Why feminism shouldn’t rest just yet

During the campaign, there was a lot of talk about an Obama victory marking the emergence of a “post-racial” moment in our society. I don’t know to what extent that is actually true, but I have definitely always considered myself to live in what one might call a “post-gender” society. That is to say, my existence as a female doesn’t really inform my view of myself or my view of the world. Little girls did the same things little boys did, we were treated the same in school, and being raised by a single mother enforced the idea that there is nothing for which a woman *needs* a man. In short, being female is neither a plus nor a minus in determining my life experience, it’s an irrelevant fact that simply means I wear heels instead of loafers around the office.

Women’s issues have never really been of interest to me. A female college professor of mine who focused on governance studies and political parties in the Middle East lamented the fact that when she conducted field research people often assumed she was there to talk about the conditions of women in the region. In short, just because we’re women doesn’t mean we have a natural affinity for this subject. In part, I think this springs from the “post-gender” society idea. Discussing things relative to women’s equality is like discussing whether grass is green or the sky is blue — in short, settled issues.

Last week, I was browsing in the library and happened upon a recent issue of the journal Security Studies. The issue focused on the (almost entirely nonexistant) contribution/integration of feminist theory with international affairs. Really fascinating stuff and if you work in the field of foreign affairs, I would definitely recommend taking a look. Women make up half of the world and yet are barely present in our formulation of grand theoretical strategies through which to engage with the world. Maybe because, throughout large parts of the world, women themselves are barely visible.

Enter this Sunday’s NYT magazine — “Why Women’s Rights are the Cause of Our Time.” I must confess I actually like reading the magazine on Sunday as opposed to Wednesday when the early edition is posted online but I made an exception this time for the feature story, “The Women’s Crusade.”

The piece is adapted from a forthcoming book, which I am now eagerly awaiting. It’s shocking, heartbreaking, infuriating, and really makes one think. More than just outlining the prevalence of spousal abuse, sex trafficking, rape as a weapon in conflict zones, discouragement of educating girls, etc., it looks at what that means in real terms for global development and the economic and geopolitical opportunities inherent in addressing the global plight of women.

In short, if foreign aid, public diplomacy, and our overall attempts at global engagement are to be successful, improving conditions for women must be a core focus and not a feel-good talking point backed up by nothing in terms of execution. I applaud Secretary of State Clinton’s recent focus on this issue, though it will be interesting to see how that commitment is born out in policy,  and I think all of us who work in foreign affairs really need to take a look at how we conceptualize the role of women no matter what our particular concentration might be.

Where is the passion?

I met a lovely Frenchwoman at a wine tasting a little while ago. The conversation with a mutual acquaintance of ours eventually turned to the topic of relationships. The Frenchwoman observed that one would never hear a person in France refer to their significant other as their “partner” or their relationship/marriage as a “partnership.” All business and no passion, she said — such an odd way to look at human coupling.

It’s hard to disagree with her assertion that “partnership” is the dominant paradigm in which relationships are viewed (in this city, among my demographic). In looking for a “partner,” I think it’s safe to say one tends to look, more or less, for a mirror image of oneself — the same level of education, socioeconomic background, career goals on par with each other (if not necessarily in the same field), similar earning power (or, if there’s a great disparity between the two, it tends to be in favor of the man making more), equality in ambition, etc. A merger of two equal brands, if you will. By no means do I intend to suggest these people aren’t very happy and in love with each other too, just that there tends to be a series of predictable checkboxes on the path to qualifying another person as worthy of consideration long before the notion of love has time to enter the picture.

Am I just buying into the stereotype of Americans as prudish and “boring” in comparison to, for example, a country where the President leaves his wife and marries his famous mistress in a matter of weeks? Maybe. But in thinking of all of my acquaintances within social and professional circles throughout the years, I can produce exactly two examples of couples that didn’t meet the general description in the previous paragraph. I’m terrible at statistics, but that would seem to indicate a great deal of self-selection in line with cultural norms as they relate to relationships.

Maybe things work out better that way. Maybe indulging a little unadulterated passion with someone who doesn’t meet all the standard checkbox requirements and pursuing it as something more is a recipe for disappointment down the road. Maybe it’s better to find someone with partnership potential that grows into love rather than love with someone who doesn’t fit most of the checkboxes (i.e. a fish may love a bird, but where would they live?). Or maybe not.

Snapshot 1

18th Street is quite charming in the morning. The street is empty but for a few other people walking to the office and those cleaning the streets from the previous night’s revelry and the sun glints off the eclectically colorful buildings.

There’s a small, concave patch of sidewalk at the top of stairs leading down to a basement level restaurant that sits between two other stairways leading to establishments on the second floor. Every morning, for the past two weeks, there has been a man sleeping in that little nook off the main sidewalk area. In the morning, he’s positioned facing downtown — the Monument just off in the distance with the sun rising by its side. In the evening, he’s facing uptown. But for the switch, I would have given serious consideration to that fact that he might have passed out dead there that first day I saw him.

Every day. For two weeks. And who knows how many days, weeks, months, years before.

The Claustrophobia of Convenience

The year-and-a-half I’ve resided in DC proper has been my first experience with small town living. That probably sounds odd given that it’s a big city filled with lots of people. For perspective, I lived in ten different towns before I turned twelve. After settling in the place I call home – Annapolis – I lived a very suburban life. We drove everywhere. There were three different grocery stores that were equidistant, several convenience stores, all sorts of shopping plazas, etc. Then I commuted to college, traveled all over the state and the east coast for various extracurricular activities, and went to a school the size of a small city so it was easy to go an entire day not seeing a familiar face. For the most part, the friends I spent time with lived in Baltimore, Silver Spring, or at least the other side of town. When I started dating, none of the guys ever lived in my own town. In short, I was out and about and on the go all the time.  

Then I moved to DC. My office (old and new one, for that matter) is about a mile from my apartment and nearly all of my life takes place within that one little mile. Almost all the bars and restaurants I frequent are on the walk home, I go to the same grocery store week in and week out, when I need something at an odd hour I go to the convenience store on my block, five coworkers and a couple friends live within a three block radius and I bump into them often, and the three guys I’ve had more than a passing fascination with in the last year and a half are all there too — one works on my block and the other two live within a few blocks along the route I often run. I rarely go to other parts of the city because I’m still not a huge fan of the extra time one has to allot for public transit and, truth be told, I can find most things I need and want right here (such is the convenience of my tiny slice of real estate).

The same things, the same places, the same people, the same memories — in short my entire life at the moment — is on top of me all of the time and I’m constantly bumping into it. It’s like living in the smallest town I’ve ever known and, though it certainly has its benefits and one can’t argue against the convenience, I’m not sure I’ll ever fully adjust.

An offer you can’t refuse

Around the beginning of the year, I was on the verge of accepting a job offer for a position that paid significantly more than what I was making at the time. Money was not the only reason I was leaving but finding out that little fact made it more appealing. Ultimately, I decided to stay in my current position for an even higher counteroffer. In this transaction, I fully learned the important lesson that one has to really manage the brand/commodity that is one’s labor and that anything is negotiable given the right circumstances.

Even though we’re told to negotiate salary, sometimes it can be intimidating (especially in this job market). I’m pretty sure this is a prime reason there is still a male vs. female pay gap. Shouldn’t one be happy just to have an offer? Won’t they just pick someone else if you ask for “too much?” No. It’s business, not a favor. They evaluate the relative costs and benefits of their decisions and so should you. It will always be in their interest to try to undervalue what you bring to the table and it’s incumbent upon you, assuming you don’t want to settle, to be sound in your own assessment of the situation. What does this mean? Research, know what else is out there in your field, and sell what makes you unique (to sell it convincingly means you actually have to believe in it, by the by).

Flash forward six months. Those who know me in real life know I am currently in the process of changing jobs. The first thing I noticed when I read the advertisement for my new position (beyond the fact that it was exactly what I wanted and I had to have it) was that the salary was lower than my goal. Not letting a small detail like that stop me, I applied anyway. When I went in for my initial interview, salary requirement was one of the questions on the application paperwork. I put my number, which was outside of the high end of theirs. The HR person noticed this and pointed it out to me. I demurred and said we would see how the process unfolded. Long story short, four rounds of interviews later, I accepted the position at my original request.

Unfortunately, all of us normal worker bees don’t have agents to handle these delicate details for us. In the hiring process, you are the only one looking out for you. If you don’t ask for what you want/need you probably aren’t going to get it. The moral of my little story: Don’t miss out because you didn’t ask. Yes, even in this market.

On the chirping of crickets

It’s curious to me, after a month of not posting, that so many people continue to click over here on a daily basis. I almost feel compelled to apologize for there being no new content. It’s like having a visitor show up when one is cleaning one’s house, resplendent in bleach-stained tshirt and sweats, looking a mess. Not exactly the image one wants to present.

Truthfully, my compulsion to write is strongly linked with my mental state. When I’m unhappy, unfulfilled, bored, frustrated, striving, aspiring, etc., putting pen to paper (or finger to keyboard, as the case may be) is cathartic. When everything is going swimmingly, it’s admittedly difficult to drum up the motivation. Amidst beginning a new job in just under two weeks and things related, studying for class, getting back into running/dancing/reading, and things (tentatively and somewhat unexpectedly) coalescing quite well in my personal life, I haven’t felt drawn to my little blog as of late.

I’m sure there will be new and, perhaps, interesting content to come in the not-too-distant future. For now, a picture I came across about a month ago that stuck in my mind so much I spent a good hour trying to find it again this morning. No relation to things DC, but maybe that’s why I love it so right now:

Thoughts on Iran, part II

What we are witnessing in Iran right now is nothing short of revolutionary. Protests are larger than they have been since 1979, there are deep chasms emerging within the clerical establishment that has ruled the country for three decades, and people are quite literally risking (and, seemingly by the dozen, giving) their lives to claim what they feel has been taken from them. This is not necessarily to say it will all culminate in a revolution or even a change in the election results. As one of the most interesting analyses I have read of the Islamic Revolution, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran,  reminds anyone when looking at protest movements it’s a fool’s errand to try to predict the outcome of events once a certain level of chaos and upheaval has been reached. Nevertheless, it is a historic moment in the life of the Iranian state.

The Iranian government itself obviously recognizes this. Initial attempts to bunker down and ride it out (cut off all methods of communication that could be used to organize, issue multiple statements hailing the fairness and accuracy of the results, staging a “victory” rally, and thwarting the ability of foreign media to move around and report) were a spectacular failure. Taking a new tact of limited appeasement, the Supreme Leader reversed his own (twice stated) judgment that nothing improper or irregular happened and has opened the door for a partial recount. It would not be inaccurate to call this a stunning development. In general, the clerical leadership, while holding the real power in the country, stays behind the scenes. Khamenei is not one to seek out the spotlight, least of all to reverse his own publicly stated position on the crisis of this magnitude, which will probably define his tenure. One can reasonably interpret this shift as a nod to the gravity of the threat the regime perceives.  

I think it’s critical to understand the context in which this threat arises. The protesters are not calling for an end to the concept of an Islamic state — far from it, in fact. Just because elements of the opposition are seen as friendlier to the West, it doesn’t translate into a monolithic “Westernizing” force. And that is why it is potentially so dangerous to the stability of the status quo.

The leading faces speaking out — Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Montazeri — are figures who were among Khomeini’s inner circle in 1979. Montazeri, a Grand Ayatollah who was once seen as the successor to Khomeini, is of particular note. Think of it: a man who was once considered a probable successor to the founder of the Islamic Republic has now come out and said, in no uncertain terms, that the protesters are right and the government (including the clerical leadership) is wrong. No longer are we just questioning the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s presidency — rather, Khamenei himself and the institution he represents is called into question for abetting it. The most serious threats, it seems, are always from within and this is just one example of the fault lines developing within the clerical leadership that will reverberate for years to come regardless of how the current crisis is resolved. Once the “crisis of legitimacy” genie is out of the bottle, it’s impossible to get back in. People will always remember and internalize these events, coloring how they see every subsequent action by the government (much in the way the U.S. assisted coup in 1953 still hangs over U.S.-Iran relations).

Ultimately, despite everything that has transpired, I still think it’s a safer bet to assume the outcome of the election will stay as is. What does the U.S. do about this? Thus far, I think President Obama has it mostly correct. The Iranian nuclear program has attained a place of central importance in U.S. foreign policy. That leaves us with the need for a negotiating partner on the Iranian side. Although I’ve read some stirring and inspiring calls for the U.S. to be more critical of what is transpiring, including one written by a colleague/friend whom I respect a great deal, I simply can’t see how that is in anyone’s long-term interest. Three reasons why:

1) In matters of international affairs, one can’t choose one’s interlocutor. All things considered, it’s generally better for one to play the hand one is dealt than to try to interfere with the dealer. The U.S. has nothing to gain by crying foul here. The likely-to-continue President Ahmadinejad will use any and every statement to that effect as evidence of an American vendetta against him and as an excuse to avoid serious pressure for negotiations. Giving him yet more ammunition in this respect would be counterproductive.

2) Expressing strong support for Mousavi/the opposition would give pro-Ahmadinejad forces a great big brush with which to paint them as Western agents trying to undermine the Islamic Republic — in short, to obfuscate the true nature of the who and why behind what is taking place, playing into the idea of a U.S. backed “velvet revolution” much like the 1953 coup. Obama/America would become the face of the opposition, thereby making it much more difficult to organize the average person.

3) But isn’t America the great beacon of freedom? The shining city on the hill? The embodiment of the principles that infuse any movement based on a yearning for greater freedom and fairness? Then how — how – you ask can we sit here and do nothing to help (even when “help” is only strongly condemn the situation and call it what it is over and over again), and engage with Ahmadinejad going forward, while people are quite literally dying to have their votes counted? History has shown over and over again that real, lasting, change can’t be imposed; it has to come from within.

Maybe these events will snowball into something that fundamentally changes the character of Iranian leadership or maybe they will simply serve as another step taking them closer to that end. For now, I think it’s too fluid to tell with any certainty. The U.S. needs to let the Iranians sort things out and, ultimately, deal with the world as it is rather than as we would like to make it. This might mean dealing with a leader whom the entire thinking world can ascertain held onto his position through some combination of fraud, force, and lies.

With hundreds of thousands out on the streets of Iran, however, it’s too preliminary for the U.S. to throw its hat into that corner at this point. Just as we have nothing to gain by taking a hard line against Ahmadinejad’s supposed re-election, we have nothing to gain by overtly recognizing it at the moment either. President Obama and his team have been wise thus far in staking out a middle ground of observation rather than involvement, and one hopes they maintain that position until the landscape becomes clearer.

EDIT (June 17): Thank you to everyone who has clicked over here from the link by Andrew Sullivan this morning!

Thoughts on the Iranian election

I’ll refrain from a blow-by-blow of what has transpired over the last few days and instead confine my post to the two points surrounding this that really stand out for me.

1) Sometimes, when one is between a rock and a hard place, observation is the only action one can take. This, I think, is where the U.S. finds itself now in this debacle. There is little doubt that the official results reported by the Interior Ministy were falsified to some extent or another. This purported landslide victory with almost no deviation in vote share between candidates from one region to the next makes no logical sense for a whole list of demographic reasons, which could take up the rest of this post. Whether the lie amounts to making a small win larger, adding some extra padding to secure a victory in the first round and avoid a run-off next week, or an outright reversal of the real results and the stealing of an election, something is amiss.  

So…what does the U.S. do about this? Nothing — because there’s nothing we can do that will have any positive impact on the situation. Khamenei has already certified the results and encouraged everyone to get along with each other and be happy with this “divine assessment.” For all intents and purposes, the book has been closed on the election. Nothing the U.S. says or does will change these facts and, more likely than not, would only feed into hardline propaganda about the opposition being puppets for the West. Would it be the morally correct thing to stand and say, “this is a ridiculous sham?”  Sure. It almost seems wrong not to. But the only people who can say that with impact and authority are the millions of Iranians who cast a ballot for change only to have it seemingly snatched away. Over the next few days, we’ll see whether the post-election protests develop into something more.

2) Reports of the death of the mainstream media have not been greatly exaggerated. They have heretofore almost completely missed this story. Sure, there’s the requisite story in NYT and WaPo, but it gets barely a blip on cable news and there’s very little real analysis. The blogosphere truly has broken and driven this story over the last three days. From nitty-gritty analysis of statistical data, demographics, and historical voting patterns to translation of Persian language tweets about events on the ground (seriously, if you aren’t on Twitter, you need to be) to incredible documentation of protests on Flickr and YouTube, citizen-journalism has won the day here.

PSA: Street Harassment, in any form, is not okay

I’ve read a few posts as of late in the DC blogosphere about the pesky issue of “street harassment.” There’s even an entire blog, Holla Back DC, which was recently launched to document particularly egregious examples. Some contend DC is worse than most cities but I don’t really have all that much of a comparison as it’s the only big city I’ve lived in for an extended period of time. What I can attest to, however, is that every woman I’ve spoken with about this has myriad stories. I thought I would chime in with my own two cents, especially in light of two recent incidents I’ve experienced.

Everyone is familiar with the dudes who stand on the corner. You see them a block away staring you up and down. Then the catcalling starts. Sometimes it attempts to be complimentary, sometimes it’s outright crude, and sometimes they follow you a few steps down the street attempting to make themselves heard (trust, another block hearing about what you have to offer in the bedroom is not going to make me give you my number).

Then there’s the evening security guard at my office building who, if nobody else happens to be in the lobby, will carry on with the, “Hey sexy, how are you? I like that dress, you look fine. Give me a smile, girl. I watched you walk all the way down the street the other day,” until I’m out of the building. This happens several times a week.

Or the convenience store on my block where I used to go when I unexpectedly ran out of milk or wanted to grab ice cream or a soda. Only the proprietor went from talking about how “beautiful you are,” to whether I had a boyfriend, to following me around the store talking about dating me. Now? More often than not, I’ll walk an extra block just to avoid the hassle.

Then there’s the next level of harassment, so to speak — beyond the leering gazes and disrespectfully inappropriate comments…

Take 1: I was walking from Adams Morgan to Mt. Pleasant around 11pm on a Friday night a few weeks ago. On Columbia Rd. between 17th and 16th, I noticed a guy on a bike seemed to be following me. He was just close enough that I could feel it but just far enough away that you aren’t quite sure. I stepped practically into the street to let him pass. But he didn’t. Then he started with the “Hey girl, what’s your name? Your ass looks fine in that dress. Where are you going?” I ignored at first and then gave the standard, “Thanks, going to meet my boyfriend,” brushoff, which usually works. He kept trying to talk to me and would pull slightly ahead and then look back at me. As I turned down Mt. Pleasant St., he rode off to 16th. Gone? Not quite. About three blocks down Mt. Pleasant, which was unusually quiet that night, I approached a cross street. On the corner, behind the side of the building, about 15 feet from me was — the same guy. I was completely taken by surprise. He made little hissing noises and then yelled all sorts of vulgar things as I quickly crossed the street. Very unlike me, I took a cab home that night because I was actually worried he had seen which bar I went into and was just hanging outside biding time.

Take 2: Less overtly scary but more invasive. I was on the 42 heading from Dupont to AdMo after work around 6:30pm Monday evening. A guy sat down next to me and, despite being of average build, completely crowded me. I mean he was practically on top of me. I tried to slide over as much as possible and even looked at him briefly, hoping he would get the message and back off. Oh no, this was no accident. He was carrying a bag on his lap, and the arm closest to me was half under the bag…and resting against my thigh. Again, at first you think this is inadvertent and he will readjust once he’s settled in the seat…and then his hand caressing your thigh is just from the bumps of the bus moving us about…until, as the bus does a forward/backward sort of lurch his hand manages to hook the hem of your skirt and make its way halfway up your bare thigh. Uhh, yeah.

These stories are undoubtedly familiar to most women as par for the course when traversing around the city (any city?). Men have always hit on women and it isn’t like you can really pass a law to prevent any of this ridiculousness. Short of public scorn of this sort of behavior (by other men, no less) there isn’t much one can do about it. If you complain about it, you’re a bitch or no fun or take yourself too seriously. Nevermind that I should have a right to walk around without people invading my space or being expected to reply to every stupid thing they yell to me and every other passing woman. Is this as serious as solving hunger and homelessness? Does it generally even bother me that much? Umm, no. But sometimes it’s frustrating, demeaning, belittling, annoying beyond belief, and just makes me want to scream.

Aid with impact: Assessing the crisis in Pakistan

I think it’s beyond refute to say the U.S. has a spotty record of “success” when it comes to intervening in humanitarian crises. Intervention comes too late, haphazardly, in the wrong ways, through the wrong channels, with too little oversight, etc.

There is just such a crisis brewing now in Pakistan, where the government is in the process of asserting its authority and rooting out extremists in the region of the country which heretofore has largely existed outside its purview. Between those who were displaced amidst intense fighting last fall and those who have been displaced since the most recent round of fighting commenced two weeks ago, there are now approximately 1.5 million who have fled their homes. According to the UN, it’s the largest displacement since the Rwandan genocide.

In politics, as in life, it often seems the flipside of crisis is opportunity. This is no exception. The stability of Pakistan is vital to U.S. national security interests. To that end the U.S. has already pledged aid to help displaced persons, but we need to follow that aid and not just write a check and washing our hands of it. Effectively assisting in relief efforts will provide a rare opportunity to be seen in a positive light — an unusual role for the stars and stripes in that region of the world. Does this mean, “death to America,” will never be uttered again? Hardly. But under the broad umbrella of public diplomacy, this is a chance to build some modicum of goodwill (or at least a more neutral ambivalence, should “goodwill” seem to ring of pie-in-the-sky idealism). 

Additionally, if executed properly, the allocation and distribution of aid could be used as a tool to help cement the relatively new political reality of civilian rule throughout the entire country. Eventually, most of these 1.5 million people will venture back to the towns from whence they came. What will they find when they get there? If the answer is total destitution and isolation with little provision of government services, we’ll once again have a breeding ground for the kind of parallel state structure one sees with Hizballah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza — government ineptitude providing a vacuum for extremist organizations to fill. If, however, the civilian government is seen as capable of establishing some sort of order throughout, it will go far in debunking the cause of those who would promote a return to military rule or embrace extremist ideology in governance. Key to all of this, of course, is exercising a great deal of oversight and prodding of Pakistani leadership to utilize U.S. aid in a manner conducive to those ends (desirable for both parties, but not always self-evident in a fractious, variably corrupt, nascent democracy such as it is).