First of all: Can I say how fantastic, how bold, how seriously impressive you are? Because there was some phenomenal organizing work that happened to make the Phyllis Schlafly counter protest as successful as it was. It was a protest of over fifty students — and it was literally put together overnight! There were signs, and thanks to some extremely strong leadership, we were able to bring them into the event (against YAF’s wishes)! These are incredibly important things, and we should be incredibly proud.

I’m going to change course here a little bit, but bear with me: A few weeks ago, when I saw the feminist symbol next to the phrase “RIOTS NOT DIETS” emblazoned in spray paint on the face of HellWell, I almost cheered out loud – I thought I knew everyone in the small handful of self-declared feminists on campus, but here was someone else! And not just someone else, but someone else who was outraged (because, as we all know: if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention)! But my celebration was tinged with anxiety. Where was this feminist? Who were they? Could there be others? DO THEY WALK AMONG US? Most importantly: how were we to go about finding each other?

I won’t credit or thank a woman who doesn’t believe that spousal rape exist for bringing us all together, but the collective organizing power that brought the counter-protest together certainly deserves applause. Up until the counter-protest, I never felt like there was any sort of feminist consciousness here; I never felt fully connected to any kind of GW feminist community. But then we were storming the halls, screaming “This is what a feminist looks like!” and it happened. We all became a part of something.

I’m telling you this because we are currently at a CRITICAL MOMENT. Hot on the heels of victory, we all need to know how amazing this was; how amazing we are. But we also need to recognize how much power we have in our hands right now — and how much bigger this can become, if we want it to.

Because we are too great a force to be bothered with the Phyllis Schlaflys of the world; there are bigger fish to fry. And if we can organize like this again, we’ll not only show that GW feminists aren’t going to sit down and shut up while YAF and other organizations sponsor others who support systemic and structural violence against women, people of color, queer and trans folks, people with disabilities, etc.– we’ll start to make waves all over campus, maybe even all over DC. We’ll start to call the shots.

I want us to start talking about these things. I want us to start to articulate a feminism that has a life of its own; something that goes beyond saying no to Schlafly’s demands that we all acquiesce to the cult of domesticity, and that actually encompasses our own needs and desires. I want us to be able to have constructive conversations about how we can’t make comparisons between sexism and the legacy of slavery in the U.S. (which were drawn in the call to action against Schlafly) — because even if we might have the best of intentions, these histories are not the same, and comparing the two erases the experiences and identities of thousands upon thousands of people.

We need to remember that mainstream American feminism has historically been a white-centered movement. As contemporary activists, we have a responsibility to — thoughtfully, and with willful intent — place intersectionality at the center of our feminism, and not as an afterthought.

I want us to be able to have these conversations, and I want us to be able to have them in a way that only brings us closer together, makes us more inclusive, makes us stronger. I want to see us at the forefront of some serious change around here. I want to be able to look at any GW student and think, “This is what a feminist looks like.”

I think we can do it. Do you? 

Love and solidarity,
Chiara Corso

“Phyllis Schlafly had been fighting for women’s rights since the 1960s,” read the Facebook invite. Schlafly and women’s rights? Never had I read a more perfect oxymoron. Phyllis Schlafly, a well-known sexist and homophobic activist, would be speaking at a George Washington University event to promote “traditional” ideals. For me, the phrase “women’s rights” completely contradicted Schlafly’s uncompromising views about traditional roles.

The feminist in me was fuming. I knew I could not sit around and do nothing when sexism would be openly promoted on my own campus. It was about two o’clock in the morning when I created the event, and by the next day, over fifty students from all different backgrounds, all equally outraged, had come to take a stand. The plan was to conduct a “traditional” walk-out protest, and that was precisely what we did.

Students held signs that read “Women belong in the House… and the Senate and the Oval Office.”

“Sexist, anti-gay, Phyllis Schlafly, go away!” read another.

And my personal favorite: “Take your advice: go back to the kitchen!”

Our protest was primarily silent and peaceful, but our presence was dominating and unavoidable.

—Yasemin Ayarci

When I stood in the hallway of the Marvin Center waiting for Phyllis Schlafly to arrive for the event, I was half-expecting a monster to come bounding down the hall and spit fire our way, given how many people had shown up to protest her. What I saw, though, was a seemingly sweet old lady who smiled warmly at us as she walked
by. You would never think that such a small, friendly-looking old woman could be as hateful and counter-progressive as Phyllis Schlafly is.

It is often easy to excuse your racist grandfather or homophobic great aunt for the things they say because, after all, they come from a different generation. What is troubling to me about Schlafly is that even though she is 87 years old, there are lots of young, impressionable people who listen to her and share her same beliefs. But the fact that many young people – GW students in fact – share some of Schlafly’s beliefs is downright disturbing. Even though many members of the audience were adults who had come from the area to hear her speak, by far the most enthusiastic supporters in the crowd were some of my fellow GW undergrads. They organized the event, eagerly listened to her every word, and will most likely continue the social reign of terror that Phyllis Schlafly advocates, long into the future.

In the first five minutes, Schlafly shared that women’s studies courses were a “waste of education dollars,” and that feminists, not the Republican party are waging the “War on Women.” I was just as horrified as I was angry. Many of her GW supporters undoubtedly have bright and influential futures ahead of them, and knowing that they, too, support such bigotry is truly a terrifying thought.

—Paris Bienert

I went to the protest because I feel that often a lot of women’s issues on this campus are glossed over in order to avoid offending anyone. As a religious studies major, I even see it in many of the scholarly texts that we use for class. Women are written about not as if they were people, but rather some mysterious entities that possess special powers because of their reproductive capabilities. But the separation of women from men in these texts is rarely addressed in the classroom with the respect that it deserves.

Although many of these scholarly works were written years ago, these ideas about relationships between men and women still exist today. Phyllis Schlafly’s message is one that supports these ideas, and it is harmful because it almost always subordinates women to men.

—Ellie Mazur

I chose to protest because I believe that traditional roles are more than the choice to be a stay-at-home mom; I have experienced firsthand their unpleasant, discriminatory side. I was told that I have to behave in different ways and accomplish different goals just because I have breasts and a vagina. Women everywhere are subjected to tradition through rape, violence, and practices such as genital cutting. If tradition does not allow me to live my life the way I choose just because I am a woman, I want no part of it. When traditional roles mean forced sexism, I will not tolerate it.

I certainly respect any person who chooses traditional roles, as much as I do people who do not. However, this is different from Schlafly’s enforcement of traditional roles as the natural place for women. Her hostile views toward women, including survivors of rape, single mothers, and working women, reflects a close-minded view of women’s roles and women’s choices.

I believe that feminism stands for women’s ability to choose their own lifestyles, traditional or not, free of oppression. Events at The George Washington University that promote the oppression of any person is contrary to that principle. It is important to take a stand, not against tradition, but against the oppressive idea that women are not deserving of equal treatment.

In regard to Phyllis Schlafly, she would not be in her current position were it not for the feminist movement, and for activists like the protestors at George Washington University. On behalf of women’s rights activists, Phyllis, you are welcome!

—Yasemin Ayarci

Don’t get me wrong. I support Sandra Fluke wholeheartedly. The Georgetown University law student has become a spokeswoman against pending legislation that would allow religiously affiliated employers to “opt out” of covering contraception for employees’ insurance policies. Ms. Fluke’s Congressional testimony addressed the lack of contraception coverage for students at the Georgetown University Law Center, and the serious consequences that this policy presents for women’s health. But framing contraception mainly as a matter of “preventive medicine,” as the recent debates have done, does a huge disservice to the women’s movement, and threatens the progress of women’s rights.

The birth control pill is, indeed, preventive medicine. I know firsthand. On June 8th, 2011, I went to bed with shooting pain in my lower abdomen and back. Within 48 hours, I had been admitted to the hospital, and had had an emergency appendectomy and exploratory abdominal surgery. The diagnosis? Ruptured ovarian cysts. I spent the following two weeks in bed and in pain. After three pelvic exams, and a trans-vaginal ultrasound, I was given a prescription for birth control pills, and told the pill could prevent the cysts from forming.*

My experience pales in comparison to some of Ms. Fluke’s testimony. I was lucky: Ms. Fluke mentioned a woman whose ovarian cyst grew to be so large, that her entire ovary had to be removed. Failing to provide these women with access to affordable healthcare sends the message that women’s health is not a priority. Failing to provide them with preventive care for a serious medical disorder ignores their immediate health needs in the name of morality and values. As Ms. Fluke rightly explained, “When you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, a woman’s health takes a back-seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.”

Still, the dialogue that emerges frames contraception as treatment for these severe medical conditions, not family planning, and especially not women exercising their own agency. This may not be visibly detrimental to the women’s movement right now, but where will it put us in 20 years? Like the “War on Welfare” that preceded it, the “War on Women’s Contraception” targets low-income women, women of color (as seen by the attacks on Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen’s defunding debacle last month), and any other woman who is simply having too much sex. Why would Rush Limbaugh call Sandra Fluke a “slut,” and “prostitute [who] wants to be paid to have sex?” The answer is this: Women are being slut-shamed in order to de-legitimize their claim to birth control.

In response to similar Conservative backlash, Liberals are quick to qualify Ms. Fluke’s testimony, emphasizing that we are talking about health needs, not sexual activity. And Liberals have had practice normalizing “abnormal” behavior, at the expense of the greater movement. Advocates of gay marriage, for example, highlight the similarities between straight couples and gay couples, directly targeting “straight America.” Didn’t you know? Gay people want to be in monogamous relationships (just like you!), married (just like you!), and they want kids (just like you!), and they do everything else (just like you!). This sort of rhetoric only further marginalizes anyone who doesn’t adhere to the newly created “Liberal” norm. Emphasizing gay marriage while ignoring important and relevant issues, like transphobia and homophobia, workplace discrimination, and intimate partner violence within LGBTQ relationships, doesn’t help achieve full equality.

One Democratic voice isn’t taking the safe route to re-frame contraception. Former DNC Spokeswoman Karen Finney recently told Ed Schultz, “This has to do with our values as a country. We say that we believe that people deserve access to basic healthcare. Contraception is part of basic healthcare. That’s what this is about.”

Ms. Finney is right – Contraception is part of basic healthcare. By defending birth control as treatment, we undo the progress that has been made in the past fifty years by women’s liberation movements. By reframing the birth control discussion and focusing solely on preventive care, the real fear emerges: We’re still afraid of women having sex.

*Ovulation can cause the formation of ovarian cysts. Because the Pill stops ovulation, it can help with preventing ovarian cysts from forming and subsequently rupturing.

—-Cameron Bell

Many people believe there is no longer a need for feminism; we have an African American president, and more women than ever serve as Supreme Court justices. We are, some might argue, living in a post-racial, post-feminist era. Women came, they saw, they equalized, and the “happily ever after” can now commence.

It may come as no surprise to the readers of this blog, that women are not living happily ever after. Instead,  women around the world are subjected to trafficking, genital mutilation, and denied humanitarian rights and they deserve to be heard.

A woman named Eve Ensler saw the trials that many women face, and decided to do something about it. Ensler interviewed women of different ages, cultures, races, ethnic backgrounds, and sexualities to talk about their personal experiences and the relationship they have with their vagina. In 1996, “The Vagina Monologues” was born. These monologues, compiled from the personal experiences of those real women, share stories of sexual liberation, love, acceptance, and even violence. From the performances emerged a movement: the V-Day movement.

The George Washington University is hosting two performances of “The Vagina Monologues” – so you can seriously celebrate VDay three times this week. These 27 young women are participating because, like Eve Ensler, they are worried about vaginas. I am worried about vaginas. As one character says in a monologue, “I love vaginas. I love women. I do not see them as two separate things.” Maybe you should be worried about vaginas too.

GW’s production of “The Vagina Monologues,” will run February 17th and February 18th, at 8 pm in Marvin Center Room 309. (More info here.) Tickets are $5, and proceeds will benefit the DC Rape Crisis Center. 

–Samantha Yakas

When I read about gender based violence in the media, specifically the recent attacks in the DC area on transgender individuals, I find myself struggling to gather my thoughts and emotions.  As my eyes swell with tears, I am left with questions.  Where do race and class come into play?  How many hate-motivated attacks on transgender people have gone unnoticed or unreported?  Why has there been an increase in violence against the transgender community in DC?  What is occurring here beneath the surface?  Is this not necessarily an increase in transgender violence, but rather an increase in media attention?  What about those whose trans* identities are invisible—those who fall outside the gender binary?  How many of these transgender individuals were sex workers and are displaced socio-economically because of their gender identity?  What—or who—are we not talking about there?  I am left with these haunts regarding the intersection of class struggle, gender identity, and race.

Transgender is an umbrella term that is used to describe people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from that usually associated with their sex assigned at birth.  Transgender people have moved across a boundary imposed by society away from a starting place they themselves did not choose because it was assigned to them. Transgender can apply to a person who rejects the gender associated with the sex assigned at birth only part of the time too.  The term transgender does not apply to just those who transition from male to female or female to male—there is a grey area.  Just because someone challenges the gendered expectations of their presumed gender on some level, whether it be via appearance or behavior or both, does not mean they identify as a transgender person.  Most importantly, transgender identity begins with self-identification.  Transgender identity is not always visible, and not everyone wants their transgender identity to be visible.

For instance, I am female bodied—I have breasts, hips, curves, ovaries, and a cunt. However, I do not self-identify as a woman.  Yet, I am treated by society as a woman.  My transgender identity is not necessarily visible—I am not always referred to by others with non-binary pronouns.  I do not bind my breasts or take testosterone.  I do not always correct people when they use my birth name even though I have become detached from it and do not associate myself with it.  I still ovulate and menstruate and am affected by the female hormones in my body.  I visibly gender-fuck on a daily basis with my clothing options, the way I take up space.  The way I perform my gender is a tight-rope act constantly balancing masculinity with femininity as I strive to feel comfortable with my body and confident with my physical appearance.  I do not relate to my body the same way a cisgender, female would.  Some days my body is an obstacle course, some days my body is a nuclear war zone, some days my body is a peace offering, a refugee camp, a shelter from the storm within.  Constantly, my gender identity is in limbo; it is undefined and undetermined.

Society sometimes reacts negatively to my state of limbo and is frustrated by my unwillingness to conform, adhere, “fit,” check and/or label.  After all, any rejection of gender is probably one of the most “rebellious” actions one can perform; the concept of gender is so deeply embedded in our society.  However, any victim or survivor of gender based violence is never at fault—no one is asking for it.  In DC I feel relatively “safe,” but that mostly likely stems from some sort of privilege on my part.  It is to not say I do not think about ramifications that come from performing my preferred gender identity.  I do not want to live in a state of fear or worry about drawing attention to myself in public.  I am not going to apologize for who I am or tailor my performance to pass.  Yet, sometimes when I’m out enjoying the DC nightlife or entering a public restroom I cannot help but experience a level of discomfort.  I have been subject to verbal street-harassment numerous times.  I do not respond to it.  I do not even acknowledge it because I fear escalation—flashing in my head is an image of my motionless body on the ground.

I share my personal identity because this is what I know, and it allows me to view these attacks in a different way than cisgender people.  When I read the articles I think about how I would be represented by the media.  If I were to be attacked based on my gender identity, I am fairly certain the media coverage of me would not include my transgender identity, would not use non-binary pronouns, would not refer to me as my preferred name.  I would instead be represented as a white, female in her early 20s.  Perhaps, my rejection of gender expression in my physical appearance would even be attributed to sexuality marking me as a butch lesbian.  That is not to say gender based violence does not impact those who identify as cisgender, straight or queer.

When I think about the interplay between race, gender and class in regards to these attacks I cannot help but notice when and where these women were attacked.  I know from my background that a decent amount of sex workers are transgender.  Unfortunately, stigmas surround sex work, but for those who don’t subscribe to gender norms, it can serve as one possible, or perhaps their only possible option of financial stability.  Transgender individuals do not have employment protection—meaning they can be fired or denied employment based on their gender identity.  Transgender individuals are not always privileged and can come from lower socio-economic situations.  Sometimes they can be ostracized by their families and are forced to go without that support as well.  Additionally, they may not have access to higher education or health insurance.  Certainly, hormone therapy and surgery are not affordable or accessible to all.  Without gainful employment and benefits, transgender individuals cannot always transition to the bodies they are more comfortable with or are able to pass in (if that is what they desire).

I cannot speak about race on a personal level because I am a privileged white person. However, I keep in mind that roughly 50% of DC residents are black.  Not to mention that the majority of these attacks were against people of color.  With the onset of gentrification, the racial divisions with in the city have become overwhelmingly apparent and I cannot help but wonder what role race played in these attacks.  Certainly, a lack of institutionalized privilege places one in a more vulnerable position.  In February of this year, the study, “Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey” was released.  Its findings are staggering and demonstrate the shocking levels of prejudice trans* people are subject to on a daily basis.   According to the study:

“…transgender people face bias that affects all areas of life.  However, one of the most important findings was that the combination of anti-transgender bias with structural and individual racism meant that transgender people of color experience particularly devastating levels of discrimination. Among them, Black transgender people often reported the highest levels of discrimination.”

There has been a call to action to support the transgender community, to ensure their safety, to improve community and police relations.  These recent attacks need to be addressed and we need to support each other.   There is no excuse for violence and it cannot go unanswered.  At the same time, we- members of the trans* community and allies- must be cautious when organizing against and in response to gender-based violence.  One voice cannot speak for all.  The haunts of intersection (of race, class, and gender) need to be examined and considered when discussing, reading about, and organizing against gender-based violence.

If you want more information regarding trans* issues please explore the resources posted below.

-E

*“If you have been a victim of gender-based violence or you know someone who has reach out to the DC Trans Coalition at 202.681.3282 or email dctc@dctranscoalition.org, the Transgender Health Empowerment at 202.636.1646 or HIPS via their 24-hour hotline at 1.800.676.HIPS.  If you need police assistance, dial 911 or call the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit at 202.506.0714.”

Looking For More Information?! Check out these links:

• How To Be An Ally To Trans* People
• Gender-Normative Privilege
• Simple Steps To Being Trans* Inclusive Part 1 (Understand Cis Privilege)
• Trans*-Etiquette 101: No Offense, But That’s Offensive
• Not Your Mom’s Trans* 101
• Trans* FAQ
• A Really Awesome Trans* Glossary
• How Not To Be Defensive When Accused of Transphobia (A Guide For Cis People)
• T-Vox: An online, collective resource  for trans* people and those questioning
• Pronoun Reference Charts
• Trans* 101 for Trans* People

Violence against trans* people in the District is becoming an epidemic:

APRIL: A 22 year-old transwoman Chrissy Polis was brutally attacked in a Baltimore McDonald’s for trying to use the ladies room. She was attacked by two teenage girls ages 19 and 14 and was beaten so badly she started having a seizure. If you heard of any trans attacks in the news it was probably this one due to the extremely violent and graphic video recording of the attack that went viral. Joe.My.God was one of many LGBT blogs that reported on the incident. One of the girls who attacked Ms. Polis has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

JULY 20: 23 year-old transwoman Lashai Mclean was shot to death in Northwest DC. Mclean was shot near a group home for homeless gay and transgender youth (another epidemic that will take a whole other article) where she was looking for housing.
Are you angry yet? Get angrier. When writing about Mclean’s murder The Washington Post used her birth name, misgendering her as male. Dr. Jillian Weiss at the Bilerico Project reported on that “mistake.”

JULY 31: A man approached Tonya Harrell and asked her for change. When she attempted to walk away the man pulled out a semiautomatic handgun and shot at her. Thankfully he missed and Harrell wasn’t injured. This attack came only eleven days after the murder of Lashai Mclean and this attack occurred on the same exact block as Mclean’s murder.

AUGUST 26: Off-duty MPD officer, Kenneth Furr, shot at three transgender women and two male friends while the group was sitting in a car. An intoxicated Furr became angry when he was rejected by one of the women after soliciting her for sex. A DC judge has ordered that Furr remain in jail, without bail, until his next court appearance.

SEPTEMBER 3: Police responded to complaints that two men were attempting to rob transgender women in Chinatown.

SEPTEMBER 10: A transwoman was found dead in Columbia Heights. The victim was reported to have severe trauma to the face and has yet to be identified.

SEPTEMBER 12: Transwoman shot in Southeast DC. Thankfully the attack was non-fatal.
The Metropolitan Police Department needs to be held accountable in protecting every resident of the District of Columbia and it needs to be made clear that attacks which are the result of bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity will not be tolerated and that justice will be carried out. First and foremost, MPD needs to admit that these crimes have legitimate basis and evidence of being hate crimes against the trans* community. In a press conference on September 12th relating to the Columbia Heights murder, high-ranking MPD officials, Assistant Police Chief Peter J. Newsham and Captain Michael Farish of the MPD’s Homicide Unit, said that there was not sufficient evidence that the victim was transgender. MetroWeekly reported further that:

“Newsham insisted that police did not have enough information to classify the death as ”suspicious,” even though an earlier e-mail sent out on the Listserv of the Special Liaison Unit, of which the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit (GLLU) is a part, said, ”This matter is being investigated as a suspicious death pending an official ruling from the District of Columbia Medical Examiner.’”’

The manner in which the Metropolitan Police Department has been handling these cases, specifically in the continued misgendering of the Columbia Heights victim, as one example, has organizers from DC Trans Coalition disappointed and distressed. Our culture has embarrassingly and shamefully continued to treat transgendered people as disposable. Back in July when Mclean was murdered an article by the Washington Times reported that DC crimes related to sexual orientation or gender identity jumped from 35 in 2009 to 45 in 2010. MPD needs to step up. Training(s) on TLGB issues should be mandatory for all officers at all levels of the department in order to further develop and implement competency. The current training is voluntary.

As for the world outside MPD; it is imperative that the L’s, G’s, B’s, and allies take up some effort in ensuring the safety of our DC trans* community. Too often our trans* siblings are left behind and forgotten despite the fact that they are at greater risk of physical violence and discrimination and more likely to live in poverty. The daily threat of violence increases exponentially in the lives of transwomen of color. Their safety is everyone’s safety and in the face of this blatant stream of violence trans allies should break their silence now more than ever and take on some kind of role in ending all forms of transphobia even if it’s something as small as writing your congressman in support of trans*-inclusion in all non-discrimination. If you are not a trans* and you are under the impression that transgender issues do not affect you, you are wrong. Issues relating to the trans* community also take on misogyny, homophobia, racism, employment/housing discrimination, lack of access to social services, hate crimes and much more.

Transgender Day of Remembrance is on November 20th.

-Ali Lozano

*“If you have been a victim of gender-based violence or you know someone who has reach out to the DC Trans Coalition at 202.681.3282 or email dctc@dctranscoalition.org, the Transgender Health Empowerment at 202.636.1646 or HIPS via their 24-hour hotline at 1.800.676.HIPS.  If you need police assistance, dial 911 or call the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit at 202.506.0714.”

Gardasil, a vaccine approved by the FDA to reduce cervical cancer and genital warts by preventing the main strains of HPV, was a hard sell to begin with. Since it is most effective before the patient becomes sexually active, it involves parents actually talking with their adolescent girls about sex, which means acknowledging that our adolescent girls are thinking about and/or having sex.  (Cue horrified gasp: You mean we can’t just wait until they get pregnant/an STI/married before mentioning sex to our kids? Come on Doc, little Sally’s only 13, she can’t possibly know what sex is!)

Then there was the completely logical theory that vaccinating our children against an STI would “give them permission” to sleep around.  (Yeah, because fears of HPV are the only thing keeping adolescents from sleeping with half of the eighth grade. Give them a little more credit, they’ve seen Teen Mom.) Or better yet, talk to your (pre)teen about sex in a positive, informative, and constructive manner. But I digress.

Eventually, however, we got past our naïveté and the CDC decided to recommend  the three course vaccine to women aged 9 to 26. I celebrate this first step and its implications for women’s health, but it begs the question, what about the boys? If the goal is to reduce the prevalence of HPV infection, why are we ignoring such a large percentage of carriers? After some of those girls in the commercials get sick of jumping rope, they might jump their boyfriends, who may have never even heard of HPV.

I don’t expect altruistic concerns for a future partner to motivate young men to get the shot, although if a vaccine were available for women to reduce the chance of giving their partner prostate cancer it would be mandated by law faster than you can say “patriarchy”. The reduction of HPV infections in men for men’s own sake makes sense too. When given the option of a three-time shot, or discovering a colony of genital warts on their nether regions, removable only by freezing and scraping, I tend to think most guys would choose the option that doesn’t involve sharp, cold things near their genitalia. The vaccine is also beneficial for men who have sex with men because HPV can cause certain anal cancers. Condoms don’t fully protect against HPV, because unlike many STIs, it can live from your belly button down to your thighs. If the vaccine can benefit people of all sexes and sexual habits, why are we only showcasing young women, making them the face of the most common STI?

Although the vaccine is approved by the FDA for young men, a recommendation is pending a cost-benefit analysis.  Until a recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics or a similar organization is made, healthcare providers are unlikely to bring it up and insurance companies are unlikely to cover the shot, which costs a few hundred dollars. Given the abysmal state of our healthcare system, it is necessary that we focus our limited resources where they will have a maximum impact. But a problem arises when, just like in every other arena, the choices being made consistently disadvantage women, especially women of color, like those featured in the commercial.

Take Viagra, for instance. Viagra was heralded as a miracle drug for its ability to help men experience fulfilling sex lives. Many state Medicaid insurance programs cover Viagra prescriptions, stating that if a doctor prescribes it, it must be medically necessary.  (While erections may be medically necessary, apparently female satisfaction is not.)  Medicaid programs do not cover Viagra when it is prescribed for a woman (surprise…our tissues down there are A LOT alike), or the new so-called “Pink Viagra” used to treat Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder in women because these medications and uses have not been approved by the FDA. Research into treatment for HSDD needs to be a priority so that the message that sexual activity is central to men’s well-being, but a luxury for women, can be eliminated.

In order to improve women’s (and everyone’s) health we need to make everyone “one less.” One less person committed to keeping adolescent sexuality under wraps, one less man who will give his partner HPV, and one less woman who has to suffer silently from sexual dysfunctions because of a system that prioritizes male sexuality.

-Holly Crowe

For instance, last fall a friend with good intentions signed me up for an online-dating website. Interestingly, I knew the majority of matches the site had picked for me based on my profile. I responded with laughter because, like Miss Scarlett, “Laughter is my defense.” In that moment, I may have seemed like I was finding everything completely amusing, but honestly I felt uncomfortable and vulnerable. Here I was being put out there to be judged, on the internet by complete strangers—or, well, not so strange people– of course I was going to feel that way; that’s a natural reaction. On top of that I had just come out of an almost four-year relationship with my best friend. Clearly, I was not ready and I found myself quite overwhelmed so I deleted my profile. However I can’t help but wonder: what if I had been ready? How would I have felt (about meeting someone online ) sans baggage?

Online-dating has negative connotations, but why? What is so wrong with wanting to meet someone minus the beer goggles? Nothing, nothing at all! Honestly, online dating gets a bad rap. Generally, people view those who have turned to online dating as “desperate,” characterizing them as awkward, ugly, unemployed, unable to make personal connections, or shallow and narcissistic. Yet, so many people put themselves out there on a daily basis, whether it is for a no-strings attached hook-up on Craigslist or a person to have coffee with– clearly these are just people yearning for some level of human connection. There is nothing wrong or shameful about that!  However, do I really want to be judged on my taste in superficial things or a Photo Booth picture of myself? Anyone who has seen High Fidelity knows that John Cusack’s character thinks these things– movies, books, television shows– matter, but do they really? Sort-of? Obviously, I don’t want to be judged at all, but even I do it myself. I struggle with the fact that I judge based on people’s profile picture and taste in music and books. Still, I think that one advantage to online dating is that it allows one to be picky, and that is okay.  Online dating and hook-ups also are more accessible and inclusive. For instance, being queer, I find navigating the dance clubs difficult– I feel uncomfortable inquiring about people’s sexuality and I’m not necessarily looking for a drunken-hook-up. Online dating would allow me to find potential dates somewhat worry-free.

Speaking of hook-ups—yet another friend with good intentions instigated a competition on Craigslist. It went like this: he would post “M4M NSA” and then make a duplicate post for me, “F4F NSA”. We would then see who got the most responses during a set time-period and the one with a response that actually panned out was the winner.  While his intentions were heartfelt I myself was not interested so I forfeited—making him automatically the winner.  Even though I love competition and hate losing I still had no desire to partake. I am having a difficult time convincing myself to have coffee or even dance with a stranger let alone have sex with one at this point in my life!

Clearly, I am not going to put myself out there right now, but if you feel like you are ready, then go for it! Navigating online dating websites can be difficult—so take a friend who can serve as your tour-guide or an online wing-person. Don’t be ashamed of signing up for OkCupid or posting on Craigslist—own it. In the meantime if you have single friends and good intentions, do not sign them up without consent! You can convince them to put themselves out there, but at the end of the day, they have to be ready and completely comfortable with it; it is the kind of thing people need to do for themselves.

-E.V. Ellington

The Hatchet quotes the man who was attacked as saying, “I’m extremely surprised that at such a progressive school such a hate crime would happen…I’m even more surprised that it would happen to a straight, white male.”

How curious it is, indeed, that a homophobic hate crime should take place against anyone, whether or not they are a straight, white male, on a campus that is supposedly progressive.  In a recent interview with Metro Weekly, Marika Lee of GW Allied in Pride said

I don’t think in any way that this incident is indicative of the climate at GW towards LGBTQ students. GW is a very welcoming school and provides a warm atmosphere for LGBT students, in my opinion.

Still, questions linger.  Why was the attack against a straight male?  Amanda Hess characterizes the typical college culture as one with homophobia deeply ingrained in its very discourse:

On college campuses everywhere, “faggot” has emerged as an all-purpose pejorative that is applied to both gays and straights in a wide range of contexts. The ubiquity of the epithet—which equates being gay with a whole host of negative perceptions, many of which have little relation to sexuality—absolutely perpetuates homophobia in America. But it also makes it more likely that the word will be used in an attack against a person who is actually—and is actually perceived to be—straight.

It perhaps did not matter to Richardson whether the man he attacked identified as gay.  However, the discourse Richardson constructed defined his target as such, and rationalized the violence through anti-LGBTQ norms, reinforcing these norms through an attack.  As Amanda Hess later points out, “a bias-motivated attack harms more than just the victim of violence—it threatens the entire community targeted by the epithet, too.”  Perhaps the most succinct summary of this tendency is illustrated through PrideInUtah.com’s headline: “Straight GWU Student Mistaken for a Gay Man, Beaten Half to Death.”

The survivor’s earlier comment calls into question the University’s role as a location of intersections—sexuality, gender, race, and ideology are all involved in the violent and “surprising” attack.  It is as though the surprise comes from two levels: a shock that something like a violent crime could have happened, and a shock that GW is somehow not as protective of a privileged class as it should be.  GW, however, is an institution of higher education that knows its location as protector of privilege no matter how many differences converge upon its campus.

There is the shock of violence, the surprise of violence.  It should be of surprise to no one that violence can exist on a college campus; with colleges and universities becoming more globally-focused, local violence and global violence cross paths.  It’s not every day that a student can take an introductory class for international affairs from someone who worked in a presidential administration responsible for some of the most reprehensibly violent state-sponsored terrorism of the 1980’s for the sake of spreading neoliberal economics.  Then again, what should we expect from a university with the IMF and World Bank on and adjacent to its campus?  Global violence starts from the structural violence built at GW, and this violence takes on gendered, sexualized, racialized, and other forms.

Then there is the shock of difference, and the surprise that privilege is not preserved.  GW as an institution of classical liberal tolerance must at once arbitrate between appearing proactive in creating safe spaces for everyone in the student body and working body, while maintaining structural privilege through exclusion.  In a city whose population is 54% black, less than 7% of GW’s undergraduate population identifies as black.  For a campus that is mostly women, this blog stands as a testament to sexism tolerated at GW.  Exclusion starts on campus and is sanctioned by the University, and when privilege is disrupted, it appears surprising.

As different groups vie for representation, the key is funding, but commenter on the Hatchet article, Isaiah Toney, points out a troubling issue regarding specifically the GW LGBTQ community:

… new regulations of the definition of an “umbrella organization” will force-fizzle the student umbrella organization Allied in Pride. The student organization Allied in Pride will still exist, but the LGBTQIQ community at GWU will lose funding for groups that do work in their interest.

Already the GW LGBT Resource Center has been without a full-time coordinator for months (EDIT: The LGBT Resource Center now has a full-time coordinator as released in a recent GW Today, but had still gone without one for at least two months), the Student Association canceled a performance by queer activist-poet Andrea Gibson (rumor has it that her agent was rude) (EDIT: Refer to comments posted by Allied representatives).  But with funding being further cut, hope of representation seems unlikely.

What happens when a neoliberal university uses capital as the means to representation and protection?  What happens when a university appears welcoming to difference, but rather excludes certain groups not fitting with norms of heterosexuality, whiteness, or maleness?  What happens when exclusion and a fostered local and global culture of violence implicate the university’s culture in a hate crime?  What happens when the order is disrupted?

Nothing happens, everything returns to normal, and GW couldn’t be happier.

-Paul Seltzer

Picture it DC, the end of July, and it is the final week of the summer course I’m taking. I’ve spent countless hours in the dungeon of doom (which is now my beloved place of work) writing a term paper and avoiding the humidity. Clearly, the thing I need the most is a study break not involving coffee for once, and who comes through for me but none other than “Cali-Boy.” Five minutes later, we were in the stacks and fooling around. After fumbling with my bra for what felt like an eternity, we were finally at second base. Before he made any moves, he made sure what he was about to do was okay with me (in a hushed whisper of course). After pleasing me, it was my turn to whisper and ask for his consent. So there I was, kneeling  in the library, in the religion section among the holy texts, giving a boy head (if any God exists I’m definitely going to Hell). Surprisingly, we finished uninterrupted, gathered our things, and both did the “stride of pride” back to our residence halls before saying our final goodbyes.

I traveled back to the future to my friends’ laughter. After their cackling was done, one asked me, “Do you remember his name?” In my head I was picturing him, but could not recall it.

I responded, “Hmm…I don’t actually remember his name. I think it started with an A? Andrew? No… Adam maybe? Oh well it doesn’t really matter. It was a long time ago.”

My friend then replied, “You don’t remember his name?! I remember the name of my crush from 5th grade! How could you not remember his name?” I did my best Kanye-shrug and changed the topic.

Not remembering his name doesn’t really bother me, but it got me thinking. How significant are hook-ups and one night stands? Is it disrespectful to not know someone’s name? I mean, I’m not disregarding him as a human being, and he’s certainly not just another notch in my bed post. Is there a difference when it comes to different genders and sexualities when it comes to hookups? Of course there is!

For women, losing one’s virginity is supposed to make her feel guilty and shameful, while for men, losing one’s virginity results in fist bumps and accolades. When women are riding the metro at 7am on a Saturday morning in their outfits from the night before it’s a “walk of shame,” but when men do the same it’s called the “stride (or ride) of pride.” If women forget the name of a person they hooked-up with then she’s a cold-hearted bitch, but for a man it’s just another notch in his bed post. When it comes to queer women, according to stereotypes, one night stands don’t exist, and when it comes to queer men, they’re perceived as promiscuous and commitment phobic. But doesn’t everyone deserve to be proud of getting what they want and connecting with others? You shouldn’t feel shameful or guilty for having sex, but you also don’t have to go around flaunting it if you do not want to. Disregard stereotypes and do what you want to do (with consent of course).

That being said, Spring Break is next week and my mind instantly conjures up images from “The Real World: Cancun.” No matter where you are going, whether it be home to visit your parents or to a non-stop party in Cancun, just remember to have fun and drink responsibly. Do what you want to do and hook-up as much as you want to hook-up. You don’t have to remember the name of the person you’re hooking up with (even though that would be nice and respectful), but you need to remember to employ consent and practice safe sex.

Have an awesome and relaxing Spring Break!

-The Librarian