, trauma to the pelvic nerves can trigger hypersensitivity in this area.

The painful pelvic condition has left him housebound and isolated, through fear of suffering a public orgasm.

He said: 'Imagine being on your knees at your father's funeral beside his casket - saying goodbye to him and then you have nine orgasms right there.

'While your whole family is standing behind you. It makes you never want to have another orgasm for as long as you live.

'There's nothing pleasurable about it because even though it might feel physically good - you're completely disgusted by what's going on.'

He added: 'If you're in public, if you're in front of kids - it's disgusting and it can break you real fast.

'It happened to me at the grocery store and when it was over there were around 150 people looking straight at me - why would I leave the house when something like this can happen.'

Mr Decker lives in Two Rivers, Wisconsin, with his wife April and two sons Christian, 12, and Tayten, 11.

While doing all she can to support her husband, Mrs Decker said his condition is 'hard to live with'.

She said: 'We really struggle right now as he is unable to work and supply for his family and I feel like all the strain is on me.

'It's really upsetting, we don't do things that man and wife should do and we argue over things that should not be affecting us.

'Because he sometimes has episodes at night we took the decision to sleep in separate beds.

'That can be very frustrating. You want the comfort from another person, particularly your husband, but we don't have that.

'I really miss the old Dale, we used to have a lot of fun and one day I pray that he will come back to me.

'Maybe the doctors will find a cure for this - I don't know - I just really hope that they do.'

The horrific condition has cost Mr Decker many of his friends and the relationship he shares with his sons has also been affected.

WHAT IS PERSISTENT GENITAL AROUSAL DISORDER?

'He struggles to be a good father to the children because they obviously don't understand what is happening,' his wife added.

'He can't take them to practice - can't play ball with them, it's really hard.'

Despite suffering from a near constant erection Mr and Mrs Decker rarely have sex.

'Occasionally we will but it's very frustrating for both of us,' Mr Decker said.

'I've tried reading about it, tried going to doctors but nobody can help me - I don't know what I'm going to do.

'I just want to get my old life back - I just want to get back what this condition has taken from me.'

Despite many medical professionals being unable to even diagnose the condition, there are some specialists in the field.

Dr Dena Harris is a gynecologist who has mainly worked with women who suffer with PGAS.

Speaking from her office in New York City, she said: 'It's clear Dale is really suffering and I'm sure there are some people who will say that this is just in his head.

'But it's not - it's a serious medical condition and I just hope he gets the help he so desperately needs.

'Being aroused can be a wonderful thing but this is not like arousal, it's not even sexual.

'It's a horrendous spasm and it can be terribly painful.

'Dale looks like he is in pain - not just emotionally but physically as well.

'I've got to be honest, there is help available but if Dale doesn't get help soon then there could be huge risks in the future.

'Suicide is always a concern when people suffer from this condition - they feel like they have no other way to escape it.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Man who has suffered 100 orgasms A DAY for past two years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dale Decker developed persistent genital arousal syndrome two years ago The 37-year-old, from Wisconsin, experiences up to 100 orgasms every day Father-of-two describes the condition as 'horrendous and disgusting' He said: 'You never want another orgasm.

# data[].attributes.body
I love the Humans of New York organization as I feel they speak truth and humanity into difficult topics. It gives a face and a story to a difficult topic. This is a really beautiful, raw perspective on homosexuality and Christianity. What are your initial thoughts? What do you think about this man's perspective on God? Do you think this story adds humanity back to the topic of homosexuality?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I call them clobber verses. There are six of them. They're the verses that get used to hammer gay people. The funny thing is that I never felt pressured by God himself. Only his followers. But I desperately wanted God to change me.

# data[].attributes.body
This article highlights the different types of listening that individuals most often engage in. Listening to reply and listening to understand. Which type of listening is most beneficial? Which type do you think that we most often utilize in a romantic relationship and why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Listening is arguably one of the most difficult skills in communications, and we're getting worse at it.

In 2006, Dr. Ralph Nichols - who established the first study in the field of listening nearly 40 years ago at the University of Minnesota - quantified that we spend 40 percent of our day listening to others, but retain just 25 percent of what we hear. By 2011, sound expert Julian Treasure, in his TED talk " 5 Ways To Listen Better," found in his own research that we now spent as much as 60 percent of our day listening to others, perhaps because "it's a louder and louder world."

Treasure is probably on to something, but the real issue is a combination of two other innate issues involving the human brain.

First, a study at Princeton University ("Speaker-Listener Neural Coupling Underlies Successful Communication," by Charles G. Gross, June 19, 2010) found that there is a lag between what you hear and what you understand. Depending upon the individual, it could be between a few seconds to up to a minute. This is where the trouble starts. During that lag-time, we start to listen to ourselves and not to the other person. As a result, our comprehension plummets.

What causes this lag time? It might be something as simple as our physical and emotional state. But more likely, it's our own thoughts and opinions, which is specifically known as confirmation bias, which is our tendency to pick out facts or aspects of a conversation that support our pre-existing beliefs, values or perceptions. Grandma Eklund said it more concisely: "You're only listening for what you want to hear."

Confirmation bias is arguably connected to how slow people speak vs. how fast we listen. The Harvard Business Review ("7 Tips for Effective Listening" by Tom D. Lewis and Gerald Graham) cites research which says most individuals speak at a rate of 175 to 200 words per minute, where people are very capable of listening and processing words at a rate of 600 to 1,000 per minute. Because the brain isn't using its full capacity when listening, the brain drifts off to other questions.

This phenomenon is called Miller's Law, after psychologist George Miller who said in 1980 that "In order to understand what another person is saying, you have to assume that (their answer) is true and try to imagine what it could be true of." Miller found that many people apply this principle in reverse, or what's known as competitive listening. They hear something and have a negative reaction, because they believe what the other person said is false. Listening stops, and communications breaks down.

Of course, there are other culprits. The speaker can also cause the delay in listening, because of the volume, pace, tone or accent of their voice, their non-verbal communications (gestures, eye contact, among others). Then there's outside interruptions too, either technical (phones, gadgets, emails, squawk boxes used for conference calls) or physical (noise, an uncomfortable or too-comfortable chair).

+++

My own exploration of listening began when I was asked to teach a workshop on listening. I had a curricula on listening, but it seemed too lecture-ish, so I began to look for ways to make it more conversational (oh, the irony!). The thing that struck me then, as now, is that the single trick to listening better is in the word concentration. I used to think it was about forcing yourself to listen better, but in fact, it's about allowing yourself to listen better. What's the difference? A lot.

Concentration is a hard task for more people, basically because it's tiring. If you force yourself to concentrate, your brain will work to a point, then become exhausted, then shut down, if not switch to autopilot. Scientists call it "neural decoupling." My Grandma would tell me my brain has gone to lunch.

To allow yourself to listen better, you need to think and work in a different way. Instead of forcing yourself, become more passive.

1. Get rid of outside distractions.

Put everything down, and shut out everything. Breathe slowly and deeply. Physically relax and get comfortable.

What about notes? Do you really need to take notes? Ask the person to follow-up with their points in writing, if necessary. If you must, make short punchy notes. If you find yourself clarifying your notes instead of listening, stop immediately.

If you're not ready to listen - you've been caught unawares in the lift, a topic comes up as a tangent during another conversation - say you're not ready to listen, but immediately give a deadline that's sooner than later. (There are times when it's OK to avoid. Go here. However, the issue of deadline is just as acute.)

2. Open your mind. Don't judge. Only listen. If you have a problem focusing, repeat what the person is saying in your head.

3. Listen for the big picture, not the details. Think of it this way. You walk midway into a lecture. You may immediately understand the words and sentences, but you will not immediately understand the overall purpose. Until you get the overall point, it's easy to misconstrue the facts or put them into the wrong context. Facts - especially when they differ from yours - will immediately cause you to listen competitively.

4. Note - but don't judge - non-verbal communications. How are they sitting? How's the eye contact? Is their speech fast or slow, smooth or broken? What aren't they saying? Also, be aware of the vividness effect - that you become more drawn to sensational, vivid or memorable aspects of the speech instead of the substance of the speech. Again, if needed, repeat their words in your head to give you focus.

5. Do not jump to conclusions or interrupt. Until they've finished speaking, don't talk. That said, you can gently ask the speaker to repeat themselves, but always do that between their sentences.

Once they finished their point-of-view, you'll notice that you respond less quickly. You'll need a minute or two to compose a considered response in your head. This may be both a bonus and a shock to the speaker. Few people expect the listener to be contemplative, so they might be genuinely surprised they were actually heard and understood. This may also change their initial perception of the conversation to come. At the same time, they might be distrustful, so you may also need to tell them, genuinely of course, that you're thinking about what they said.

A common objection to this style of listening is that reflecting slows down the conversation and gets in the way of decision making. Maybe. Reflecting definitely takes more time, but by listening to understand accurately means you can save time too, because you won't have errors in communications.

6. Paraphrase the big picture, then add in details. This stage allows you to demonstrate you have listened. Or, if you've missed a point, you can demonstrate you want to hear their points more exactly. Begin with the overall point, then add the details. (For tips on paraphrasing, go here.) Another trick: speak from their point-of-view, not yours. Don't add emotion.

7. Challenge yourself first. It's very possible you will disagree with the speaker. If so, ask yourself Why might this speaker's message be true? Under what circumstance might this be true? Those questions force you to put yourself in the shoes of the person in front of you, and it becomes much more difficult to argue with this person. Remember, you can understand a person, but not agree with them. The best way to handle #7 is to ask non-confrontational questions.

Typically at this point, depending upon the situation, the speaker has two options: to coach or to counsel - but I'll leave that for another post.
Any thoughts on proactive listening? What techniques have you used to listen better or more efficiently?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Listening to Understand vs. Listening to Reply - Andy Eklund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listening is arguably one of the most difficult skills in communications, and we're getting worse at it. In 2006, Dr. Ralph Nichols - who established the first study in the field of listening nearly 40 years ago at the University of Minnesota - quantified that we spend 40 percent of our day listening to others, but retain just 25 percent of what we hear.

# data[].attributes.body
This is by far one of the most interesting articles I have come across as it highlights an alternative perspective to sexual assault. While I know this is not representative of sexual assault at large, I did feel that this article highlighted the ambiguity associated with rape. What are your thoughts? How did you feel when reading this? What might society take from a situation like this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Now, wrongful conviction wasn't an issue for Tim, who actually did what he was accused of -- he and the victim were telling the same story. But without a lawyer, who was arguing on his behalf when it came to punishment? Someone in the administration was, hopefully. Tim sure wasn't. All he could do was wait.

Scott Barbour/Getty Images News/Getty Images

During the investigation, Tim and Vicky described everything that happened that night leading up to the incident. Their stories matched up. They'd each had four or five drinks over the course of the evening, plus wine at her place, yet both claimed alcohol wasn't a factor. They'd talked about crushes. They played games at an arcade bar, and he at one point said, "If I knew you better, I'd slap you on the ass." She said, "Try it," so he did, and they laughed. They ducked into a sex shop on the way to her place. They held hands for a while. At her apartment, she played the piano and sang a sad love song. Her head lay on his chest while they watched TV.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Things I Learned Committing A Campus Sexual Assault

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now, wrongful conviction wasn't an issue for Tim, who actually did what he was accused of -- he and the victim were telling the same story. But without a lawyer, who was arguing on his behalf when it came to punishment? Someone in the administration was, hopefully. Tim sure wasn't.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a really interesting article about the impacts of gender specific toys. Where do you stand on this issue-agree or disagree with the article? What impact do you think gender specific toys have on gender roles and gender expression?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A young girl paints the face of a doll. (REUTERS/Michaela Rehle )

Between the 1970s and the 1990s, while women in the U.S. were closing the gap in education and employment and breaking into the top ranks of politics and industry, one sector was moving in the wrong direction. "The world of toys looks a lot more like 1952 than 2012," Elizabeth Sweet, a sociologist studying children and gender inequality at the University of California, Davis wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed a few years ago. In the 1970s, according to Sweet, few children's toys were targeted specifically at boys or girls; nearly 70 percent of toys had no gender-specific labels at all. Many toy ads seemed to deliberately flout gender stereotypes-depicting girls driving toy cars and airplanes and boys playing with kitchen sets and dolls.

By the mid-1990s, however, gendered advertising had returned to 1950s-levels, and it continued to grow in the 2000s. Critics blame the backlash on second-wave feminism, the nostalgia of gift-giving grandparents and shrewd marketers, who realized they could convince parents of boys and girls to buy two versions of the same product.

In the past couple of years, the tide has finally begun to turn. WalMart and Toys R Us have recently agreed to tone down their gender-specific children's marketing strategies, and in a blog post on the company's website last week, Target announced plans to get rid of gender-based labeling in the children's bedding and toy aisles: they'll phase out explicit references to gender as well as the use of pink and blue colored paper on the shelves. "As guests have pointed out, in some departments like Toys, Home or Entertainment, suggesting products by gender is unnecessary," Target said in the post. "We heard you, and we agree."

Pressure from customers, as well as the example set by its competitors, seems to have played a role in the retail giant's decision. In June, an Ohio woman tweeted a picture of a sign advertising "Building sets" and "Girls' building sets," with the caption, "Don't do this, @target"; it's been retweeted more than 3,000 times.

Some psychologists are applauding Target's move. "The decision to remove gender labels is a big first step in reducing gender stereotypes," says Lisa Dinella, a psychologist at Monmouth University. Several studies show that children prefer toys they believe are intended for their gender. Just last year, a paper co-authored by Dinella suggested that color can also be used to manipulate children's perceptions of what toys they should play with; Dinella and her co-authors, Erica Weisgram and Megan Fulcher, showed that girls were much more likely to opt for traditionally male toys, like airplanes, if they were pink.

Girls' preference for pink is learned, not innate; cognitive research suggests that all babies actually prefer blue. (According to Jo Paoletti, author of Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America, the association of boys with blue and girls with pink dates to the 1940s.) In 2011, Vanessa LoBue and Judy DeLoache undertook a study of a group of boys and girls between the ages of seven months and five years. Each child was tasked with choosing between two similar objects, one of which was pink, the other blue. It was around the age of two that girls began to select the pink toy more often than the blue one; at two and a half, the preference for pink became even more pronounced. Boys developed an aversion to the pink toy along the same timeline.

The impact of sex-specific toy choice has implications for children's learning and attitudes far beyond the playground. "Play with masculine toys is associated with large motor development and spatial skills and play with feminine toys is associated with fine motor development, language development and social skills," says Megan Fulcher, associate professor of psychology at Washington and Lee University.

"Children may then extend this perspective from toys and clothes into future roles, occupations, and characteristics," she adds. In 2008, she was part of a team of researchers who found that children with gender-stereotyped decorations in their bedrooms also held more stereotypical attitudes towards boys and girls.

Research suggests, too, that kids pay more attention to - and form more lasting memories of - the toys they believe are meant for their gender. In 1986, psychologist Marilyn Bradbard presented children ages four to nine with unfamiliar toys in gender-specific boxes, and gave them six minutes to play. One week later, she and her team administered memory tests and found that the girls had more detailed recollections of the objects in the "girly" box and vice versa.

"Organizing merchandise by gender also acts as a barrier that prevents children from exploring the wide array of toys and activities available," says Dinella. "Target is on the right track, but we still need marketing campaigns to stop gender labeling their products via color."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How gender-specific toys can negatively impact a child's development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A young girl paints the face of a doll. (REUTERS/Michaela Rehle ) Between the 1970s and the 1990s, while women in the U.S. were closing the gap in education and employment and breaking into the top ranks of politics and industry, one sector was moving in the wrong direction.

# data[].attributes.body
Below is a variety of video clips of transgender teenagers sharing their stories and having open and honest conversations about their journey. What are your thoughts? Do you think hearing their stories cultivates compassion & understanding?

# data[].attributes.body
While society is more accepting of the male penis, research has shown that penis size is among one of the biggest insecurities males have. The following article highlights several components that factor into penis insecurity. What are your thoughts? Does this contradict the social acceptance of penis over vaginas?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Men are too insecure about penis size to ever stop worrying about it | Oscar Rickett

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For so many men, the deeply symbolic and psychological attachment to the penis starts early and ensures it will always be a source of great anxiety

# data[].attributes.body
In keeping with our conversation of acknowledging the differences of males and females, what do you think of this interpretation of femininity? Do you think the author is accurately defending the rights of femininity? Or is this another attempt to discredit the female capacity for strength?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is there a formula for being taken seriously as a young woman? There certainly shouldn't be.

I came across a story online that criticized Disney for its lack of "complex and strong female characters in its movies," specifically targeting the new adaptation of Cinderella. This concerns me. I thought of the women in the Disney movies that I had grown up watching. I thought of Pocahontas, a Native American princess defending her home and culture from a man that she loves. I thought of Mulan, a Chinese woman who enters into a war in order to save her father's life. I thought of Merida from Brave, an archer who defies Scottish royalty in the name of her independence.

And they say Disney is lacking in complex and strong female characters?

The new Cinderella is a new kind of heroine. She suffers through the deaths of both of her parents and then has to live with the abuses of her stepmother and step-sisters. Cinderella grasps tightly onto the advice given to her by her mother: Have courage and be kind. And that's exactly what she does.

Cinderella's resilience gives her the power to endure cruelty and grief. When she has the chance to finally have her "happily ever after," she embraces her opportunity for happiness and does not wallow in her conditions. Despite all of this, she is unfailingly kind. When given the chance to be cruel in return, she looks her stepmother straight in the eye and says, "I forgive you."

You know, she seems pretty self-sufficient to me.

Cinderella acknowledges the importance of a woman's pursuit of happiness. In a world where she is shown no consideration, Cinderella follows her heart to fall in love with a Prince that cares for her. This sort of storyline takes on criticism due to its celebration of the happily ever after. But, to say that this somehow diminishes the resonance of the rest of the story is not fair.

Loving another person does not take away from your strength as a woman. The fact that Cinderella ends up happily in love with her Prince does nothing to detract from her autonomy. In fact, the story's ending sends a beautiful message. If you are kind, courageous, strong and hardworking, then love and goodness will surround you. What better message could there be?

Disney is not the problem. The problem is that society holds a skewed perception of strong women. We are taught, as women, that we must choose between being a badass and a ball gown enthusiast. Not only is this is wrong, but it is dangerous. To insist that characters like Cinderella are not representations of strong women (simply because they wear glass slippers) is to dismiss femininity as a quality of strength.

This is harmful to "girly girls" everywhere who want to be taken seriously. Further, it is insulting to our entire sex. If we reinforce the idea that frills and self-sufficiency cannot coexist, we perpetuate the myth that femininity is somehow silly and weak.

The truth is that you can be any kind of woman that you want to be and still be a strong woman. You do not have to sort through stereotypes and decide which one to put on each day. You can love Shrek, foster kittens, read Nicholas Sparks books and be a strong woman. You can chug a beer, take swing-dancing lessons, call your mom every Tuesday and be a strong woman. You can be whatever you want to be because you are as strong as you decide you are. Despite what you've been told, you can even be a fairy princess.
Quarterlette.com is an online community where women can openly share their first-person narratives about life in their twenties and thirties. Voted by Forbes as a Top 10 Site for Millennial Women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is there a formula for being taken seriously as a young woman? There certainly shouldn't be. I came across a story online that criticized Disney for its lack of "complex and strong female characters in its movies," specifically targeting the new adaptation of Cinderella. This concerns me.

# data[].attributes.body
This weekend the Women's March on Washington took place.3.3 million men, women, and children marched at 500 different locations around the globe standing up for gender equality and social justice. Below is a touching photo was taken by a friend who attended the march in Chicago.

# data[].attributes.body
This quote offers the fundamental difference between sex and sexuality. Taking this into consideration, what do you think the difference is?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sex is something you do. Sexuality is something you... - Anna Freud quotes at AZquotes.com