#and like also im navigating gender from an essentially white perspective

[kaleidoscopic-quiddity]

gonna be honest i lowkey don’t like using the word ‘transgender’ to describe myself at this point, like idk maybe this is because i’m Chronically Online TM or whatever but i feel like the term ‘transgender’ carries like,, so many implications about someone’s political stance and how they view themselves, or that just being trans is a political identity in and of itself, and like fair enough if that’s how it feels for other people but like,, that’s definitely not how it is for me. i view myself more as just some dude who happens to be afab, my being trans has fuck all to do with my political stances, my personality, or my personal preferences. like i am literally Just Some Guy. the issue here isn't that i’m ashamed of the term ‘trans’ or feel that its literal definition doesn’t apply to me any more, it definitely does, but more so that i hate how just one singular word is used to imply so much about who someone is as a person and their relationship with gender, whereas a term like ‘blonde man’ literally just tells you that someone is a man and is blonde.

like as far as i’m concerned i have no ~special~ relationship with masculinity, my gender is identical to that of a cis guy’s in the way that a blonde guy and a ginger guy are both guys, and thus the same gender. and the only reason i have ‘relationship’, (if it can be called that), to femininity at all is because i was socialised as a girl for roughly 14 years. and if i’m honestly, femininity means nothing to me in the sense that it doesn't apply to me at all nor do i have any desire to partake in it, or be perceived as someone who posses the quality of femininity. not to say that men cant be feminine, or that femininity is an undesirable trait, neither of those things are true at all, but rather just that i hold no connection to femininity at all, other than an understanding of what it is like to be socialised as somebody possessing that trait, and i feel like these days ppl who are defined as trans men are expected to have this complex, possibly resentful, possibly nostalgic relationship with it and are also perceived as like, being men, but being men in a different way from the way cis men are men, which is honestly fucking infuriating to me because i’m just a man, period, and my being trans doesn’t actually affect how i’m a man because i just am. 

to me the word ‘trans’ should imply just as much about somebody’s relationship to gender as the word ‘brunette’, which is to say, absolutely nothing other than that they are a person of a particular gender who also happens to posses a particular superficial trait, but it doesn’t. instead, ‘transgender’ is used as a shorthand to imply a whole lot of complex gender shit, or that ppl who are trans are actually a somewhat different ‘type’ of male or female than ppl who are cis, and as someone who absolutely none of that is true for, it makes using the term ‘trans’ as a self descriptor really fucking annoying. like i said, i view myself as Literally Just Some Guy who also just so happens to be someone who was assigned female at birth, which doesn’t actually mean very much in regards to my relationship with gender, because i’d be a man in the exact same way if i just so happened to be someone who was assigned male at birth. i don’t have any special relationship with masculinity or femininity by virtue of being trans, nor do i feel that i navigate my gender identity differently from that of a cis guy or that my gender is inherently different from that of a cis guy’s, and i definitely dont consider my gender to have a bond with or encapsulate or overlap with femininity in any way. 

as fucking dumb of an oxymoron as it is, ‘cis man who happens to be afab’ honestly feels like a better description of my gender than ‘transgender man’ because of the way i feel that the term ‘trans’ has been warped by online spaces and irl political discourse. like, trans masculinity is meaningless to me in the sense that i don’t feel that it’s any different from cis masculinity. or rather, i dont feel that there are such separate things as ‘trans masculinity’ and ‘cis masculinity’. men are men, women are women, enbies are enbies, yknow? things like ‘trans’ and ‘cis’ are just vague descriptors that don’t actually mean anything in regards to gender identity and self-image, (as well as political leanings, personality traits, etc) in the same way that ‘blonde’ and ‘brunette’ don’t tell you anything actually important about someone’s gender identity. i just dont feel, that im my own particular personal circumstances, that there’s actually any valid distinction to be made between ‘trans’ manhood and ‘cis’ manhood, male-ness is just male-ness in and of itself. 

[ossseous]

hello!! hope you're well! just saw ur response to the "properly formed society" comment on the carrier bag theory ursula post, i felt like the way u answered was so gentle but firm and informed. was wondering if u could maybe share some recommendations for texts to read more about this? cos i agree w/ the idea but its hard to find books like that. for example i think yuval's book ultimately has this kind of idea behind it (havent read it but from what ive read OF it, thats the vibe). thank u!!

sorry the word limit probably didn't help me express that right, i meant more books about anthro that focus on exploring human nature and our beginnings with a less "man is violent. man is the best supreme species. progress greatest invention. colonialism good because progress" yadda yadda yadda kind of deal, does this make sense? thank you again. also i think im obligated now to ask u your garbage ship of the week 

I’m much more of an article person than a book person because I can only take so much dry jargon filled writing for so long, but I do have some suggestions.

The biggest one is probably Questioning Collapse. For context, Jared Diamond is a man (not an anthropologist) that shares all his theories on how past civilizations, such as the Greenland Norse, or the Rapa Nui, or the Maya, collapsed, in the terribly titled book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (yikes). Let's get some things straight though. Jared Diamond proved in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, that he is a white supremacist who exploited the people of Papua New Guinea and believes that euro imperialism was just , bound to happen because europeans were more "civilized." So it was no surprise when all his favorite themes, that people, especially "uncivilized" ones, are violent and selfish, showed up in Collapse. 

Unfortunately, many of these theories have become very popular and many people assume them to be correct when they aren't. Some examples: Diamond posited that the Rapa Nui (Easter Islanders) essentially destroyed their own natural resources which lead to warfare, cannibalism, and eventually their own demise. This ignores the fact that the island was ravaged by european expeditions, which included Fuck Boy Supreme James Cook (of the botched kidnapping and eventual killing by Hawaiians fame). Of course these encounters with Europeans led to the enslaving of the Rapa Nui, as well as the introduction of diseases that had a devastating impact on the population numbers.

Anyways, Questioning Collapse, edited by McAnany and Yoffee, is a collection of essays written by different people in the scientific community to dispute the theories Jared Diamond lays out in his book Collapse.

Ancient Civilizations by Fagan and Scarre, specifically chapter 2 “theories of states”

Another one would probably be Almost Human: A Journey into the World of Baboons written by Shirley C. Strum. I cant quite remember if Strum ever addresses this because it has been a few years since I read it, but: some of the earliest "man is just naturally violent and animalistic" ideas actually come from the surveying of baboon (and other primate) behavior and comparative anthropology. However, this came early in the field of primatology when observation methods weren't pinned down. Long story short, the male baboons that were being observed weren't actually being "naturally" violent--they were agitated and scared because the people observing them were literally observing them from a big ol scary unfamiliar jeep/atv thing that they drove up right next to the baboons' band. That was decades ago, and a lot of changes have been made since to how fieldwork is done. Anyways, Strum was one of the earliest groups of people to go out and observe baboons and she continued to do it for decades. Almost Human is essentially a look at her field notes/diary during the time. I have a couple other primatology book suggestions if you are interested. Here a couple: Gorillas in the Mist or anything else by Dian Fossey. Manipulative Monkeys by Susan Perry.

The next book I recommend is Farmers, Traders, Warriors, and Kings: Female Power and Authority in Northern Igboland, 1900-1960 by Nwando Achebe. From what I remember, Achebe isn't terribly fond of the anthropology field, (which is interesting because much of the book is ethnographic), but what can I say, I personally do not like historians myself so 🤷‍♀️ (also I might be thinking of someone else)

My personal loathing of historians aside, this is a great book that explores the ways in which women... well... navigate power and authority. You get to learn all about Female Kings and how the Igbo do not fit in with eurocentric gender norms--as well as the impact that European colonization eventually has on the Igbo culture and the role women and men play within their families and society.

Some articles that discuss the effects of colonialism, structure of prehistoric societies etc etc from an anthropological perspective:

State Formation: Anthropological Perspectives by Krohn-Hansen and Nustad

Different Types of Egalitarian Societies and the Development of Inequality in Early Mesopotamia by M Frangipane

Change in the Lives of Brazilian Indigenous People: To Pluck Eyelashes (or Not?) among the Canela by William and Jean Crocker

Gender Dynamics in Hunter-Gatherer Society: Archaeological Methods and Perspectives by Brumbach and Jarvenpa

Economy, Ritual, and Power in Ubaid Mesopotamia by Gil Stein

I have a lot of these articles (and more lol) as PDFs. If you would like to read them and cannot access them, let me know, I can put them in google drive or something.

also my garbage ship right now is still beth/borgov from the queens gambit lmao

[porchbirds]

this got away from me d/ont r/ebl/ogg it

hey can anyone link me to that rlly long post that does an actually p comprehensive job of explaining how queer was pretty much unlilaterally reclaimed til radfems/TERFs started propagating it as THE big scary bad slur essentially handing the power of the word Back to straight people despite decades of its use as a political and powerful community / identity marker

bc i don’t think enough ppl are aware of what the queer discourse is really doing which is diminishing our hard won power over our own language and handing it back to straight people. Like, no one should ever be made to take on an identity they are uncomfortable with. not ever. but people should definitely be made aware of how and why queer suddenly became uncomfortable again, and how that erases and rewrites our histories.

The thing about the community is that we have a rich and powerful and amazing history but we aren’t born into the knowledge of it. Most of us were born to straight parents with little to no understanding of what we have fought for and how hard we had to fight to get it. Which means we have to kind of navigate that learning on our own which leaves us vulnerable to all kinds of erasure, misconstruction, and rewriting.

This is not unintentional. identity and language policing is not a new tool for protecting the community. It is a tactic to devide us and deny us power. It’s not a coincidence there is more pushback against queer (one of the most political / active terms with the most potential for gender and sexuality inclusivity) than almost any other term. Especially since there are so few terms that allow for the unifying of trans identities, intersex identities, and lgbp+ identities. Especially since the current western political climate is rlly gunning to (and in many ways succeeding at) have lbgp people throw trans people under the bus. Identify how you will. Be loud as you need to to keep yourself safe and comfortable & keep labels you don’t trust or want off of you. But also like it’s important we are aware of why and who decided what is a good vs a bad identity.

we need to protect and look out for each other, our culture, our histories and our struggles bc god knows no one else is going to.

If you’re trans exclusionary in any way don’t touch this and unfollow me. If you’re straight, unless you’re linking me to the post i mentioned @ the top, don’t touch this. thanks.

This def got away from me so i’ll prob delete it soon but i’m just. annoyed. thx bye.

[disclaimer] this is a rant / vent post & is not meant to be taken as a master post of queerness or anything esp since i'm cis and white and coming from a western perspective. But i still stand by it bc I was indoctrinated into queer=bad / "q-slur" discourse for the longest time & it's definitely a sad erasure of my history im trying to overcome

[izenidak]

On Why Trans Women May Be Offended By the Idea of Not Being Considered “Woman”

In a recent interview with Channel 4 News, Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie offered (and quite inoffensively) that “trans women are trans women”. I mean, what a shit storm this created. As a matter of fact, it created such a shit storm that as we speak, Chimamanda is literally swimming through a river of shit trying to “clarify” her “perspective” on the matter.

In the interview, Chimamanda underlined her point by drawing on the ways in which the social identities we embody (embrace and perform) and those that are simply socially ascribed but are neither embraced nor performed, shape the way we experience the social world. In her own words she states, “so, when people talk about, you know, are trans women, women, my feeling is that trans women are trans women. I think the whole problem of the gender in the world is about our experiences. It’s not about how we wear our hair or whether we have a vagina or penis, it’s about the way the world treats us. And I think if you’ve lived in the world as a man, with the privileges the world accords to men, and then sort of change, switch gender, it’s difficult for me to accept that then we can equate your experience with the experience of a woman who has lived from the beginning in the world as a woman and who has not been accorded those privileges that men are. And so, I think there has to be... And this is not of course to say this is... i’m saying this also with, sort of, a certainty that transgender people... should be allowed to be. I don’t think it’s a good thing to conflate everything into one. I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans women because I don’t think that’s true. What i’m saying is that gender is not biology, gender is sociology”. 

Because I interpret this statement as profound at the least, and intellectual at best, I can’t seem to comprehend the outrage.

Now, I have a couple of questions:

1) Should we not be directing our “attacks” at the interviewer for the way in which she framed the question to Chimamanda? She asks “staying with this issue of feminism, femininity, does it matter how you’ve arrived at being a woman? For example, if you are a trans woman who grew up identifying as a man, who grew up enjoying the privileges of being a man, does that take away from you becoming a woman? Are you any less of a real woman?”

I mean, this was such a leading question and Chimamanda would’ve appeared petty if she told the interviewer that she had no interest in engaging with such a “controversial” question. Nevertheless, Chimamanda responded to the “twisted” question as honestly and clearly critically as she could. Furthermore, with the interviewer suggesting that trans women “grew up identifying as a man” - this is actual grounds for an outrage. I mean, where are the “angry trans women” when you need them? 

The entire trans community should be utterly offended by the fact that the interviewer is suggesting here, that psychologically, a trans woman’s gender was somehow initially aligned with their sex assigned at birth. In other words, the interviewer is suggesting that at one point or another a trans woman once identified as a man. However, based on the novelist’s explanation, I gather that she was actually referring to the way in which the socially ascribed identity of male ( whether or not the gender norms associated with this sex is embraced or not) shaped the advantages/privileges that person experienced or lived prior to their transition. 

Furthermore, the mere thought that a person “becomes” a woman should’ve been the first indication that this Channel 4 interviewer either does not have an understanding of gender identity politics, lacks awareness of the language associated with gender politics or is simply feigning awareness for the sake of controversy, viewership, subscriptions, likes and shares. At the bare minimum, it is as if she did not do the necessary groundwork. If we insist on getting mad at someone, it should be the Channel 4 interviewer - btw, what is her name?

The trans community ought to be focusing their attention and attacks in the direction of the Channel 4 interviewer (as well). Identity-wise, not only is the interviewer visibly white but she presents as woman and female. As a matter of fact, I strongly believe she should’ve directed such an uneducated question to herself. This is especially because Black women for some time have not been considered “woman” or even “feminine”. I mean, it’s almost as if there is a number of common ground/denominators that women of trans experience and Black women share: the fact that we are invisible and hardly considered woman. 

I’d actually like to hear how the Channel 4 interviewer would’ve responded. 

I’m not even sure how i’d respond.

Should I even would want to care to respond?

2) Are we not entitled to our perspectives anymore? When did it become so blasphemous to respond with critical statements to controversial questions posed to us? Are we the followers of a cult? Is “dissent” not allowed? Did we miss the part where Chimamanda made every effort to be “politically correct” whilst trying to remain honest about her understandings of gender politics? Have we forgotten that she once declared that she does not consider herself an “authority” on the matter? 

We ought to do better. As a matter of fact, we ought to be mad at ourselves for expecting her to think the way we think. 

Now, I wish to go into the second segment of my commentary and, based on the responses to Chimamanda’s “alternative” or “different” point of view, a number of people may find this offensive. This is however, not my aim. Rather, my aim is to facilitate critical self-reflection and ultimately the heightening of one’s critical consciousness. Self-reflection is not often an easy process but it is essential in the process of “acknowledging” and “overcoming” or even “embracing” the parts of ourselves that we or others may find “problematic”.

I have a question to ask trans women, and in actuality, this question could be asked to anyone (including myself as I believe all social identities are flexible) who challenge traditional and dominant social identities with our mere existence or our embodied self-identities that do not necessarily fit into the status quo:

1) Why are we so eager to "perform” traditional identities if the self-identities we embrace are not traditional, and at the same time get offended when people ask questions? 

For example, identifying as a trans woman yet wanting to perform “traditional” gender norms associated with being woman. This manifests itself in for instance, the "goal” to be a “beautiful, feminine” woman. The “means” by which this goal is achieved is through performances of make-up application, heel-wearing and essentially engaging in what a friend of mine describes as “hyper-femininity”. Before I go on, I probably should ask where I might find other “kinds” of trans women as perhaps my understandings may be clouded by the most visible type of trans women in western media: the undeniably beautiful Janet Mock, Laverne Cox, Caitlyn Jenner, among others.

I’ve always wondered, if we agree that social identities are all socially constructed and are not biologically based, why do we insist on performing established norms if we are so unique? Is it simply because of our innate need to fit in - to identify with a group? 

Socially constructed identities - whether embodied or not - are “not biology” as Chimamanda states, they are “sociology”. They are “sociology” because they are socially constructed and serve the function of enabling us to not only make sense of our social world, but also, to enable us to navigate our social world with the use of language and symbols which we attach to various objects and ourselves - the subjects. 

Because these labels (and language in general) emerge with meanings attached, they shape how we experience the social world. That is, they shape how we treat (think and act towards) others and they also shape how we are treated. As a matter of fact, it is the outcomes of the interactions of our multiple social identities (race, gender, class, sexuality, religion, etc.), within a given context that form the basis of our unique social experiences. 

We also must remember that the multiple identities we embody are configured differently. This is especially when we consider where and when our unique experiences emerge. They are so differently configured to the extent that an identity (your gender) that may be more important to you in any given context may not be as important to me as one of my “other” identities (my sexuality) in the same context. It is this fact alone that makes our experiences “not the same”.

I must say, I ask the question I asked knowing full well that the meanings of social constructs, labels or social categories change over time. I also ask in an effort to refrain from “making assumptions” about persons of trans experience.

See full interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP1C7VXUfZQ

What triggered my thoughts? 

I live in a unique social, cultural, political and geographical context that has an emerging trans community fighting for visibility, tolerance and ultimately, understanding.

iMe

[edited]

[viralhottopics]

7 strategies for raising confident girls during Trump’s presidency

Image: ambar del moral / mashable 

For girls, women and their allies who believe in gender equality, the presidency of Donald J. Trump marks a terrifying moment in modern American history.

With President Obama’s departure, the White House loses a man who wrote emphatically about being a feminist and focused on policies that provided equal opportunity to all girls and women.

SEE ALSO: 7 skills to teach your daughter by age 13

Trump, on the other hand, insists he respects and champions women, but has made a sport out of rating their physical appearance and was recorded making comments that indicate he’s sexually assaulted women. He also gleefully threatened to imprison Hillary Clinton, the first woman to run for president on behalf of a major political party.

“I still think its a great time to be a girl or woman in our country, although it is a more complex time.”

Just as it seemed safe to believe that every young girl growing up in America had a much better shot at fulfilling her potential, no matter her identity or background, a seismic political and cultural shift has undermined that possibility. While despair may be an adult’s first impulse, experts say there are several ways to help girls develop lifelong confidence that will sustain them in the coming years.

“I still think its a great time to be a girl or woman in our country, although it is a more complex time,” says Jess Weiner, a self-esteem expert and brand strategist who worked with the White House Council on Women and Girls over the past six years.

To help navigate those complexities, here are seven strategies that anyone can use to help a girl thrive.

1. Talk about power.

While adults might think girls can’t fully grasp the implications of Trump’s campaign and presidency, Weiner says they do. In a workshop she conducted last October with Dove, she heard from girls who knew Trump had rated women’s bodies, and they were grappling with what that message meant for them.

The participants, most of whom were girls of color, also realized they were the “bull’s eye of the moment” by virtue of being an immigrant, Muslim, Mexican, or belonging to another group that Trump has targeted. Staying silent about such messages doesn’t protect a young girl from harm, but instead suggests that others approve of that behavior.

Calling all parents, teachers, mentors: Let’s talk about what happens to our children when a bully takes office. https://t.co/cyiJF09xqT

Jess Weiner (@JessWeiner) December 8, 2016

“Make no mistake, we cant shy away from this conversation, even if it feels uncomfortable and difficult,” Weiner says. “Dont gaslight our kids. Dont pretend it’s not happening.”

This doesn’t necessarily require discussing politics or Trump directly, but Weiner says adults should be talking to girls about power, like someone using a bully pulpit to shame others and the role of the media in holding the powerful accountable. Such conversations can give girls the confidence they need to express their fears and opinions.

2. Encourage them to share real feelings.

Girls are too often asked or expected to silence their authentic feelings to make others around them more comfortable.

Andrea Bastiani Archibald, chief girl and parent expert for the Girl Scouts, says it’s essential for adults to engage girls to help them speak openly about their emotions, whether that means disagreeing with your opinion, being mad or sad, or communicating anger over a perceived injustice.

President Obama has often shown acceptance with this kind of complexity when he talks about his teenage daughters Sasha and Malia. In his last press conference on Wednesday, he discussed their reaction to the presidential election, describing their disappointment, their potential for resilience and their commitment to making the country a better place.

Over the next few years, girls are likely to hear that they’re overreacting to cultural and political developments, which is why trusted adults should make it abundantly clear that their feelings matter.

3. Help girls identify their values.

In the wake of the election, anecdotal reports collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center revealed that boys and men used the slur from Trump’s 2005 hot mic comments to threaten women.

That’s one extreme example of the kind of gendered harassment girls may face, in addition to comments about their physical appearance or sexuality. Adults can prepare girls to deal with verbal abuse by helping them identify and focus on their values. If they cherish relationships with friends and family over a stranger’s opinion, for example, that contrast can help them find perspective when faced with harassment.

#YesWeCan make more girls comfortable with leadership and redefine what it means to be a G.I.R.L. https://t.co/QWPqelIFsV http://pic.twitter.com/3O8AOk4aux

Girl Scouts (@girlscouts) January 4, 2017

This approach, Weiner says, gives them a tool to address feelings of embarrassment, humiliation and anger, and helps them know which of the many voices in their lives to trust and respect. Similarly, if they can articulate their own self-worth and personal ethics, they’ll be better prepared to set physical boundaries, call out degrading language and behavior, and know when to involve a trusted adult.

4. Show them how to be respectful and inclusive.

Prior to the election, Bastiani Archibald says adults may have taken social progress for granted. Now is the time for them to not only act as role models in their own households, but to also ensure that girls they know and love are in inclusive and respectful environments.

That means checking in with school educators, sports teams and extracurricular clubs, to ask about how all young people are made to feel accepted before someone feels or is actively excluded.

Diversity, inclusion, and unity are what America stands for. Here’s how you and your girl can do your part. https://t.co/ZJqlHLBBuV http://pic.twitter.com/dKwmxUyqWp

Girl Scouts (@girlscouts) November 11, 2016

Discussing the positive aspects of difference and diversity with girls is particularly important, Bastiani Archibald says, because bullying related to one’s background and identity can be subtle and relational, rather than blatant. If, for example, a girl who wears a hijab is routinely ostracized at lunch but no one will explain why, that’s a moment where girls need to demonstrate both empathy and a more sophisticated understanding of how discrimination can work.

Bastiani Archibald believes if school environments can become or remain supportive of all students, it will “buffer” young people from greater cultural and political shifts away from inclusivity.

5. Focus on solutions

One way for girls to develop their power and confidence in the next few years is to focus on being part of the solution, Weiner says. This can be very personal, such as a girl deciding that she doesn’t want to talk negatively about other girls online. She can also decide to get involved with neighborhood or community efforts to make a positive difference. Both types of solution-oriented behavior can lead to feelings of self-empowerment.

SEE ALSO: 6 ways to push your online activism into the real world in the Trump era

If a young girl wants to make personal changes or participate in activism, but doesn’t know where to start, talking about the values you’ve already helped her identify is a good first step. From there she can prioritize the issues she cares most about and find simple ways of contributing to the greater good.

6. Embrace role models.

From Harry Potter’s Hermione Granger and Frozen’s Elsa to Michelle Obama and Serena Williams, girls today have plenty of fictional and real-life role models to guide them through difficult times.

Still, Bastiani Archibald says adults should actively look for and talk about brave, courageous role models in history and pop culture. In particular, adults should focus on how those figures overcame adversity through determination and persistence.

If you’re looking for lesser-known or unsung heroes, the National Women’s History Museum and A Mighty Girl both regularly share inspiring stories about women who’ve acted with conviction.

And if a girl uses social media and feels overwhelmed by negativity, Weiner suggests talking to her about pruning and curating the accounts she follows. The idea, she says, is for social media to become more like a “vision board” that inspires and motivates. It can also be an effective way of connecting them to role models who offer positive messages.

7. Encourage girls to stand up for themselves and others.

“When we talk about building self-esteem, its done by doing estimable acts,” says Weiner.

It’s easy, however, for girls to feel powerless against the school bully or a president who targets vulnerable people in words and policy. What they need is a “scripted language” to help them stand up for their principles. If, for instance, they hear a classmate tell another classmate to “go back to their country,” the script can start with a single statement: “I heard that.”

“Im not telling girls they have to be super heroines,” Weiner says. “But the acknowledgment is power. Its making [harassment] real and seen and not normalizing it.”

“When we talk about building self-esteem, its done by doing estimable acts.”

Bastiani Archibald encourages adults to help girls practice a similar script in different scenarios. If they hear something objectionable, they can begin by asking, “What did you say? Why did you say that?” If they are feeling bolder, she says, girls can disagree or explain why they find certain language offensive.

This approach may not be the right solution in every instance, especially if safety is a concern, but it will empower girls to feel like they can take a stand for themselves and others.

Weiner believes it’s particularly important now for bystanders to assume some role in defending people who are marginalized or attacked for their identities.

“We have to be accomplices, not allies,” she says, quoting the activist and author Luvvie Ajayi. “Girls and women have powerful potential to do that.”

The early days of Trump’s election and presidency indicate they’ll live up to that potential, but girls who don’t see their values reflected by this administration will need every ounce of courage and confidence they can get.

BONUS: First Lady Michelle Obama expresses outrage at Trump’s treatment of women

Read more: http://ift.tt/2jAtcgu

from 7 strategies for raising confident girls during Trump’s presidency