Family Values: Heterosexism & Homophobia?

As a woman, a feminist, and a friend of many in the LGBT community, I was floored when an immediate family member attempted to inform me that my male partner and I are both 'in the closet" and simply don't know it. This person then encouraged us to "come out."

Despite being around this family member many times, they (and allegedly "everyone" in the family) have long speculated and have now concluded that my relationship is merely a closeted scam to veil my suppressed homosexuality. When I did reply with, "no, that's not true," this person claimed that this response only validated their suspicions. 

This random, seemingly homophobic accusation appeared to be triggered by a post that I had made on another social media website that alluded to my decision to remain unmarried and childless. Other hints of my latent lesbianism? Well, according to this person, other "clues" included the title of this blog, my abundance of (amazing) lesbian friends, and my less-than-immense interest in heteronormative sex.

This online-ambush was likely due in part to my attempts to resist the normative, patriarchal, power-imbalanced, gendered relationship conventions that they seem to have internalized.
Further, I assume that this person went through a series of preconceived notions before concocting their theory on my sexuality: "what kind of woman has hairy legs, loves politics, hates makeup, swears, and doesn't want to ever marry or have children? and "What kind of man would stay in a relationship that isn't centered around his dick? What kind of man prefers art, cooking, communicating over spectator sports and emotional repression?" 

So, what does one do when family members, many of whom interact exclusively with other middle class, heterosexual white people, assume an identity for you then proceed to pigeon-hole, scrutinize and evaluate your relationship and sex life? You back off, put your hands up, and say Fuck it.

Fuck it because I know that 1) When someone tells you who they are, you should believe them 2) When someone tells you they are not who you say they are, you should believe them 3) If I were a Lesbian I would know and I would be the one identifying myself  4) If you care so much about creating and circulating theories about other people's sexualities and categorizing relationships that don't fit into your restrictive worldview, maybe you should re-examine yourself.

Post-Secondary Pimping: Strip Clubs Recruiting at Ontario High Schools Now Targeting Colleges

It appears that sleazy male strip club owners in Ontario and around Canada are angry about the conservative government’s decision to ban stripping and sex industry related visas as it limits their “supply” of migrant sex trade workers. Now don't get me wrong, the conservative party of Canada is on my shit-list and their opposition to the sexual exploitation of women is not feminist in any way, shape or form as they want to criminalize women in the sex trade and promote the patriarchal capitalist status quo. Further, their overall foreign temporary workers program is exploitative and problematic as are their policies and beliefs surrounding labour rights in this country.

from the Windsor Star

But I digress,

Rob Katzman, the 50-something male owner of the Leopard's Lounge Broil Strip Club in Windsor, Ontario casually told Global News that there is a growing “need” for local “talent” in Canadian strip clubs due to the ban on foreign stripping visas. The search, they affirm, should be conducted on campuses.

The media, being the patriarchal institution that it is, is assisting in promoting such a recruitment campaign. The news is portraying this as nothing more than a simple economic issue – a question of supply and demand. Evoking the economic-rationality argument is commonplace in media discourses around the sex industry as it allows for normalization and the invisibilization of harm. 

In the same news segment, young women are talked about as commodities, existing only to meet the sexual demands of male strangers. They are not discussed as though they are full human beings. This is yet another tactic used in normalizing the sex industry. 

Katzman's reasoning for this post-secondary recruitment includes the issue of expensive tuition in Canada, especially for those women just moving to the city for the first time. He boasts that this campaign to get young women interested in stripping is rational and sound, especially when looked at through a neo-liberal economics standpoint. The strip club even hired their own sleazy lawyer to further their cause, stating that they are willing to take the issue to court to ensure the adequate supply of sexually available young women. Previously, however, Ontario strip clubs were targetting high schools and young girls under 18, hoping they would change their future aspirations and opt for stripping after graduation. Nevertheless, preying on high school students created too much controversy, so now their focus has shifted exclusively to post-secondary students. With this, flyers and pamphlets are to begin circulating throughout Ontario campuses. 

Katzman is seemingly satisfied with his hunt for college-aged strippers, claiming that these “entertainers” will be “classier” and “smarter." Clearly, those women working through temporary foreign visas were just not meeting the qualifications of classiness. Now, Katzman and those who frequent his club represent not only blatant misogyny, but also classism and racism.

The Global News story, which focuses predominately on the pro-sex industry perspective, two female college students (the first and only ones featured in the entire segment aside from random clips of women stripping) were asked what they thought of strip-club owners coming onto campuses to recruit students. One woman responded positively, stating that she needed the money – so why not? The other woman said that the whole thing was inherently predatory as it took advantage of young women who may have just moved to the city for the first time.

It is predatory, but it also assumes that women should consider stripping, lap-dancing and other forms of “sex work” as inevitable, rational, and even liberating employment options. It normalizes the patriarchal notion that men are entitled to women’s bodies on demand and that women can and should only find power through their appearance and ability to provoke erections.

This is a feminist issue and I hope that all feminists, particularly those living in the province of Ontario can speak out about this as it is unacceptable. Educational institutions and all public spaces for that matter, should be free of predatory pimps. 

For those who don't conceive...

Life has been a tad unpredictable lately, forcing me to adapt to everything, resigning my desire to feel in control. Such unpredictability refers to my recent loss of a lady-bit due to possibly lady-cancer. Yes, I underwent a preventative oophorectomy. This procedure removed my left ovary, a hideously large mass attached to it and the accompanying fallopian tube. Further, since they were gyno-cancer-surgeons-specialists, they procured some other slabs of tissue (appendix and a hunk of belly chub) for possible cancer staging. 

My sister had ovarian cancer in her early twenties-- totally random, but she survived. And so, with her past and my 9cm mass, they figured they would not risk it. Luckily, and as I predicted, I am so far void of any cancer. However, my inkling leans more towards endometriosis, explaining the painful-nausea-inducing menstrual cycles I have endured for 10+ years. But I have yet to receive this confirmation. 

So, what the fudge does this all have to do with feminism and the personal/political divide? 

Well, the reactions to my situation have been shocking, to say the least. 

The first concern that many had when they learned of my health issues regarded my (in)ability to make babies - Not a worry for my health, no does she have cancer? Is she okay?

 No, No..
Instead more the responses were more akin to

"Oh my god, will you be able to have kids?" 

and even, "Well, no kids for you!" 

After my initial shock over the realization that many people have already affirmed my position as incubator, I informed the so-called concerned folks that in fact, I have no plans of creating, housing, and raising babies (can you believe it?!) and, further reminded them that a woman with only one ovary can get pregnant. 


What I find so troubling, however, is how concerned people are - particularly other women - with my (in)ability to conceive offspring, as if my body was merely a holding capsule for a fetus and nothing more. Also, if a woman shares her refusal to house a fetus and take on the role of mother to another person, she will likely be shamed for her decision. Why? Because all women are taught that our bodies, particularly our reproductive organs, dictate our "womanliness" - our place in the world is defined by our ability to bear children. If we are not smiling while tossing shit-drenched diapers into the trash, we are bad women. If we refuse to conceive at all, or cannot physically do so - we are useless women. How would any decent woman find any joy in life without becoming a mother?


Women's universal role of man-loving baby-producer is so embedded that many fail to understand how anything but producing children would be of concern in the case of a gynecological health issue. It was bordering on comical for me, as fertility was the last thing on my mind, in fact - until my male surgeon quickly informed me that he could put me through some crazy fertility-industry treatments if I wanted. He, of course, was assuming I would be wanting it. I mean, what 22 year old wouldn't be into shitting away a bunch of money to further fuel the baby-making-business that preys on women's bodies and their perceived 'failures'? It was as if the only worry that I should have had was whether or not I could reproduce, not whether or not my body was healthy and not engulfed in cancer.


Fortunately, my recovery is going well and I am trying to stay positive (and cancer-free) - however, a point of advice for the  many well-intentioned baby-enthusiasts, not that intent really matters in the end, but - consider your words before you speak to a woman who is suffering with gynecological issues. Female sex organs serve a multitude of purposes beyond producing and housing babies.  As someone who values my body's holism, I am saddened the loss of my ovary - not because it involves fertility, but because it is a part of me. 

Links - March 26, 2012

Links - March 26, 2012



The F-Word: "Why my body doesn’t exist for your viewing pleasure: An open letter to Ian Brown and friends"


The F-Word: "Safer strolls: A new, progressive way to blame the victim?"


Qvaken: "Advertising! Part 11: Killing Us Softly 4 and Silencing, Humiliating and Dominating Women


RATM: "Porn Part 11: The Difference Between Huffing Dong and Flipping Burgers"


Womon on a Journey: "Support Women's Right To Sexual Autonomy"


IBTP: "Nude Revolutionaries"


Stella Marr: "Call Girl Undercover "The Sneaky Language of the Pro Sex Work Lobby"


Stella Marr: "An Ex-Hooker's Letter to Her Younger Self"


Ariel Levy: "Chapter 4 Womyn to Bois"


The Irish Examiner: "The Harsh Realities of Being raped for a living"


Secret Diary of a Dublin Call Girl: "Non-Escort sex"

Women's Views on News: "Men's Rights Activists Named as Hate Group"

Smashethep: "On the "Cotton Ceiling," Rape Culture, and Feministe"

Links - January 24, 2012

Links - January 24, 2012

Nine Deuce The third (and probably last) trans post of my life

Twisty Pinkness ensures replication of patriarchal ideals

Twisty Fairy tale Sunday 

The F-Word The World According to Porn



The F-Word Why Hollywood needs Help




The F-Word On Pornography and the Persistence of Patriarchy 



Metis' Blog on Muslim Feminists Hijab and niqaab and the ban 



Almost Clever To Betray

Links - August 3, 2011

Links - August 3, 2011


Sociological Images:
Gendered Kids Stuff


1. Kid's Luggage Normalizes Gendered Occupations

2. More Gendering of Kids' Stuff

My two cents:


I have to add some commentary to this photograph as it is so biologically deterministic and reflective of our larger cultural values regarding the two sex-classes. First we can see the text claiming how "different" boys and girls really are. This seems to be intended to allow us to digest the text that appears next to each advertised photo. Next to the ad featuring the girl-child we read, "Pretty and Playful." This illustrates female's  perceived role and purpose as an object to be looked at and played with rather than respected. This girl is posed to look passive and playful as she has her hand on her head and she is smiling. However, look over to the boys and we see that they are described as "rugged and ready". Boys are brave, courageous and ready to take on the world, unlike the girls who are asked to merely smile and giggle. They are with a dog, too, to signify their bravery and so-called "boyishness." The posing is interesting, also as one of the boys has his knee raised to signify his "natural" bravery. His pose garners respect whereas the picture of the little girl is meant to garner "aww, how cute!" 


This is exactly what we're talking about when we say feminism has a LONG way to go...


and finally from the same Sociological Images post

Two Cents: 


Again, this photo illustrates roles based on biological deterministic beliefs about boys and girls. Boys like to learn and create and discover shit - girls like to take care of babies and change diapers full of shit. It's just the way it is.


A Place for Everywomon and her series on Radical Feminist Seminar 

1. Radical Feminist Seminar: Sheila Jeffrey’s Speech on Trafficking

Excerpt:

"Sheila Jeffreys gave a lecture related to her book, The Industrial Vagina. I had recently read through this entire book, a book so painful to read that I had to put it down every few minutes of reading, just to remind myself that, yes, I am safe, but this is why I am a radical feminist. One point Jeffreys hammered home, is that the idea of individual agency is fundamentally a conservative idea. At what other job do we claim workers are expressing their “agency”?  It is really Milton Friedman’s politics of super, super individualism that are being put forth by “pro-sex work” lobbyists."

2. Radical Feminist Seminar: Professor Dines Brings It On

Excerpt: 

"Another reason a switch to a pornography with a “feminist conscious” is not likely to happen is a reason rather hard to face: Men actually like getting off to women in pain. For example, Dines quotes a porn producer as saying, “Nobody wants to watch a girl enjoying anal.” Dines also mentioned that condoms are typically not used in heterosexual porn. According to her, this is because condoms show at least a minimum level of care about the women’s health. If porn showed men wearing condoms, that would be a reminder that women are human beings, who are capable of being hurt."

3. Radical Feminist Seminar: Sheila Jeffreys on Trans Politics

Excerpt: 

"Groups such as GenderPAC, a U.S. organization that ran from 1999-2009, are “gender protection rackets,” Jeffreys asserted, since GenderPAC thinks we all have a “right to our gender.”
A point I was not aware of–and quite horrified by–was that gender identity laws are not meant to protect born women. This is because there are apparently too many of us."



Sub-Human by Rmott62


Excerpt: 

"Sub-human that is an uncomfortable word, a word that you would do anything to avoid.

Sub-human is what the vast majority of the prostituted class are made. That sounds harsh, that is harsh.

The invention of the prostituted class was not a flux, was no mistake. It was invention that used slavery, capture of women and girls in times of disasters or wars, used that women are kept poor, used racism, used any and all oppression to create the prostituted class."

Silence Means Dissent - Andrea Dworkin from Anti-Porn Men Project


Excerpt: 

"We know that men like hurting us. We know it because they do it and we watch them doing it. We know that men like dominating us because they do it and we watch them doing it. We know men like using us because they do it, and they do it, and they do it, and they do it, and they do it. And men don’t do things that don’t like, generally speaking. They like doing it and they like watching it and they like watching other men do it and it is entertainment and pay money to see it and that one of the reasons that men make pornography. It’s fun."

Photograph of Andrea Dworkin found here

The Politics of Motherhood

As a live-out caregiver, or "nanny", I have been observing the realities of motherhood. Being a mother appears to be incredibly difficult. Plain and simple. As long as I can remember, having children has seemed incredibly unappealing. I never daydreamed about a large, heterosexual wedding followed by gaggles of crying and pooping newborns. Babies, until I became an aunt several times over, seemed strange and quite repulsive to me. Now, I tolerate babies - some of them are kind of cute and I certainly adore my 4 month old niece, but I could never house another human being inside my body let alone raise that human being for 18 years. The pregnancy, the birthing, the overhaul of one's lifestyle and the dedication, strength and selflessness that comes with motherhood sound foreign - unimaginable, actually, since after one does all of these physically and mentally demanding activities only to have them go unappreciated. 


Motherhood is horribly undervalued. Women are almost always responsible for the majority of child-rearing around the world. But, despite the fact that they raise little humans and oversee those human's safety at all times; they remain undervalued. As mentioned in my last post, women are socialized as caregivers, nurturers and mothers. Women are said to be biologically hardwired to want - even need, to have babies and take care of others. It's just our nature. 


Mothers on a global level are expected to dedicate themselves fully to their children and their families. Even more pathetic is the fact that millions of mothers and female caregivers can't feed themselves let alone their families. Millions of mothers around the world are expected to live in poverty while trying to maintain the lives of their children - yet motherhood remains, on a systematic and societal level, to be undervalued. 


To add to the struggles of motherhood, many women work more than one job. Internationally speaking, countless numbers of women work long hours on top of raising and caring for their children. Many of these women work in terrible conditions, sometimes alongside their children - making barely enough to eat and often these women are working to free themselves from debt bondage. Mothers work long these hours only to return to their families and work even more within the home. When speaking of global women's issues, one must remember that poverty has a woman's face and very often, a mother's face.


Even in the West, women often are disproportionately held responsible for child-care because it is viewed as a woman's "natural" role - women are to feel guilty and ashamed if they cannot fulfill all of their essential "duties." If a mom is privileged enough to do so, having a child in child-care in most places around the world is terribly expensive and possibly unsafe. With an exception to European countries, much of the available child-care is unregulated, privatized and costly. Furthermore, the price of raising a child in North America is absurd and many women cannot afford to lose an entire income because they are unable to find affordable and secure child-care.


To add to the stresses of everyday life mothers also become constant targets for intense criticism in our capitalist-culture that thrives off the struggles of others. This criticism is often publicized - whether in communities or on national television. This is because moms who fail to wake up each day with a smile are forced to feel guilty for not adequately portraying themselves as a "good mom" to a society that undervalues moms at large. Actually, think about how many "bad mothers" there are in relation to "bad fathers" in popular culture. This concept of "bad mother" is established when a mother is viewed by the dominant culture to have stepped out of her prescribed role of Nurturer. These mothers are immediately criticized while neglectful fathers are much more socially accepted and much less stigmatized. It is more socially-acceptable for fathers to be less-involved with their children - it is viewed as acceptable for men because the archaic gender roles that are still in place claim men are natural "providers." This is not to suggest that loving fathers do not exist - they do, but these dads are viciously outnumbered by women who do 98% of the child-rearing around the world.  Of course, many women choose to have children and enjoy being a parent, but what happens when motherhood is not desired, not a "choice" - how do we define choice in motherhood when many women are deprived of bodily autonomy, food, shelter and any form of contraception?


Choice. This is rarely considered as a mother is expected to raise any child, wanted or not, biologically related or not. If she chooses to end her pregnancy through an abortion, for example, she is called a a murderer. She is called a murderer because she has radically stepped out of her impending role of motherhood. When a woman is raped, even - many will tell her that she should keep the rapist's baby and house it for 9 months. A woman is expected to care for a rapist's child because it is seen as her duty and hers alone. A woman is not to complain or reach a breaking point - she is not to get angry or refuse care to others.  


Women are not to refuse motherhood.


A refusal of motherhood is a refusal of a very deeply embedded social role. The social role and the subsequent oppression is based on the same idea of the natural woman - it is what maintains this oppression of mothers world-wide and sustains sexism and misogyny in general. It does so by assuming a woman's worth is based on her fulfillment of her social roles - roles set up not by nature, but by patriarchy and capitalism.

"The Breast Milk Baby" A New Doll Toy Marketed to Girl-Children

Photo found here

A toy doll marketed to girl-children has been creeping up during my internet browsing. The doll is intended to allow little girls to "pretend" to breast feed their baby doll, despite you know, not having breasts of their own. 

This toy is disturbing for many reasons, not because it deals with breast-feeding, but because it intentionally and quite obviously socializes girls to take the role of Mother to the next level. The toy doll is intended to "teach" little girls how to breast-feed, since of course, a girl's purpose in life is to get with a dude and have as many babies as possible. How often do you see toys such as this marketed to boys? This toy is not only gendered - it is biologically deterministic - it assumes girl-children should conform to their future "womanly-roles" set up by the dominant culture. These toys, like all toy dolls, further perpetuate gender roles and norms that are forced onto girl-children at an early age. However, this particular "milking" doll really establishes problematic assumptions about girlhood and womanhood. These assumptions could lead to more and more girl-children feeling pressured into being passive and socially compliant based on the idea that girls and women are "biologically" inclined towards child-rearing and "nurturing" behaviors. Toy dolls have always done this, but this toy takes biological essentialism to a whole new level.

photo found here

I want to add that I believe breast-feeding should be a socially-accepted act and it should not be looked down upon like it currently is in the West. Breast-feeding is seen as "gross" or "impolite" because women's bodies are constantly viewed as sex-objects rather than healthy bodies with real functions by the majority of society. Women's breasts are viewed as sexual objects and thus are hidden away to keep the men from finding them "repulsive" because they are feeding another human being. This bothers people in the West, men and women alike, because women's breasts are considered a strictly sexual body-part - not one that has a vital function. The Western view of breasts are similar to the views of women's genitalia. Women's genitalia is viewed predominately as a hole that receives a man's junk and delivers a man's child. That sounds harsh, but look at a lad's mag and tell me different. How many men even know the term "vulva?" 

Women's genitalia are not viewed as organs with functions but rather as holes. This is why we never hear "vulva" but only "vagina" when discussing women's genitals. But, I digress. Despite my feelings on breast-feeding, I have to admit that there is something very, very disturbing about attempting to force girl-children into this activity before they even develop their own breasts or sense of bodily autonomy. 

I would like to hear from readers about this toy, what do you think this toy says about society, marketing and gender roles? 

Oh, and here's the advertisement for the doll 

Canadian Couple Raises Child Genderless and The Media Goes Wild!

Yesterday, as I was browsing through the daily current events, I came across an article about a couple raising their child "genderless." The parents of the child, 4 month old Storm, have decided to withhold their child's sex so that the child can grow up and discover life without the constraints of gender, including stereotyping and everything else that comes with it. "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now -- a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime" stated Storm's parents in an interview.

(photo of Storm and her parents found here)

Herds of "Child Experts" are continuing to attack the parents, screaming amongst themselves about biological essentialist nonsense that has no hard evidence supporting it. One mother even wrote that she felt it was a "lab experiment" and thus unethical. A news reader wrote "The world around us has been set by thousands of years of social evolution. To try to undo this evolution through your child is very selfish and very inconsiderate to the child." This statement is based on sociobiology, or as it is better known as, evolutionary psychology which purports that human cultures are biologically hard-wired (and thus fixed) and that all humans follow the same rules of nature (based on social Darwinist priniciples) as other species do, even socially and culturally. However, the commentary continues. A Columnist from the Toronto Star announced her condescending "warnings" for the parents, "Without boundaries, I wonder if little 4-month-old Storm will wander aimlessly, like so many of my thirty-something friends"

Indeed, because bringing up your child in the same old and tired format is so damn effective, since you know, our kids are turning out so happy these days - what with suicides, self-harming, eating disorders, bullying, depression and so forth. In any other situation, people would likely not feel so inclined to stick their nose so far into a stranger's parenting techniques, but there you go. Also, in response to the columnist, why do kids need gender boundaries? All that these boundaries accomplish is limiting children's self-expression and cause them to build a self-concept based upon unequal gender expectations. Our kids are more miserable than ever before, so what possible DAMAGE could these radical parents possibly cause? How is allowing your child to grow up free of social bondage a bad thing? They are not choosing the child's gender (the angry mobs fail to realize gender and sex are not mutually exclusive) these parents are allowing the child to grow into whoever they want to be, not who society tells them they they should be. 

(look pretty happy to me! photo found here )

After recieving enormous helpings of hostile and foaming-at-the-mouth responses, Kathy, Storm's mother, wondered "Isn't defensiveness sometimes a first sign of learning or changing behaviour, so even the ‘rabid' responses may have a place in making the world a more thoughtful place." I applaud her ability to be the bigger person in the face of media-driven criticism and realize that anger can often spark real change - sometimes you need to offend people to make them think.

Regardless, the amount of crap these parents are enduring right now really shows that there are people who are willing to work against the status quo and do what they feel is best for their child. Allowing a child to grow up without the burdens of gender is a commendable action. This way, the kid has the free choice (something they are often robbed of) to discover their own identities and goals based on their status as a human being, with full humanity - not some social label that is apparently "hardwired." But, what also boggles my mind, is how these "Child Experts" would view cultural differences in regards to gender and other social constructions. Have they ever took the time to ponder that not everyone in the world follows the West's rigid two-gender assumptions? These experts set the "first world" as the default for everyone else, since you know, we're just so "modern." We're so modern that our kids are killing, cutting and starving themselves.

These parents are leaders in revolutionary parenting and making grassroot radical changes. If more people followed their lead, we would be closer to reaching an egalitarian society based on human worth, not harmful social constructs that lead to extreme oppression and dehumanization. Luckily, a case like this has popped up before in Sweden in 2009. A couple decided to raise their child "Pop" genderless, despite media outpour asking, "What are the effects of growing up genderless" - well, likely less harmful than the current model! 

The gender binary is toxic to everyone and kids end up bearing the heaviest burden as they form their identities and bonds with others. This couple is an inspiration to me, as they have given me a glimpse of hope for our future. 

If you want to check out more of the disturbing commentary, you can do so here

 (last photo of baby Storm found here)

Gender: The Social Attempt to "Order" a Society and Limit Human Expression

photo found here

Over at "A Place for Everywomon" gender is discussed and dissected. Gender is one of those concepts that interest the hell out of everyone and yet it only exists socially. Gender is not innate, it does not provide human beings with a particular "essence" nor does it have many liberating properties. Gender tends to restrict human expression by rendering all human expression to be either "masculine" or "feminine" - but never "human." Our obessession with gendering people, animals, objects and ideas stems from our long history of labelling, catagorizing and attempting to "order" our societies.Non-historically speaking, gender has become something you "do" or  even "fuck" in many Western, liberal academic schools of thought.

If you feel oppressed by the restrictive binary system, no sweat! You can just "fuck" it away - which is when you adorn yourself in cultural products (such as "men's" or "women's" clothing) and claim a "fucking" of the gender binary. This brief, easily-maneuvered purchasing of cultural products can somehow erase or obliterate previous social connotations attached to one's "gender." In reality,  "fucking" or "dismantling" a binary merely acknowledges that binary's existence. This is not revolutionary. Gender is not revolutionary. When we focus on pigeonholing humans based on criteria set up by the heteronormative patriarchal and capitalist institutions, we focus on limiting human worth and human expression. Some academic circles get caught up in labeling because they do not deal with the real-world implications. The academic circles are protected from those implications. Around the world, being labeled a "woman" can have harsh and real consequences. Do the academic circles suggest that those women should just go out clubbing with their pals and try to "genderfuck" just because it's "liberating" and "fun"? I doubt it.

As a young girl-child, I can recall the first time gender affected my life. I was playing outside with two boy-child friends. It was a hot day and so I took my shirt off when they took off theirs. I was only about seven years old at the time and so I saw nothing alarming about the act. After coming inside, however, I realized I had done something "wrong" - I was told that "little girls did not take off their shirts." That day, the gender that was forced upon me by society actually had some real-life implications for me, albeit minor. Confusion is the main emotion that I experienced that day. "Why can't I take my shirt off, the boys get to!" I objected. My mother reminded me that girls just "don't" do that. That's all I needed to hear, apparently. This social rule based on my perceived and socially-given gender remains significant in my life. I am still restricted from activities (like removing my shirt on a hot day or having my personal boundaries respected) based on this gender construction that was thrown at me by the patriarchy. Now, my mother is not guilty here, she merely was regurgitating her ideas that were thrown at her at an early age. She, like me, was described as a "tomboy" growing up. I was a "tomboy" because I didn't like pink clothes, princess toys and wearing my hair up. All of these cultural and social concepts (like pink clothes and material goods) were used as reminders of my "place" as a girl-child.

photo from here

Did I want to have a "gender" growing up? Doubtful. I was pretty content doing kid stuff and being a kid, not a girl-kid, or a young lady. I just wanted to be treated like a human being - not a blank cultural canvas for the patriarchy to paint. Patriarchy, however, knows no limits - it will infilitrate a child's life the moment they are born. We are not just babies or children, we're limited to two fixed catagories based on superficial and restrictive attributes that are said to be "innate" or "natural"

This idea that gender is a biological reality sustains its power in society.

There is not an innateness or naturalness to gender - human beings are fluid, multi-faceted and likely undefinable on a global scale. Gender is maintained by the patriarchal capitalist system as a way to "order" a society, to control the way humans express themselves and the way humans interact with each other. The concept of gender, of being either a "man" or a "woman" is not empowering nor liberating. It is our shackles; the ropes that tie our hands behind our back, tape our mouths shut and blindfold us from the rest of the world.  Gender has no place in a world based on humanity, egalitarianism and peace.