Tag Archives: Women’s Rights

Sensitivity Is a Good Thing

“You are too sensitive.” I and other people with mental health problems hear it all the time. I was raised with the idea that I should be more laid-back. Now I can see that being laid-back is good, but when it’s used to mean not to react to wrongs in our environment, it’s not so good.

Over at Pride in Madness, there’s a post on being sensitive. Its main point is that sensitivity used to be a positive trait. People who care about the world around them, used to be described as sensitive. Now, it’s used to mean “overreactive”. We easily forget that people who fought for the rights we now have, used to be seen as sensitive and overreactive, too. Women’s rights activists were diagnosed with “hysteria” as a way to silence them. This is a way for the dominantly male, White, heterosexual, non-disabled culture to keep its members in a privileged position. And this is exactly why we need sensitive people.

Everyone is privileged in some way. I remember last year considering the Black people protesting the St. Nicholas celebration in the Netherlands because of its association with Black slaves, overly sensitive. That was a mistake. I don’t promise I will never make this mistake again, and so I can see why men make the mistake of calling women overly sensitive and non0disabled people make the mistake of calling the disabled overly sensitive. This is, however, exactly why we need reminders from people like the author of Pride in Madness that sensitivity is a good thing, and that we need people who are sensitive to the wrongs in the world in order to make them rihgt.

Breastfeeding in Public: It’s a Women’s Right

I follow a fair number of Mom bloggers, both through my feed reader and on Twitter. I also participate in a number of online blog and Twitter events. Through one, I got to know Jen from Liv, Laugh, Love. I found her through a Twitter follow thread on Facebook, and we were asked to engage with the particcipating tweeps. This could be as simple as retweeting some of their tweets, which I did with some, but it could also be starting real conversation. Jen’s first tweet I came across mentioned her blog post on public breastfeeding. Jen is a passionate breastfeeding advocate. I am not, and yet I wholeheartedly agree with her point in this post.

I don’t honestly think that “breast is best”. For some, it is, but other mothers cannot breastfeed due to taking certain medications, not being able to nurse a baby for whatever reason, etc. Still others choose not to breastfeed, and that’s fine with me too. There is probably research backing both sides of the breastfeeding/formula debate.

That being said, this post is about whether women are allowed to breastfeed in public, and my answer is a resounding “YES”. It’s not about whether breast milk is better than formula. It’s about whether women should be allowed to expose their boobs. And I would say as general rule they should.

I can see why exposure of some body parts would not be allowed. Genitalia, notably. Still, this is more to do with the nature of the exposure than the nature of the body part. If a person exposes their genitalia, it’s usually to shock other people. When a woman shoves her breasts in someone’s face so to speak, same. That is sexual harassment. However, breastfeeding in public isn’t intended to shock others. It merely serves the purpose of breastfeeding.

Also, of course, men expose their chests all the time, but that’s not a problem because they don’t have breasts, I suppose. This may sound logical, but in reality, women are just held to a higher standard of cover-up than men. A fomrer fellow patient was one day caught wearing only underwear and a T-shirt. The others commented that, had she been male, it would’ve been acceptable. Why? I believe male genitalia get more exposed when covered only by underwear than female genitalia. The only thing I can make of it is that women are not supposed to expose themselves, while men can go pretty far before their self-exposure is seen as indecent.

Pink Is a Color

There’s a lot of pooha against girls wearing pink lately. Apparently, dressing girls in pink is limiting their future success. Blimey. As the author of Parenting Highs and Lows says, pink is a color. No feminist in their right mind would say that having black skin limits people’s future success, even though in our still pretty racist society, it does. And I know you can change what clothes you wear and not what color your skin is, but so what?

In my opinion, firstly, this is holding girls and women accoutnable for the stereotypes created by society. When I was still active in feminist circles, I learned that making the minority feel responsible for defeating society’s steretotypes, is discrimination. Besides, if girls should not wear pink because it limits their future success, this is only perpetuating the idea that girls wearing pink should not be successful. This is ultimately counterproductive.

I haven’t even touched on what it is that girls are being unsuccessful in when they’ve been wearing pink. It is said to be limiting their careers. As if the only successful women are those who have a career outside the home. This is the mostly male, White, able-bodied society’s norm of success, and women’s rights include the right not to conform to this norm. The so-called feminists who are encouraging people to stop dressing girls in pink because it limits their ability to conform to the societal notion of success, are merely perpetuating the stereotypes they’re meaning to defeat.

Now I for one am not a big fan of pink. I never quite liked the color. I also do not agree with the idea that girls should wear pink, or that real girls or boys wear any color or even sort of clothes in particular. That’s stereotypical. People of any gender should be allowed to wear whatever they want, and if that is perceived to limit their ability to do whatever they want in life, that’s discrimination. Blaming the person being discriminated against, is allowing the discrimination to continue.