Historically, women have been forced into the confines of culture and society, staying behind as wife and mother, which has too often become synonymous with being silent and submissive. Women have seen war first hand as fighters, but more often as victims. Women have had to stay in their homes, which were also the front lines, waking up to villages burnt down, family and friends murdered, and children victims of sexual abuse. Cultural conflict has divided not only particular regions but also the world as a whole. People want answers, and oftentimes those who seek answers are the women at home, who must endure the discovery that their sons in battle have died or gone missing. It doesn’t matter so much at this time whose side they were on or what they were fighting for, the result is the same. 

Women see and feel the same terrors of war as men do, arguably more than men do. They often stay home and see the battle, left with thoughts of their loved ones involved, or having to play a passive role in the conflict itself. They are sexually abused, houses are raided or burned down and every day is a new beginning that may end tragically. The Liberian Women’s Initiative (LWI) was started by women in Liberia who were tired of the conflict that was taking place at their front doors. The conflict started between the various ethnic groups in that region and their fight for natural resources. We have seen many times that migration patterns and displaced persons have often created conflict in regions due to resource scarcity however, what was coming from the terror and brutality? 

The Liberian women of this region were growing tired of what they were witnessing day in and day out. Their families were being torn apart; they couldn’t properly care for their children and were forced to leave their homes at times due to gunfire or bombings. They had to witness the young boys in their regions forced to join the “Small Boys Units” where they were forced to take drugs and participate in acts they did not want to do. The Liberian women were growing tired of what their lives had become and what they had to witness for their children. It was time to stand up to this conflict to make a difference for the better, but what could they do and who would listen? 

Organized resistance began in a women’s church group. A member had taken a strong stance: she expressed her frustrations and demanded change. The other women were compelled to join in: they all felt the same pains and concerns. They may have not known each other, but they all knew each other’s pain. Ultimately, this is what brought them together to create the LWI. An unlikely ally in this group of Christian women was a Muslim, who shared the same frustrated emotions and urgent goals as the group. She stood before the group and expressed her alliance with these women. Then she announced that she would also take this message of solidarity amongst women and transmit it to her Muslim sisters, which she did.

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

We seldom see in history two groups of differing religious affiliations come together to fight for the same thing. They were able to focus on their similarities while putting differences aside, so they could fight for the greater good of their communities. This greater good would not only benefit the women, it would also benefit the men. The LWI began peacefully protesting, demanding a change in their government and demanding that they speak with their president, Charles Taylor. Not only did these women stand up to their government, their president and violent combatants, they set a productive and inspiring example of differing faiths coming together to make their shared community a better and safer place. If these women could do it, why couldn’t other groups of Liberians, as well as people of divergent views around the world, do the same? 

Other examples of these mass demonstrations of peace come from thousands of miles away, in Ireland, where mothers and wives provided food to Irish families affected by conflict during the time of the Troubles, from the late 1960’s to 1998. This caused disorder in the British military, as these women were not focused on fighting, but rather on helping those who were most affected by the violence. These women knew that they were disavowed from the conflict itself, but that did not preclude them from helping their countrymen in need. Two women from Northern Ireland, Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams, took action and demanded peace after the death of Corrigan’s sisters, three children and another young bystander who were killed amongst the violence from the conflict. 

Calling for peace seems like something that should come naturally, as it benefits everyone, yet it often seems to be more difficult than waging war. Women haven’t been included in peace talks, as it has been thought that including women means they would talk mainly about women’s rights and equality rather than the martial issues at hand. According to a former U.S. ambassador to Africa, there is discrimination against women when it comes to policymaking as “the impact of decisions made at the table are rarely considered through the experiences of women who have lived with them.” (Anderllini, 62) 

The complex issues around war demand complex and nuanced solutions. As mentioned by Anderlini, peace talks often send men back to a home where their wives and children are more used to their absence than their presence. All these men know is war, so they often begin to wage it in the confines of their own home, in the form of domestic violence, severe alcoholism and acute drug abuse. 

This reality is often ignored or underplayed when policymaking and peace talks are discussed by men alone. Men engaged in “peace talks” are the same who perpetrate violence behind enemy lines. Thus we know that transitioning to a “normal” life after battle isn’t always as easy as it sounds, not just for the perpetrators but for the victims of violence as well. Though the argument has been made that some women in war zones have detached themselves from the conflict, this does not mean that they cannot be forthcoming and responsive to the societal ills that result from the violence. Swanee Hunt, former U.S. ambassador to Austria, says of the conflict in Bosnia: “Women…disavowed the violence…but they leaned forward, rather than pulling back, to confront the challenges of postwar Bosnia.” Swanee argues that, precisely because the war was not a women’s war, it is the women who are best equipped to shape the peace. 

Women have the ability to positively influence post-conflict peace and can bring fresh ideas to crafting lasting stability, if they are given the chance and taken seriously. According to Hunt and Posa, research in the social sciences show that women are more collaborative than men and are more capable of reaching a consensus and compromise, something that is necessary for peacemaking. Women are well suited to “walk the walk and talk the talk” when it comes to living in peace, whereas men in positions of power may say one thing and then act in a totally different manner, as they are often swayed by other men in politics who have varying agendas. Men in war zones have a hard time getting on the same page, which makes productive compromises in the name of peace very difficult. In the article Irish Talks: Men Posture, Women Progress, Monica McWilliams, a delegate in Northern Ireland's all-party peace talk said: “Some of the men at the table think that compromise is a weak word, we believe we can show it to be a very strong word indeed.” (McWilliams, 1996). 

Women are sometimes involved in the conflicts themselves, as we have seen in the Rwandan genocide as well as within the ranks of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. However, their inclusion in peace can often bring more women together, as well as shed light on issues at home that others might not be aware of. It is important for all people involved in a conflict to come together to find a common ground, including the fighters on each side. The women who reside in war-afflicted regions such as Uganda, Rwanda and Palestine cannot ask their fighters to simply retreat and go home, with only memories of war. The fighters’ homes, villages and familiar cityscapes were often the front lines. They now need to find new places to call home and rebuild communities anew. Moving on from a war zone involves more than just ceasing fire; it demands a total rebuilding from the ashes of terror and death. 

The roles that women can play in peace talks are myriad. As mentioned above, there have been arguments made that women should not be involved in peace talks, as they have not taken part in the conflict itself. Additionally, there have been arguments made that women are not well versed enough in politics to make a stand for policies and peace. While this may be the case for some women, there are many exceptions. These exceptions include the Liberian Women’s Initiative, the women of Northern Ireland, and all the other powerful women who have made their positons heard, even amongst those who did not believe them worthy of a voice. “If Muslims or Hindus, Jews or any particular race of people were systematically absent, there would be an outcry and accusations of prejudice and oppression. Yet exclusion on the basis of sex is readily tolerated.” (Anderlilni, 62) Toleration is the issue at hand. For too long have women stood by while men make decisions for them. We assume that just because people are in the government and involved with policymaking, this means they have the ability to make the right call for all the stakeholders involved. This is not always the case, of course, as the mother’s loss of a child, or the burning down of a village is often not the lived experience of those making the decisions. As Betty Williams said during her Nobel Peace Prize speech: “As far as we are concerned, every single death in the last eight years, and every death in every war that was ever fought represents life needlessly wasted, a mother's labor spurned." (Williams, 1976)

As we have learned, war isn’t just a man’s game. Women are just as involved, if sometimes in differing capacities, and thus peace does not have to be decided only by men. Women can make a positive difference in crafting a sustainable future for war-torn communities. Men and women, together, can bridge the gaps between gender, society and culture.

War is ever changing, and so too should be our approach to peace. Instead of governments excluding women’s voices at the negotiating table, they should be willing to hear many different ideas for a ceasefire, as well as how to maintain stability in communities after conflicts. Instead of holding biology against those who can make a difference in post-war community building, embrace all the voices who were affected by the violence. We must evolve on who we allow to negotiate peace. Without evolution, the world would not be where it is today. Women would not have the right to vote in the United States, nor would they be able to drive in Saudi Arabia. The science and art of conducting peace talks and crafting post-war stability would be much more advanced than it is now, had there been adequate inclusion of women to begin with. But it is not too late to begin.

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

References 

Anderlini, Sanam Naraghi. Women Building Peace: What They Do, Why It Matters. Lynne Rienner Publishing, 2007. 

Hunt, Swanee, and Cristina Posa. “Women Waging Peace.” Foreign Policy, no. 124, 2001, p. 38., doi:10.2307/3183189. 

Karim, Sabrina. “Restoring Confidence in Post-Conflict Security Sectors: Survey Evidence from Liberia on Female Ratio Balancing Reforms.” British Journal of Political Science, vol. 49, no. 3, 2017, pp. 799–821., doi:10.1017/s0007123417000035. 

Wynne-Jones, Ros. “Irish Talk: Men Posture, Women Progress .” The Independent, vol. 1996, 16 June 1996.

The above quote demonstrates that women often find a calling to fight for their country and to defend territorial or ideological sovereignty. Although some may not see them as equals, (as we too often find here in the West) they nonetheless feel inclined to fulfill their duty as citizens. Again, if they are willing and able, they should be welcomed with open arms and trained as the men are in every available position.

The authors of Insurgent Women mention another finding: “that leftist groups are more likely to recruit women, Islamic groups are less likely to do so and nationalist ideology seems to make little difference” (Darden et al., 2019). Thus, even in factions where women are willing to participate, such as the Islamic groups, they are still not welcome. This conclusion provides evidence to support the theory that women being unable to serve militarily stems from culture, not biological inability. Even in a state military, such as Saudi Arabia’s, women were only allowed to join their ranks as of 2018, and even then, the male guardianship law remained intact.

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

This tug of war between men and women, rule makers and rule breakers, comes down to what is common and socially accepted in the culture. Laws aside, where would an Eastern woman think that she deserves freedom or a right to her own mind and body if not from the “shapeless and wayward” women of the West? As though women everywhere do not have a mind of their own, or the ability to acutely feel inequality.

The Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck once said, “What we learn from history is that no one learns from history.” This is more true than not. As noted previously, the ancient Egyptians have many women to thank for their successes, however, the Egyptians of modern day do not look to their female ancestors for guidance. In speaking of one of the more successful female rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty in Egypt, author Kara Cooney says: “Hatshepsut we must resurrect from the ashes of history and investigate why female success is so easily ignored, while female failure is so beautifully aggrandized.”

When fighting for female equality, oftentimes the justification for women’s placement in society comes down to their perceived lack of physical strength, their inability to have multiple children at one time, or their menstruation. This rationale is both misogynistic and patently absurd.

Western Women Fight For Equal Rights

So what does this all mean in terms of what women can handle, and the ways in which they are stifled in reaching their potential? Earlier in this essay, I said that in the West, there is a common tactic that leverages the perceived flaws of other cultures and traditions as a way to self-aggrandize the “progressivity” of the West. This sleight of hand allows for Western cultural doctrine to claim advances, while its inhabitants ignore or downplay the many standards that need to be improved upon. This duplicitous logic is especially detrimental for women fighting for equal rights in the West.

Captain Micah Ables, author of Women Aren’t the Problem. Standards Are, makes the case for women against the aforementioned declared deficiencies of the “weaker sex.” Introducing women into the U.S. military took a long time, and did not occur in earnest until the desperations of WWI, when jobs made vacant by men sent to the front needed to be filled. Women were the only people left to work in munitions factories, as railway guards and in many other jobs previously held exclusively by men. Still, even when women were more than willing and more than needed, there was nonetheless a resistance to hiring women to do what was seen as “men’s work.” To add insult to injury, even when women did the “men’s work,” (and did it well) their pay and treatment remained stubbornly inferior compared to their male counterparts. (The Public Domain Review)

For decades, American women have been unfairly scrutinized for wanting to serve in the military, as the idea pushes back against fabricated gender stereotypes, and distorts the image of a “typical” working class, apple pie American family. Even if their presence is needed and beneficial, there will always be someone who disagrees. The arguments and tired tropes always look the same: weak physiology, inability to achieve cohesiveness, and “too many stressors” for overly emotional women to handle. Captain Ables discusses the mixed gender platoon he leads and how the women in this group make the unit stronger and better. Ables asks: “Are they average women? No. But if they can meet the standard; why ban them from doing so?” (Ables, 2019)

Any organization that requires physical agility and strength will require people who are above average in terms of physical fitness and determination to succeed. Although there will always be misogynist arguments against women joining the ranks, this is hardly the fault of the women! Ables continues: “What gender-neutral Army standards exist were not created to qualify more women, they were designed to ensure that standards were not lowered just to qualify more women.” (Ables, 2019)

Certainly, there is no dearth of examples of men who cannot handle the physical demands of military training. After all, more than 15% of male recruits do not pass boot camp (McHugh, 2020). While it is true that more men are willing and able to succeed in combat, those women who meet the standards should not be turned away simply because they are women. Rather, these outstanding women should be included, celebrated, and supported. The inclusion of women provides more diversity and a varied way of thinking to the group.

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

A plethora of studies have been conducted to support the advantages that women bring to cohorts. One such example is the U.S. Army’s Female Engagement Teams (FET). Some male soldiers would run into issues of trust and compliance when attempting to speak with native women while overseas. At times, there were success stories, but more often than not, the presence of a woman made these interactions more comfortable and safe for everyone around. Ables explains: “I wish I had had a female soldier with me in Afghanistan when an Afghan woman approached me begging for help. Armed males menacingly gathered around to heckle and began physically harassing her for talking to me; I tried to help, but the more I tried, the worse it got. After we left, I never saw that woman again; I’m still haunted by what may have happened to her. If I had had a female soldier with me, that situation might have ended very differently.” (Ables, 2019)

According to evolutionary biologist Dr. Sharon Moalem: “When it comes to survival, over and over throughout history we see that females have the advantage because of the extra X chromosome.” (Moalem, 2019) That extra X chromosome gives women 1000 extra genes, some of which code for things like tetrachromacy, giving women more color perception channels, and so on. According to the findings that were made by Moalem and his research studies, women have been known to have a higher pain tolerance, and a higher survival rate in less than favorable environments when compared to men. Why would we not want women, who historically outlive men when placed in brutal conditions, to be part of the team sent to fight our battles? I believe the simple answer is culture.

Biology has proven to us that women survive and thrive better in the same climates and conditions as their male counterparts. Biology has given us these answers, but it is culturethat has defined our societies since time immemorial, not biology. Historian Yuval Noah Harari paints a great picture when he talks about sex and gender in the cultural sphere of the past. Harari states: “A man is not a Sapiens with particular biological qualities such as XY chromosomes, testicles and lots of testosterone. Rather, he fits into a particular slot in his society’s imagined human order. His culture’s myths assign him particular masculine roles (like engaging in politics) rights (like voting) and duties (like military service)” (Harari, Sapiens, 2018). Harari goes on to explain how myths, rather than biology, have set the historical framework for “manhood and womanhood” from one society to another.

As it pertains to our societal perception of war, it is often cultural artifacts that dictate our prejudices, rather than biological or evolutionary facts. In Jan Matejko’s famous painting, Battle of Grunwald (circa 1878), we see brave men riding on horseback with sword and guns in hand, carrying the heavy shields through the mud and muck. When I look at a war painting like this one and others, I can understand why a topical understanding would cause people to argue that war is no place for a “lady.”

In order to succeed in combat, one needs to be physically strong enough to endure the demands. This however, is a fabricated condition of culture, not based on biological fact. In a military study that political scientist Joshua Goldstein completed in the 1980’s, he found that the strongest women were stronger than the weakest men. If this is the case, then we may logically conclude that military jobs which require strength may be open, at the very least, to those women whose strength surpasses that of some men. However, even with these findings, the “weakest” men were still assumed to be on the front lines. Goldstein claims that there is not as much of a great divide between the physical abilities of the sexes as many believe. In fact, in terms of physical endurance, men and women are comparable (War and Gender, 2001).

Of course, on average we can see that men have larger muscles and greater physical strength. I am not arguing this. However, if there are some exceptions to the rule where we find women just as strong or stronger, no matter how small the variance; why exclude them from positions they are willing and able to fulfill? In modern warfare, the absolute value of physical strength has declined, as we no longer approach the frontlines on horseback, and we no longer use heavy armor and swords. Rather, modern armies possess highly technical instruments that do much of the fighting for them. Being a physically strong tank driver does not provide an exceptional advantage in the battlefield. Big muscles do not equate to excellence in remote-controlled drone navigation.

In 2013, the United States did finally lift combat exclusions for women under the Obama administration. At the same time, we see other regions around the world involving women at high percentages, such as Israel, where women can be found in 69% of all positions. Israel has included women in combat since 1995 (UK Ministry of Defense, 2015). Even though it may take some countries longer to include women in their ranks, a move in the right direction is evolution nonetheless.

Throughout the world, women are slowly but surely gaining equality, but does this mean they will be seen and regarded as equals? The race for women to obtain equal status and recognition may be a long time coming, and the myriad reasons for this are woven into the fabric of each county. The complexities of this fight for women are as vast as the traditions they come out of. As nations begin to incorporate the history of their female ancestors, and truly fathom the leadership potential of their female citizens, a future where women are equitably treated and fairly utilized may be closer at hand than we think. As global thought leader Tian Wei reminds us, “any society that fails to harness the energy and creativity of its women is at a huge disadvantage in the modern world.” (World Economic Forum, 2014)

Subscribe now

Stories of strong women who take control of their own destinies were uncommon in millennia past, and are often considered taboo or uncouth to this today. When we look into the cultures and mores of the modern age, the positions that women take up in society are often not proportionate to their skill sets and abilities. When women want to step into positions of power and leadership, they are met with sideways glances and patronizing commentary by their male counterparts, who may feel they are giving up their rightful place in line for someone who is not as suited for the position as they are.

History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It still seems as though the promotion of women to positions of high stature is not considered to be “natural,” the way it is for modern men. Certainly, there are contemporary examples of women in history that have set a positive example, such as Margaret Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth II. The exemplary accomplishments of these women demonstrate that it is possible for women to meet the same challenges as men when it comes to leadership, strategy, statecraft and mental fortitude.

So then, if we know this to be true, why are there not more examples of female military commanders, agency heads, and world leaders? Why do we need to rattle our brains to remember the one or two that may come to mind? I believe that throughout the world, cultural constructs have left little room for the growth of women, as they are all too often shoehorned into more domestic roles. These traditions of subservience and passivity have given rise to the impression that women are not suitable, physically or biologically, for the same roles as men. In this essay, I wish to bring to the forefront some underappreciated ideals that exist in the West, as well as the non-Western world, and how they prove more often than not that women are actually very well suited to serve and lead in the same ways as men. To achieve this, we must step back into history and disassemble the cultural walls and glass ceilings that have been built around women for centuries.

Non-Western Practices and Traditions

In India, there is an uncommon practice known as Sati, where a woman will fling herself onto the funeral pyre of her deceased husband. As outlandish as this tradition may seem, it is still alive today. Sati came into existence, as many traditions do, by way of religion and spiritual faith. This practice was born from Hinduism, whose believers are concerned mainly with the karmic laws of cause and effect (Estrada, 2019). What happens to them in this life plays a significant role in what happens to them in the afterlife and in reincarnation. To show that they are a devout wife to their husband, these women will literally hurl their bodies into flames. When a woman commits Sati, it is considered the completion of the Sativrata stage of a dutiful wife. Once burned alive, she would be endowed with supernatural powers, giving her the ability to bless and curse others. Such martyred women are worshiped by their families as Satimata (Jain, 2018).

The story of the Satimata may seem poetic, even romantic. What I find interesting about this practice, however, is that nowhere in the instructions of Sati does it have the husband fall on the pyre of his deceased wife should she meet her fate before him. Thus, the practice of Sati seems to suggest that women exist for their husband’s sake only, that to be a dutiful and devout wife is their highest and holiest purpose. This practice instructs women that when their husbands pass, there is no longer any purpose for them. More importantly, what does the practice of Sati say to the men who are the audience for the tradition? The practice paints a tainted picture of women as objects to accompany their male counterparts in the afterlife, similar to how the pharaohs were buried with their treasures. In terms of hierarchy and placement in the community, these women are not to be seen as equals deserving of the same treatment as men. If they were, then the men would be lining up to commit Sati too.

Similar, at least in theory, to Sati is the abominable practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) that is practiced and still very much alive today across the African continent, as well as certain parts of Australia. In Egypt, women are circumcised at an alarming rate, upwards of 78-98%, according to Al-Mastry Al-Youm, a journalist for Egypt Independent News (2020).

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

Egyptian feminists have been working hard since the 1990’s to eradicate the barbaric practice, as so many young girls are left traumatized after the dangerous procedure. Some of these blossoming young women even die as a result of FGM. Maya Morsi, the President of Egypt’s National Council for Women, has called for a change in the culture surrounding this practice and to fight back against what she describes as a “reprehensible” practice that aims to “hurt and humiliate” women (Mastry Al-Youm, 2020).

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the reasons for such practices have varied, however they all come down to sociocultural norms. FGM occurs in roughly 30 countries and has been thought to reduce women’s urges of extramarital sexual acts by way of removing the woman’s clitoris (clitoridectomy), which reduces the libido and helps women to “resist sexual acts” (WHO, 2016).

Research organizations that have studied this practice have unveiled the fact that this form of torture towards women and young girls only causes harm. FGM has no health benefits (WHO, 2020). By continuing with these societal norms, the message being implicitly taught to girls is that they do not deserve the same pleasures as men, and cannot be treated the same as men. It also shows the men and boys of these cultures that females are not to be seen as equals in how they self-express: that their emotions and physical urges are of the utmost evil and need to be removed to preserve the sanctity of the community. It teaches boys and young men that when women have sexual urges, they cannot control themselves, and are likely to engage in an affair with someone other than their own partner. Thus, the warped thinking goes, men must intervene in the bodies of women and amputate the cause of the problem. Again, in contrast, what is the punishment for men who commit adultery? Even after decades of knowledge that “in general, men are more likely than women to cheat,” (Wendy Wang, 2018) there is no mass movement to turn young boys into eunuchs for the sake of propriety.

It seems that culture has led women down an insidious cultural rabbit hole, where the prevailing belief is that they are not the equals of men, and in fact need to be tamed, looked after, and “husbanded.” The result of this deeply held belief is that women receive lesser treatment than their male counterparts, and must undergo ordeals that cause pain, dehumanization and the questioning of one’s self-worth.

Perhaps this is where the taboo against women warriors and soldiers is born. Women who bravely fight for themselves, or even for a country that doesn’t believe in them, are too often ignored, overlooked, or negatively judged. These Amazon fighters are seen as sinners, hysterics and an aberration. Imposing draconian traditions and cultural norms on young girls, just as they are attempting to discover their true selves, leaves little room for them to explore their own genuine beliefs about the world.

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

In discussing the treatment of women across various cultural landscapes, it is the Islamic and Middle Eastern cultures that are often brought up first. Putting aside the Islamophobia that feeds this tendency, there is good reason to associate Islam with FGM. Women who follow Islam broadcast their faith to the outside world by way of donning the hijab, the veil worn by women of the Muslim faith. This veiling alone often gives Westerners the misperception that these women have no freedom to look as they want, act as they want and think as they want.

To a degree, these Western thinkers are correct, however it is not the veil that suppresses. Rather, it is the culture itself that leaves women with an insatiable thirst for freedom. In Saudi Arabia, there is a male guardianship law that is upheld by all of its citizens and enforced by the state. Under this law, women are controlled by men unrelentingly from birth to death.

In Saudi Arabia, every woman is unable to do the things that would otherwise make her an individual, such as driving, choosing a marriage partner, employment, and travel. Conversely, each man is free to do as he pleases. It wasn’t until 2018 that Saudi Arabia allowed women driving privileges, however they still need permission from their male guardian, who can be either their father, husband or even a son (Human Rights Watch, 2019). This guardianship law is but a single example of the comprehensively oppressive treatment that Saudi women have to endure. There are no such laws for the men in these countries and no way for them to understand the inequalities that are asked of the women. In Saudi Arabia, being born with ovaries is a life-long curse.

Across the Red Sea in Egypt, domestic violence is rampant and all too often goes unseen. As a good Egyptian woman, one must always obey her husband and father, so when they find a need to “put her in her place” per se, it is considered to be for the betterment of the family. Lest she speak up for her own defense, she will be in a worse place than she began. “The minute they become critics, it is said, they cease to belong to their own culture and become puppets of the Western elite.” (Nussbaum, pg. 37)

As a counter argument to women who, as Nussbaum says, “become critics,” Egyptian men accuse them of trying to become more “westernized,” which is tantamount to pure evil. For where else, the men reason, would a woman get the corrupt idea that she should be given freedom and the right to their own self-preservation? Although the common thought is that some of these countries do not have laws that provide protection for their women, they in fact do.

The two main legislative instruments protecting women from sexual violence are the Egyptian Constitution of 2014 and the Criminal Code of 1937, along with its amendments. Though these rules remain in place, we still hear of such brutality against women happening to this day, and it largely goes unpunished.

“But then feminists appeal to notions of equality and liberty – even when those notions are actually included in the constitutions of the nations in which they live – they are frequently accused of Westernizing and of insufficient respect for their own cultures” (Nussbaum, pg. 38)

If women simply attempting to break down sexual and gender barriers are demonized as “western puppets,” how would it be perceived by the greater society if a women held a leadership role in their country, such as the head of a bank, military general, or even just a store

owner? These possibilities remain mostly out of reach for Islamic women, not only in Egypt but in other parts of the Middle East, North Africa and the Levant. There are certain aberrations: women in these areas who do manage to occupy leadership roles in organizations that are generally regarded as exclusively for men. These women, though exceedingly rare, set an important example for others to follow.

Subscribe now

Where do they like to spend their afternoons in the city? How about favorite dinner spots? Best bookstores and toy shops? What are the latest fashion trends? What hobbies do folks enjoy? They would answer and then they would ask us about our lives in the United States. And it was beautiful, for once in my life, to not have to answer the dreaded “just met you” question: “So, what do you do for a living?” Ugh.

The reality is, in France, and other countries outside of the states, no one cares about what you do for a living. They would rather focus on who you are: your interests, likes and dislikes, proclivities and aversions, dreams and goals. Doesn't this tell you so much more about the kind of person you are, rather than reducing yourself down to your job?

In America, it’s all about what you do. If you're a lawyer, you must have lawyer friends, go to places where lawyers go, and do lawyer things like maybe go to bougie Scotch bars and occupy box seats at basketball games? I have no idea what lawyers do, because I don't care.

Who cares what you “do for a living” anyway? Americans, that’s who. Damn, before traveling in France I didn't realize how annoying it was to be asked that stupid question so often. And for what? Personally, I don’t care whether you dip fries in oil at McDonalds or perform heart surgeries in operating rooms. This sort of distinction only matters to a society that wants to pigeonhole and place each person into their respective socio-economic category. The fact is, Americans have constructed a financial caste system. But no one likes to say that out loud, do they?

In many parts of the world, as well as in France, I learned that doctors are paid roughly the same no matter what specialty they are in. There is no need to be so competitive with your peers and stress your children out about being the top of this or that, because they will be able to make a decent living either way. Oh, and they won't be half a million dollars in debt by the time they graduate. Sounds pretty good to me.

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

I have a certain friend in France with whom I chatted extensively about the differences between America and France. He acknowledged to me that he never experienced the societal stressors that so many of us have as Americans. Of course, every household is unique, and parents raise their children to believe different things.

However, in America it's less about what you believe and more about what others believe about you, isn't it? There is a greater emphasis placed on how society values you rather than how much you value yourself. It's a real shame. Think about all the times you could have expressed yourself fully, worn what you wanted, or said that thing you wanted to say but didn’t, because you were too worried about what others would think?

Coming back home from over 2 months in France was bittersweet. To be honest, it was more bitter than sweet. I found myself being sucked back into the America Effect, as I call it. I got sucked back in so quickly, in fact, I never had the chance to properly reflect on my trip, to think about the things I pondered while sitting across from the Notre Dame, or walking down Champs Élysées, or spending an entire afternoon at La Bete Noir discussing the possibilities of living in Paris.

I never had the time to think about any of this because of the America Effect. Because I’m an American in 2022, I have to get back fast because I have to get a job fast, because I have to pay bills fast. I have to make sure I acquire health insurance, fast, so that if something drastic happens to me, I won’t lose my entire future and the prime years of my life trying to pay down ruinous medical bills.

I have to worry about my stupid Cox communications bill that had been overcharged by Cox, because they are a profit-obsessed corporation that wants to feed off my energy and money. I have to make sure I have a place to live, fast, because it is way too easy to end up strung out on the street. In America, no one catches you if you fall.

This is how things go in this deeply flawed place that wants to present itself to the rest of the world as perfect. The pinnacle of human society. An example for everyone else to follow, whether they want to or not. America, the land of the unfree and the home of the slave.

I know that many of my fellow Americans share this frustration with me. We don’t have any of the assistance that citizens of other countries do. We don’t have the ability to really be our sovereign selves the way my French counterparts do.

Now, of course there are pros and cons, but we’ll save that for a different essay. The point here is, I spent two months in a country that will never understand the issues that I have to come home to. France just doesn't run that way.

Subscribe now

My friend in Paris works in a humble bookshop, and he is happy and all his needs are met. He doesn’t have the stress of worrying about getting this degree or that, making sure he gets this promotion or has this “horizontal mobility” in the corporation that exploits his labor so ruthlessly.

So what is he doing spending so many years in this little book shop? Not obsessing about the nuts and bolts of his raw survival, that’s what. Of course he wants better for himself and has goals and dreams, but his life is beautiful right now, and that is what he was taught to focus on. The now. Not something in the future that you’re supposed to go into debt for.

I have a Masters degree, and for my peers that have graduated from higher education institutions, you can agree that the only thing we all have in common is our debt. We owe so much, while our peers who have stayed focused on one particular skill or trade make more money than we do.

We don’t do everything right here in America. But we sure as hell make it seem like we do, don’t we? The America Effect is omnipresent. Perhaps by speaking freely about it, we can work together to craft a more grounded and egalitarian society. Perhaps we can learn from the cultures of other nations, rather than bombing them to the stone age if they don’t jump into bed with the giant corporations and capitalist overlords who rule over us so brutally.

The American Effect; it affects us all.

Give a gift subscription

If we are honest, we can admit that no one actually follows their religious texts down to the letter. Not only would this be utterly incompatible with most modern lifestyles, but also because many so-called people of faith don't even know what their own sacred text actually says.

The majority of acolytes read translations of their ancient religious tomes and take them mostly at face value because the majority of “truisms” these translations proclaim actually work pretty well for the average “normie.” I wonder, though, why is it that the “sin of homosexuality” is so often the main focus when it comes to conversations about religion? As I've mentioned, I come from a home where not one but two religions were shoved down my throat. And you know what? I couldn't tell you a single time where either of my parents showed me a verse from these books that was helpful in any way to my life. They and their books were not supportive, merciful, or non-judgmental the way a devout religious person “should” be. They did, however, show me that being a lesbian was a sin against God and punishable by eternity in hell. A nice positive message. And they did shun me and treat me like an animal, all in the name of their merciful and loving god. 

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

I find it fascinating that the people who are most unyielding and loud when proclaiming their anti-gay life manuals are also the ones who have the most to say about the “true meaning” of the words of their religious books. However, they only have something loud to say when it'sabout judging someone else and not of themselves. Always quick to point out the faults of others yet are always stone silent regarding their own shortcomings.

If there is something that amazing and uplifting about their holy books, something so profound that they would dedicate their entire life to it, why not show us that greatness and profundity through their own actions? Why not show us how great it is to be a child of God? Instead, their harshness and judgmentalism proves that they are just as much a sinner as the rest of us because their god always preaches against being judgmental. You know, the whole “he who has not sinned throw the first stone” shtick? To me the issue is simple. It's not actually religion that is the root of the problem here. Rather, the issue is people who wield a book like a cudgel to hurt others.

I have always felt that most of the fundamental tenets of religion are beautiful. However, people make it ugly. If you choose to believe in God, then I think this god is a reflection of who you actually are, not who you pretend to be.

So, if your faith dictates that you oppose homosexuality, it’s not because you are accuratelyrepresenting your god and religion but rather because you are homophobic, and this homophobia can be caused by a variety of factors.

That is why it’s possible for me to have both friends and foes who are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, agnostic, or atheist. When my religious neighbor tells me I’m going to hell for being a lesbian, because his religious texts tell him so, while my secular neighbor tells me it’s wrong to be gay because of “the laws of nature.” As if homosexuality is not a pervasive aspect of nature. As if it hasn’t been practiced by humans since the dawn of time.

Simply put, homophobia has been ingrained in the human experience from time immemorial. Is this the result of intolerant religions? Partially, yes. But then how is it that so many of God's children remain unphased by the sight of LGBTQ+ folks in their community? Why are there Christians at the gay pride parade?

It is tempting to say this is due to an increase in tolerance on a societal level, but I also think that it's more complex than that. There are more factors at play than just religion that “makes” someone homophobic.

Yuvbal Noah Harai, an openly gay scientist and author, said in an interview, “If a heterosexual man finds out that his neighbor is gay, he should be very happy about this.”

What Harai was getting at is that, if one’s neighbor is gay, then there is less of a competition for available mates in the straight man’s neighborhood. A gay neighbor will never be the reason why a heteronormative man cannot find a mate. More likely, he will have trouble finding a mate because intolerance is unattractive.

I agree with Harai’s statement. Homosexuals are just as natural as heterosexuals, and their existence is an evolutionary development meant to create a homeostasis amongst our ever-growing, unsustainably massive human population. Simply put: breeders be breeding, and we need as many gay people as possible to slow our roll. The Earth is a finite resource.

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

Our planet supports billions and billions of human beings who all need to eat, create waste, and multiply. What if every single human in our world were to find a mate and procreate? We are already steadily depleting our resources; the last thing we need is to blindly add to this strain.

Homosexuals are born the way they are, naturally. It is not a choice made by the individual; it is a choice made by nature, by biology. The genetics of our parents have built into it a tendency towards homosexual offspring. Giving birth to homosexuals is a logical, evolutionary means of guaranteeing that the next generation of lovers will not always end up in increased reproductive fecundity and adding ever more hungry mouths to our already overpopulated world. 

This is the issue, is it not? Reproduction. I love how people try to argue that the sole point of sex is to reproduce. If that is the case, then why is it we find so many people talking about their robust sex lives and dynamic relationships, and yet don’t have the dozens of kids to show for it? Why use condoms? Why use birth control? Moreover, why have sex at all after you ready your 50s or 60’, when the danger of giving birth increases?

We all know that, aside from having children, sex is a way to build intimacy and sharepleasure with an intimate partner. In fact, this is often the main reason most of us have sex. The real problem when it comes to religious or moral arguments against homosexuality is perhaps that the LGBTQ+ community has the liberty of pleasure without the obligation of pregnancy. 

No matter how hard we try, two women will never have sex and get one another pregnant, and the same goes for men. Now, of course, there are ways around this, such as in vitro fertilization, but we are strictly speaking here about the natural act of sexual intercourse.

Many religious and reactionary cultures around the world teach their children that the primary purpose in life is to reproduce and multiply, even when that goal is not shared by the younger generation. One such especially egregious example of this is women and girls who are forced into marriage and pregnancy at young ages and against their will, such as is known to take place in India, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. 

This is perhaps where some reflexive anger and frustration against homosexuality comes from. How is it that a certain group of people can enjoy sexual intimacy without the responsibilities of parenthood? I think this is what angers reactionary people the most. They don’t like the fact that some people have attained this type of freedom while they have been taught that a big man in the sky has forbidden them from such “no strings attached” enjoyment of the human body. 

Just because one has to share this Earth with a certain population of people, who might not do the things they do, doesn't mean that we need to resort to made-up rules and stories thatforbid others the right to enjoy their lives.

Over the past few decades, and especially since the global sexual revolution of the 1960s, self-love and self-expression have been at the forefront of peoples' minds. Human beings—and yes, even women, gay people, and others—have chosen to focus on the things that make them happy with little regard for how others might feel about it. This is the way it should be.

We need to live our lives according to what makes us happy, whole, fulfilled, and vibrant, instead of what our parents, churches, or religious leaders say we must do.

It is no wonder that the projected population will level out around 10 billion people, according to the UN Population Division, around the year 2100. There is already a decrease in births per year. One reason for this sustainable leveling out is the LGBTQ+ community having the courage and fortitude to unapologetically come out to themselves and their communities at a younger and younger age. We don’t have to wait to ask permission or wait until some authority figure says it’s okay.

We have a duty to ourselves, to the human species, and to the Planet Earth to proudly proclaim:

We are Gay, we are Proud, we are Happy. The Planet appreciates you for who you are: a natural human being. 

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

The Orwellian police state imagined so eloquently by George Orwell in his classic Dystopian novel 1984 is not just a fictional tale of what one day may come to pass. Rather, it is a very real warning about many totalitarian regimes that exist in the world today. One such purveyor of Double Speak and Thought Policing is modern Afghanistan. Sadly, this situation is not likely to improve under the Taliban. This bizarre, contradictory and insidious style of governance leads people to behave in a schizophrenic manner: abiding by and struggling against the rules imposed by their culture at the same time. 

Living in this confused and muddled state of mind leads people to pretend that what they are doing isn't taboo, even though from any rational perspective it would be seen for what it is: monstrous. No other word would adequately describe the state sanctioned pedophilia and violent sexism so prevalent in Afghanistan. By no means is Afghanistan the only perpetrator of such horrors, and certainly both pedophilia and sexism can be found in all societies. But it is societies that knowingly permit such behavior that we are concerned with here. And Afghanistan is one such state. 

What does being immersed in a toxic culture and society actually do to the human being? Among other tragic consequences, such an existence creates a false sense of reality around itself. A distorted place, where all one can do is hope for a better future while grinning and bearing reality. 

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

We know that in Afghanistan women's freedom is an oxymoron. A state in which women are used to give birth to the opposite sex, for the opposite sex and then be ignored as though their participation in the act was dispensible. The inequality of women worldwide is an absolute travesty but at least in some Western regions, the role of women in society is understood as being necessary for the growth of the nation as a whole. Much like the African proverb says so eloquently: If you educate a man you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman, you educate a nation. Its no wonder that the ones who benefit in primitive countries are often times individuals and not whole communities or the nation. 

Bacha Bazi 

The societal invisibility of women in Afghanistan makes the sexual abuse of young boys culturally acceptable. Whether cultures say it's okay or not, sexual desire still exists (and will always exist), and since there is no room for boys and girls to date, an illicit underground society naturally springs up, an ill society of older men who prey upon young boys.  

Because girls are unable to dance at parties, and because sick people can't be content to simply entertain themselves, young boys are thus exploited and used as entertainment. These boys are forced to be dancers, a sort of perverse jester for pedophilic men. 

These boys are forced to dress, act and dance the way girls would. They are subjected to sexual molestarion and rape from older men at these events. Some of the predators are police officers, politicians, warlords and other figures of authority. This only serves to further skew the sickening power imbalance. 

For the bacha bazi, it is much more lucrative to sell themselves at these parties of the elites than to work as a typical street vendor. As well, once these boys turn 25, they are deemed as being too old and are shunned from the bacha bazi community. So, for someone brought up in harsh economic conditions, being a bacha bazi is a chance to make decent money while one can. 

Bacha bosses are the older men who prey on impoverished young boys, employing them to fill these spots as sex workers and dancers. The bosses know that the boys’ vulnerabilities lie in their homelife, as so many everyday people in Afghanistan live below the poverty level. 

The bacha bazi are considered “of working age” from 12 to 25. Under 12 is too young according to the bacha bosses. It seems these playboys who like to take advantage of vulnerable youth decided to draw the line there. 

The official Afghan government claims to have banned these actions, however there are still many high ranking officials who pay big dollars to spend an evening with these boys. 

Men communicating with single women outside of marriage can lead to imprisonmant and social condemnations, however homosexual activity is permitted in this theocratic, homophobic country. Makes little sense to me. 

In a strict Islamic country, where alcohol is prohibited and punishable by imprisonment, many of the boys are, regardless, freely offered alcohol at these events, adding to the gross hypocrisy of the country’s authorities. It seems laws and rules are dispensed with when it comes to the bacha bazi.

I’ve yet to know a country that manages to be sexually repressed, sexually fluid and sexually perverse, all at the same time like the underground pedophilic sex rings in Afghanistan.

Bacha Posh 

In today’s Afghanistan, women are not free.* If you are born a woman, you are forced into the rules and restrictions that society imposes on you, until you either die or depart the country. 

Due to this institutional and cultural sexism, there is tremendous pressure on Afghan women to rear sons. If, however, no sons are born to a family, then oftentimes one girl “chooses” (see: is tacitly forced) to “become a boy,” or a bacha posh. 

A bacha posh is an anatomical girl who dresses in boy’s clothing and assumes male roles in Afghan society. Having all daughters is seen as a shortcoming in most of Afghanistan and often comes with the derogatory label of “mada-posht,” referring to families who only have daughters. 

You can imagine the psychological torment that comes from being tacitly forced to identify with a gender you don’t actually identify with. Many bacha posh struggle with lack of confidence, depression, anxiety and suicidal ideations. Many report feeling isolated and alone in society, as though living someone else’s life and not their own. 

The added social stigma and the fact that their own family cannot accept them for who they biologically are contributes further to mental health challenges. 

In Afghanistan, women are not allowed to go out into the world unaccompanied by a man, so sometimes that man must be a young girl dressed in boy’s clothes. 

In the schools, bacha posh only have to wear a head scarf when they are in class, and they are free to play the sports that only boys may play. 

To be fair, there are instances of girls who become bacha posh by choice. There may even be a boy in the family, however, because being a girl outside of the house is repressive and lacks opportunity, some girls, very few, will dress and act like boys in order to attain more freedom for themselves. I would then ask, why wouldn't most of the girls do this as a way to have pre freedom? Don the clothing of boys and men in order to have a life of their own? The sad and most likely answer is that, this wouldn't be a life of their own. Even as oppressive as this is, most girls still love the idea of getting married and pregnant and starting their own families, even if the idea only ever exists in their minds. 

When bacha posh girls reach their teens, they go back to dressing as girls and their parents then try to marry them off. These bacha posh rarely look happy in photographs and the interviews i've seen them in. Deep down, both they and their families know that there is little to smile about in such a sexually repressive and repressed society. 

There are dark areas in all places around the world that we need to shed light on. Many people in Afghanistan do not condone these behaviors, nonetheless, they have been birthed from a society that gives little room and freedom to its inhabitants. Much like a prison, prisoners are not provided a rank however they will be given one through their environment and the intimidation of those who settled there first. 

This is what society has done to us. 

Subscribe now

*It should be noted, that during the lead up to and brief rule of Afghanistan’s socialist Saur Revolution in 1978, women were able to dress and behave liberally in urban Afghan society. Kabul was a bustling hot spot for music, fashion and culture. In the cities, women and girls could go to school and be full participants in society. The United States, in order to draw the Soviet Union into “their own Vietnam,” funded, armed and assisted the most reactionary, theocratic and radically religious elements of Afghanistan’s society (referred to as the “Mujahideen”) to repel the Soviets and thus disband the country’s fledgling socialist project. The rest, as they say, is history. The reactionary, sexist, repressive Taliban regime now has complete control of Afghanistan, more so than they did when the U.S. invaded 20 years ago. 

Is it fair to assume though, that we are really going against nature? The very fact that we exist and continue to evolve through natural selection is proof enough that homosexuals are indeed as “natural” as their hetero brethren. This, of course, isn't good enough for some. Some personalities hate uniqueness, resent perceived differences, and fear those who act according to their own experience and code. Insecure people seek guidance from society. Free people heed their own inner light. 

To conclude that we are somehow defying nature by our queerness is to assume that we are a “new” species, a brand-new type of human, abruptly thrust into society’s midst. We are seen as an inconvenience to the “pure” and “rational'' communities we were so unceremoniously dropped into. I argue that this attitude is not only absurd, but false. And not just false, but dangerous. 

Subscribe now

What If I told you that members of the LGBTQIA+ community have been around since before religion itself? Not just in one area of the world but every area. Below you will find a short list and description of people from various areas in our world who belong to the different shades of the rainbow, and have since time immemorial. The acronym LGBTQIA+ is a western acronym used to describe people in the “gay” community. I'll reference this acronym and the terms for which they stand so that it can be easily understood, but please note that culturally, these terms may mean absolutely nothing to the Modoko Dako, Mahu or the Hijras. 

Cultural Variations in Sexuality and Gender 

Hijras

Hijras, a politically recognized third gender of the Indian subcontinent, are seen as neither men nor women, but a gender of their own.  While many hijras do consider themselves transgender, the real takeaway for me is the longstanding and honored status of these beautiful people within Indian culture. The 4,000 year old history of the hijras in Hindu spirituality depicts them as highly respected, colorful beings who are actually reincarnated forms of the Gods of Luck and Fertility. Think part Lakshmi, part Ganesha. A powerful and illuminating spirit! 

The Hijras are always present for every important day in Indian life. When a couple gets married, they first visit a Hijra to recieve blessings. When a baby is born, they are held by a Hijra to recieve lifelong luck and blessings. The Hijra play a large role in their communities, always projecting positivity and light. Unfortunately they are not always met with the same. Many everyday people in India have, through the hustle and bustle of modern daily life, forgotten their spiritual history, and have pushed the Hijra to the side. This may sound familiar to many of us who have been shunned by our own communities and families. 

Because many families no longer see the Hijra as blessings the way their ancestors did, they are too often kicked out of their homes, and forced into devastating cycles of poverty, prostitution and crime in order to makes ends meet. 

Māhū 

In the Hawaiian language, kāne means male, and wahine means female. This rich and ancient culture knew, however, that not everyone fits neatly into these two categories. For as long as there have been Hawaiians, there have been Māhū: uniquely complex individuals who embrace both male and female qualities. According to the well known Māhū leader in Hawaii, Hinaleimoana Wong Kalu, Māhū are “not a source of contention or disdain, it is simply an adjective to describe someone in the middle of kāne and wahine.” 

Similarly to other areas in the world, Anglo-Saxon colonizers and Christian missionaries attempted to taint this nuanced and colorful culture by claiming that Māhū are “impure.” As a result of this persecution, many of the Māhū are no longer accepted, much less praised and appreciated by their communities. Māhū are left to fight for the right simply to exist and to be their authentic selves, in a world suddenly unfamiliar with their gender. This is the unfortunate truth that many third-gender people face in a society where their “kind” are not taught about in schools. There is no nuance, no middle color or middle place where third-gender people fit. What does it mean to embody both women and men? How does one describe the transcendence of gender, the unity behind the duality?

There is a special place in my heart for the peoples who, despite everything, still wiggle their way authentically through society, trying to enlighten others along the way. It would have made many lives much easier and more pleasant to live had we been taught that not everyone fits neatly into two categories. I know my life would have been. So I am here to tell you: gender is not neat; it’s fluid.   

Mudoko Dako 

While inflammatory and homophobic rhetoric continues to spill from the mouths of African leaders, there are some demographics of people whose “kind” have been seen, recognized and honored since long before European colonialism came to Africa. 

The mudoko dako are considered by the Langi,Teso and Karamoja in Uganda, to be people of a different gender. Born as biological males, they are considered in reality to be an alternate gender, and were thus able to marry men, take on traditional female roles, and dress in women’s clothing. 

According to Anthropologist Jack Herbert Dribert, who wrote on this subject in his work The Lango: A Nilotic Tribe of Uganda (1923), where he made observations of some mudoko dako simulating menstruation. There is still a lot to learn about these particular cases, however these individuals may have belonged to what the West has termed the “intersex” population.  

Homophobia has, sadly, spread rampantly throughout the world. It has spread as fast as its colonizing, judgemental creator: the Abrahamic religions. Countries and cultures throughout Africa have been so emboldened as to call homosexuality, and all its multifoliate derivatives, “un-African,” claiming that homosexuality was brought to Africa by the West. 

The mudoko dako are just one example of variations on the theme of gender duality. Their very existence and tenacity throughout history show sexuality and gender to not be as black and white as so many would ignorantly assume. The mudoko dako are as natural and African as the Baobab tree. 

The hard truth that we are faced with, time and time again, is that the Christian colonizers of the West created this a priori intolerance for sexuality and gender. We live with it to this day. And it must be fought.  

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian

These examples of gender fluidity and elasticity are mere glimpses into the diverse and colorful world of sexuality we all inhabit. It is critically important to me, not just as a LGBTQIA+  person, but as a friend, spouse, daughter and colleague, to introduce and advocate for these different shades of the rainbow. Some of you may already know of these cultures, and perhaps know of many more. Some of you may not. Regardless, it is imperative for us to keep learning, and to remain humble enough to realize that not everything is the way it may seem, or the way it’s been taught, or the way it’s been written about in dusty old books. 

Not everything falls into a black/white or male/female dichotomy. There are shades. So many shades. Respect your fellow humans. Honor the complexity and intricacy of our world, and navigate with open eyes and a loving heart. Be completely you, and accept others completely. Flow like water through the Universe of gender and sex, of being and becoming. 

Share Musings of a Young Contrarian