The newly-appointed Ambassador-at-Large on Global Women’s Issues at the U.S. Department of State, Melanne Verveer, visited Tunisia this week raising all the right points:

The objective again and again is to plead the cause of women, a call to action and to remember the role they played in the Arab revolution, if proof were needed of their ability to engage in politics.

Representing half of humanity, women can and should influence all decisions relating to political, economic and social. Especially in Tunisia, where they serve as (role)models and are distinguished by their high level of education, their integration into public life and dynamism.

**

Avec un objectif: plaider encore et toujours la cause des femmes, les appeler à agir, et rappeler le rôle qu’elles ont joué dans les révolutions arabes, preuve s’il en fallait de leur capacité à s’engager dans la vie politique. Représentant la moitié de l’humanité, les femmes peuvent et doivent peser sur l’ensemble des décisions relatives aux questions politiques, économiques et sociales. D’autant plus en Tunisie, où elles font figure de modèles et où elles se distinguent par leur haut niveau d’éducation, leur intégration dans la vie publique et leur dynamisme. [source]

Crucially, Verveer emphasized the importance of voting for, having given birth to the new country, they must fight for it:

To make the right choice, both women and men have the duty to inquire, to understand the election process and issues, and exercise their civil rights: to vote, vote and vote again [...] even if only many for the first time! Keeping in mind that nothing is ever won.

**

Pour faire les bons choix, les femmes comme les hommes ont le devoir de s’informer, de comprendre le déroulement des élections et leurs enjeux, et d’exercer leurs droits civiques: voter, voter et encore voter… même si c’est pour beaucoup pour la première fois! En n’oubliant pas que rien n’est jamais acquis.

Opening her address with the words ‘woman is the future of man,’ it strikes as a timely reminder.

While in conversation with policy makers, NGOs and the media, I hope her poignant message filters down to the thugs behind yesterday’s events.

For just as woman is the future of man, thuggery will be the demise of the nation.

Founded in 1987, Stepping Stone is the only organization in the Maritimes that deals specifically with street life and sex work from a harm reduction model.

Predominantly staffed by former sex-workers, the organization provides support to hundreds of female, male and transgendered sex workers through the promotion of choice, the provision of protection, advocacy and a safe house.

Perhaps I am alone in the subsequent sentiment, but the above would be a much better campaign to grace billboards than the tired lingerie, trainers and mobile malarkey.

I cannot decide what is more dark: the concluding strip or the fact that almost every one of those lines holds a memory.

I have long been a fan and after viewing her clip below, you will be, too:

Now tell me those are not pertinent questions.

And tell me she’s wrong.

Nadine calls this her ‘experimental rant’; I call it ‘the truth’.

A former investment banker in the UAE, Elham completed the trip unsupported and unassisted.

A truly admirable woman striking a blow for womankind through a journey that is as exhilarating geographically as it is spiritually.

Many women who do not dress modestly [...] lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes.

What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam’s moral codes. [Source]

As the world is wrought by global catastrophes, it’s reassuring to know that not all are losing their heads.

Keep it real, Sedighi.

As I write this the fog is curling moistly against the window and the still naked trees are mooching despondently, waiting for summer.

It is then, the perfect recipe for a grey day, the perfect time for a trip to the doldrums.

Until this post appeared, that is, and set alight a warm glow in the midst of the bleak cold.

Ostensibly a meander through the tales behind Christy’s scars (with a few pearlets of wisdom thrown in), it is a much-needed critique on the perception of post-birth bodies:

I, personally, am bored with the message that the act of childbirth has left me less than who I once was, that my body needs repair, and that becoming “mommy” left the greatest scar on who I am as a woman and as an individual. I can assure you (and Dr. Perky) that if there is any ugliness here that needs fixing, it isn’t because I’m a mother. A woman’s beauty is damaged, even destroyed by many things. I would suggest to you that childbirth is the least of these. [Source]

Quite why a woman’s body is not revered post-childbirth as much as before is a source of consternation.

Far from being lambasted for stretch-marks and pot-bellies, women should be showered with snow-drop petals and bear entourages of fawning, grateful men clasping palm-frond fans.

The act of giving life is one of the greatest miracles of all: the pain, danger, gift and blessing that women bear and bring forth is incredible.

That the aftermath should merely be focused on the perkitude of their breasts is beyond comprehension.

Christy captures this, and more, gorgeously – read on here.

Feminism is a term much branded and bandied, but rarely do we stop to honestly reassess what it means to be a contemporary feminist, foibles and all.

In the following post Natalia expands previous explorations of ‘fucking while feminist‘ and ‘dating while feminist‘ to the less-covered, though more significant ‘loving while feminist‘.

The genius of the subject lies in its frankness – I know that I can see myself glaring back petulantly in sections such as this:

Oddly enough, feminism does play a huge role in the most personal, the most painful moments of my life. It’s when I’m screaming things like “you just want a woman you can CONTROL!” that I’m being a real feminist, not the flirtatious “hardcore” girl you might meet at the theater or in a club, but someone who, when the layers of make-up and mini-dresses are stripped away, just wants to be treated like a human being, goddamit. And it’s when I’m crying about a guy who faked friendship for a chance to be with me that the phrase “but you can get by on your own” becomes the equivalent of a warm and reassuring hand squeezing my shoulder. [Source]

Equally, she touches upon the struggle between sustaining the battle-hardened feminist values that have sustained us, but bring future happiness into peril.

The Fly of Feminism, Lurking

We want to independent, but all too often this proves irreconcilable with the conventionality of relationships.

Although it may seem a pitiful call from a 1950s male, I often wonder whether The Man has a point when he states that my “fierce independence diminishes his masculinity”.

While it infers that we should soften our approach as female companions (as girlfriends, fiancees, wives), it is easier to imagine than done.

On the one hand it makes sense and works: when I shelve an outburst that would otherwise strike a point for feminism, life runs smoother and more sweetly.

Consessions are made, but not easily.

Feminism, as Natalia notes, gets us through the bad times.

It is our moral and political saviour: picking us up when dejected, strengthening our resolve as women in the inexorable march towards a seemingly unobtainable goal.

But what price with love?

On a personal level each concession feels a risk: if I give this time, would it constitute another step towards doormatdom, or merely the compromise that renders relationships workable?

And therein lies the crux: love is a risk that involves compromise.

I just loathe that the indomitable feminist has to be that sacrifice, even if partially.

But what if the Oscars were not merely forgotten for another year; rather, they assume a central point in the debate surrounding gender in the entertainment industry – more specifically, in the allocation of prizes?

In the following article, Elsesser argues that the industry has no legitimate onus to split the Oscars acorrding to male/female roles.

Women, she reasons, have excelled in acting as well as men; it is a skill that is non-biological in nature (unlike sport), thus rendering the ‘equal chance’ category nigh patronizing.

To wit:

Many hours into the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony this Sunday, the Oscar for best actor will go to Morgan Freeman, Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Colin Firth or Jeremy Renner. Suppose, however, that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences presented separate honors for best white actor and best non-white actor, and that Mr. Freeman was prohibited from competing against the likes of Mr. Clooney and Mr. Bridges. Surely, the academy would be derided as intolerant and out of touch; public outcry would swiftly ensure that Oscar nominations never again fell along racial lines.

Why, then, is it considered acceptable to segregate nominations by sex, offering different Oscars for best actor and best actress? [Source]

It’s an interesting debate and one that has passed sans address since 1929; check it out here.

The Egyptian media reported that about 300 cases of sexual harassment against women occurred over the recent Adha holiday. The cases, which the Interior Ministry would not confirm or deny, varied from verbal taunts to assaults. Al Destour newspaper said the number of incidents was higher than what was reported during the Fitr feast in September.

The biggest incident came during last year’s Fitr, when 150 men and boys were arrested for going on a harassing spree in the streets of Mohandeseen in Cairo. A few of the defendants, who assaulted girls and cut their clothes, were taken to court and one was sentenced to a year in jail.

The number of harassment cases during the feasts echoes a study carried out by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights (ECWR) last July, showing that 83% of Egyptian women and 98% of foreign females residing in the country reported being harassed.

Egypt’s penal code sets imprisonment punishments for anyone who sexually assaults minors, but many assaulted women have seen their cases blocked as judges and prosecutors blamed similar incidents on the “provocative” way some girls are dressed. But the ECWR’s study refutes such allegations, saying that 71.5% of women who reported sexual harassment were wearing veils (head scarves) and non-revealing clothes, and 19.6% of them were even wearing niqabs (face veils). [Source]

This is distasteful on so many levels.

First: it is a religious holiday, a time for family and piety; that harassment ‘sprees’ are now as much a part of Eid as mooning on a stag night in Riga is bitterly ironic.

Second: “judges and prosecutors blamed similar incidents on the “provocative” way some girls are dressed” – define ‘provocative’. Define ‘rights’. And now define ‘justified harassment’. Put it altogether and you have a collection of judges that have misspelled their original titles of ‘chauvinists’.

Third: consider the figures 83%, 98%, 71.5% and 19.6%. No woman is safe it seems, even if they do follow the draconian advice of the above.

Fourth: and tangentially, it is interesting to note that as religiosity increases in Middle Eastern societies (think the demise of the blessing of “Sa7a!” in favor of its more religious counterpart), so too, seemingly, does the debauchery. 

Not only are cases of harassment increasing, but they are increasing on Eid, a religious occasion.

It’s almost as though men have an adverse reaction to being pious: either they break out in hives or they simply must pinch the nearest bottom. 

Control yourselves, menfolk. Because God sees and notes everything.

Yup – everything.