Stop telling women to smile

When I stumbled on the street art series titled, "stop telling women to smile" by Tatyana Fazlalizadeh, I could immediately relate.

I posted it on instagram and a friend commented, "Lol, why not?" As in, "Why should [people] stop telling women to smile?" This friend is a woman.
I started to be offended and then I realised, how could I get angry for imposing my offence on someone who doesn't feel the offence?

And here's where a huge part of the problem lies. How do we rally against an issue that affects so many women so differently? What right have we to demand other women to feel the same way we do, if they don't?

I understand how the subtle pressure to be admired can creep in and become a source of guilt, of validation, of insecurity. But what's worse than all those internal processes that everyone is entitled to, is the feeling of entitlement that men have about assaulting women with their words of 'admiration'.

There's no worse feeling than being guilted into responding to verbal assault, just because the words are phrased different than an insult would. There's no worse form of assault, than where one is trapped in the confines of an offence that outwardly appears inoffensive.

Did I ask you?

Here's my question: what is the impulse in a man that makes him feel justified to expect a woman to respond to him, just because he wants her to?

Why is harrassment any less so, just because the words are cloaked as compliments?

Of course, in Lagos, this situation rarely stays within the confines of verbal-only assaults. With the same assurance; the same cocky entitlement, these men will often grab at an offending woman to ensure her attention, groping her arm, her waist, touching her randomly and laughing in the face of any protests. Whenever a woman dares complain, all she gets instead is amusement, and talk of, "It's because you're fine, that's why." 

Why does that make it okay? 

This video featuring Shoshana B Roberts is so so great, for showing how much of a problem this is.

But already, there are several responses to this, with statements like, "saying hi to a woman is harassment? this video says so!"

I stumbled on this gem of an article, complete with a satirical video addressing the matter. Here's a powerful quote:

And here's the video:

Questions for any men reading this:

1. Can you describe the impulse a man gets that makes him expect a response from a woman when addressed in this way?

2. Is there a sense in which you feel you're, "only appreciating her beauty," and can you explain where that comes from?

3. Why do you think she should respond?

4. What if she's thinking about something else? She's preoccupied? She's stressed? She's in a bad mood? Or she just doesn't think she should respond? Why are these options not valid?

5. If you take a minute to think through it, logically, can you imagine how much time it would take for a woman to have to respond to everyone she comes across?

5b. And now that you've taken a minute to consider it, can we all agree that you do not have the right to demand that someone else should respond to you, just because you want them to?

For more information on what street harassment is, please click here and here. 

And if you do it, stop.

Choice çi, choice ça

Geddit.

(This is not about any socially identifiable choice that governs people’s lives. This is a process of thought through which I've chosen to analyze the parallels – or merely similarities – between choice and the search for identity. Also, I am a woman, and speak as such, with no pretext of neutrality.)

This is the trend in today’s ‘today’: Our search for identity is driving us to go against the grain; to break the mould. As someone who is almost obsessed with the idea of identity this fascinates me. It raises all sorts of interesting questions:

Who am I, really?  Is the real me hidden in the contradictions of culture? Is society the Matrix? Am I the opposite of what my mum taught me to be; the antithesis of what my dad expects of me? Am I most myself when I’m not what is expected? And on, and on.

Culture and the media appear to be wondering about the matrix, too.

Fashion says, “Underwear on the inside of your clothes? Or even, clothes that fit? How about a sheer skirt with a lining? (A lining?! No one even speaks that way except your mother.) Rip it all out – let your fashionable legs line themselves.”

Forget drag; fashion’s androgyny says to the woman, “You are most yourself when you’re wearing a man’s hat and your boyfriend’s jeans.”

And now you’re on the streets of instagram, boldly your selfest self, as you strut your stuff in an inside-out tee. Your mother’s worst nightmare.

Journalism says, “What subject? What predicate? What are these things? You are most yourself when you pour out words. Spontaneously. On the page. All you need. There.”

“Don’t start a sentence with a conjunction? But uhm, you are most yourself when you do just that.”

How about, no swearing in published work? “Fuck that. Shit, you’re most yourself when you write whatever you bloody hell want.” *Clicks publish*

And television? I only assume I speak for Shonda Rhimes when I say, “Marriage is just a general idea. Get married, have a mistress, kill your husband – or your friend. (Actually, and your friend.) Cheat your way into a job, lie to everyone around you and make more money for it.” Who else is most themselves on Thursday night? (Friday in Lagos. Holla!)

Religion? A lot of us grew up within some sort of organised religion, so now, we are most ourselves when we reject religion. The idea of a higher power? Most ourselves when we take the power for ourselves.

Career: I am most myself when I don't do any work, but make all the money. School: I am most myself when I don't even care about that archaic social construct and I'm not going to be a doctor okay, mom! Deal with it!

From Frozen, teaching girls, “Who says you need a man to kiss you back to life?” – a commendable, universally endorsed message – to Maleficent, that says, “Ignore the fact that my very name means ‘evil’. I’m most myself when ‘evil’ really means ‘justified in my actions’ and eventually, ‘good,’” I allowed myself to wonder: how many of the decisions we take are driven simply by a curious exploration of opposites? Are we losing something in the process of embracing contradiction without boundaries? Are boundaries useful, or do they merely stifle expression? What is the line between free expression and harmful exploration?

In our search for who we are, we are easily – and, I believe, only temporarily – satisfied by the exploration of opposites. I believe that identity is internal, and that although it can be illuminated from the outside – and definitely reflects outwardly – it really stems from the inside. I believe that the “bad-is-good-and-bad-again” trend is a reflection of how easily we tire of the transient thrill that jumping back and forth brings.

Perhaps what we are looking for so desperately is most revealed when we stop trying so hard to reject the choices we are dissatisfied with; when we stop eagerly embracing the contradictions of these choices, purely in blind defiance.

Perhaps we are most ourselves when we accept that we are enough, exactly as we are: sometimes uncertain and sometimes mistaken, but, always, enough. Sufficient for contentment are our strengths and our shortcomings – the full measure of these – and we do not need to try so hard to prove ourselves to anyone.