I probably don’t need to recap, but just in case you hadn’t heard for some reason, audio recordings of NBA Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling going on a racist tangent leaked in late April. The league took near-immediate action, placing an indefinite, broad-reaching ban on Sterling from NBA-affiliated activities, in addition to a 2.5 million-dollar fine. League Commissioner Adam Silver declared he’d insist that the Board of Governors force a sale of the Clippers. The general public was appalled by Sterling’s statements, but then, a funny thing happened on the way to the game. The media had a peculiar fascination with V. Stiviano, the woman in which Sterling was having his salacious conversation with. He was chastising her for making it apparent that she associates with black people by taking pictures with sports legend Magic Johnson (she herself is black and Mexican). Just as surprising as Sterling’s remarks was Stiviano’s fairly composed-and almost apologetic-tone on the tape. I personally was taken aback by this and found it sad and self-disrespecting that a person of color would surround themselves with someone so racist for any reason, but that wasn’t the primary reaction to her demeanor by the press, nor was there sympathy or concern that Sterling may be verbally abusing or controlling someone in his circle. The interpretation of her composure was instead that she was the one who leaked the tape. I never wondered who released the recording or why, because, who cared? The bigotry of a person in power in an organization full of African-Americans was exposed. Shouldn’t we be applauding the individual(s) who let the proverbial cat out of the bag (or at least be glad that they did it)? Apparently not.

Without any confirmation that Stiviano was behind the tape’s disclosure (not that it actually mattered), she was stalked by the paparazzi and vilified. Dug-up information on her background revealed that she had plastic surgery, a criminal record (which included arrests for petty theft and driving under the influence), several aliases and that Sterling’s wife, Rochelle, was suing Stiviano for the return of property and expensive vehicles purchased for her by Donald. The court documents also detailed that Rochelle was accusing her of being a seducer of wealthy older men (there is almost a 50-year age difference between Stiviano and Donald). From this it was deduced that Stiviano was a scorned snake of a mistress who sought out to record Sterling and sell the damning audio for a quick buck and maybe 15 minutes of fame. Even if this assumption is true to any or all extent, again, who cares? Does it change the fact that Sterling made those comments and is a bigot? I saw one news panel where the entire broadcast of the story was just about Stiviano and the hosts angrily theorized about her “motives.” Aren’t we mad at the racist or nah? Isn’t he the true villain here?

Stiviano began to take interviews and tell her side of the story. One would think the primary questions would be to establish if Sterling had a pattern of discrimination and hate speech, the details of the conversation in mind and what Stiviano may have endured while around him, but it was all about the nature of her relationship with the embattled team-owner. A relationship that, despite Sterling frequently appearing with her at events and games, no one examined, detected or inquired about. No one seemed to notice or care that he possibly had a mistress before. In one of the more disgusting and poor instances of journalism I’ve ever seen, “Entertainment Tonight” correspondent Brooke Anderson repeatedly asked Stiviano if she had sexual relations with Sterling (episode airing on 5/21/14), making sarcastic facial expressions, comments and groans each time Stiviano denied, even saying she didn’t believe Stiviano. When Stiviano became (understandably) perturbed, Anderson accused her of being “combative” and “defensive.” Afterwards, while at the ET panel table, Anderson and the other hosts dissected paparazzi footage of Stiviano, labeling her as attention-seeking for wearing a visor to cover her face from cameras and flaunting herself when she wasn’t wearing head gear. When she asserts herself under Anderson’s berating and aggressive interviewing, she’s “combative,” but her polite greeting and compliments pre-interview were to “butter [Anderson] up.” I directly tweeted Anderson: “How dare you call V. combative when you berated her and continued to repeat questions because you didn’t get the answer you wanted. I thought interviews were to get a person’s perspective, not convince a journalist of their truth.”

Somehow, it’s been more important to discern whether or not V. Stiviano is a “slut” that outed a man for gain, versus the bigger story from whence she came. We claim that Sterling’s mindset is deplorable, yet, we’ve sought to punish and scrutinize the person we believe to have brought it to light. A sin is a sin and a wrong is a wrong, but the media’s irrelevant and unbalanced focus on Stiviano would imply that possibly being a mistress and possibly outing a man is worse than being a racist. Why is this happening? It’s because of sexism. 1) Regardless of gender, infidelity is frowned upon. However, because promiscuity is a more acceptable and expected behavior for men than women, “the other woman” or a woman who cheats is often more heavily ostracized (and for a longer period) than a male in the same position. Indicia of this is how the masculine forms of the word “mistress” (ex. lover, paramour, kept man) are either lesser-known or don’t withhold the same level of insult. Furthermore, there are multiple slurs to call promiscuous women (ex. slut, skank, whore, hoe, tramp, etc.), but hardly any for men. In effect, these words are so closely tied to women, that “man” is used as a pre-fix to apply it to a male (ex. man-whore). 2) Women who challenge or disrupt the gender-hierarchy of control (women are to be in a subordinate role when amongst men) are generally viewed as an enemy of values and/or men. Stiviano recording an incriminating conversation that ultimately took a man out of his station of power makes her deserving of retribution.

Even after giving a far from humble and remorseful interview with Anderson Cooper, Donald Sterling will likely spend the last of his years rather comfortable and manage to get back into business-life. Meanwhile, V. Stiviano will probably struggle to evade her now destroyed image for at least a decade because of a sexist witch-hunt to shield a xenophobe. Sexism at its best. 

Not long ago, one of my guy friends complained that women “have too many issues with themselves and how they look.” One of my female friends argued that men aren’t as emotional as we are. I call poppycock on both of these ideas. It’s a stereotype that women have more self-esteem issues and are more emotional than men. Women’s image and self-esteem issues tend to be at the forefront because of how intensely women are objectified and sexually exploited, particularly in the media. Additionally, the desire to meet resulting, unreasonable beauty standards sometimes leads to extreme behaviors, like eating disorders. Women are viewed as more “sensitive” and likely to cry and openly discuss their feelings, so it’s assumed their driven by emotions and more fragile. The truth is that men struggle with self-esteem as well and are equally emotional; it just shows up in a different way.

 In American culture, a man must be attractive, have sexual prowess or a large penis, strength and substantial income (comes from the paradigm that men are the “providers”) to have “value.” Should a man fail to meet any of these expectations, he feels less than or is criticized. We won’t talk about this candidly because men are supposed be invincible and can’t possibly have a shaky self-concept, which brings me to emotions. Again, men are expected to be pillars of constant strength, therefore the only emotion socially acceptable for them to express is anger. By the way, anger IS an emotion. If a woman bawls her eyes out, she’s weak and “emotional,” but if a man punches a hole in the wall, he’s just angry. What a contradictory double standard. Anyhow, being limited to anger leads to covert, sometimes passive-aggressive expression, like withdrawal or avoidance. Being controlling, possessive, jealous or manipulative, cheating to meet needs or having resentment from a bruised ego are all examples of emotionally-motivated behavior. Thoughts and feelings aren’t sexist and don’t discriminate.

Everyone complains about their dating life and their lack of viable options, but the people that have it the hardest, I believe, are bisexual men. Some gay men turn them down because of the stereotype that bisexual people cannot be monogamous. Heterosexual women reject them for a bevy a reasons that all go back to sexual orientation bias and gender paradigms. It angers me how prejudiced people are towards these men, especially considering the root of their conceptions. Here are the most common reasons I’ve read (and heard) from straight women as to why they won’t date a bisexual man.

"The fact that the man has been with another man at any point is gross." 
This statement clearly points to sexual orientation bias. The usual precursor to this sentence is “I don’t have a problem with gay people but…” or “That’s fine for them, but for me…” Why else would you find it “gross” if you honestly don’t have a problem with homosexuality?  What’s “gross” about same-sex interaction? Is it the anal sex aspect? For those women who say "yes," I highly doubt they ask every man they date if he has ever had anal sex with another woman. The cooties they’re so afraid of double for the men who have anal and vaginal intercourse with a female partner, which many have. Some come out of one cave, go in another, and back again. I find the “gross” argument especially irritating if it’s coming from a woman who’s engaged in casual sex, has had multiple sexual partners, or dates a man who’s had multiple sexual partners. It’s not gross that the man you’re dating has stuck his gun in multiple holsters, or that you’ve been stuck a couple of thousand times yourself, but a bisexual man is gross simply because he’s been with another man? Oh, ok. That’s not contradictory at all.

"I like a ‘manly man.’ A guy is a less of a man to me if he’s been with another dude."
Cue traditional gender ideals and more orientation bias. It’s been a long held-belief that all gay and bisexual men are effeminate (which isn’t true) and that same-sex interaction is somehow less masculine. Gender ideals come into play as masculinity is partially defined by a commanding presence and sexual prowess/domination. In heterosexual relationships, the man is expected to have a dominant role, while the woman is subordinate. In heterosexual sex, women are automatically in a submissive position as they biologically cannot penetrate and can only be penetrated. Considering those factors, if a man is ever penetrated or allows himself to be, the attitude is that he has taken on a submissive, lesser position and is more like a woman. This attitude is part of the reason why male sexual abuse victims rarely report incidents, particularly if the perpetrator is also male. These victims are made to feel that they are now weak, less-than and automatically homosexual, which is undesirable. Orientation bias is in play as a man’s value is reduced just because of same-sex relations.

""It’s bad enough to have to watch other women; I don’t want to have to watch men too. There’s too much competition when dating a bisexual man."
Your competition rate is the same. Logically, you’re thinking if you date a straight man, you only have to watch half the room, but imagine if most of the room was female. It’s just like if your man worked at an office with mostly women. Whether your man is straight or bisexual, anyone at anytime can vie for him. It doesn’t matter how many men or women are attracted to him. What matters is if he gives into them or not. If he wants to cheat, he’s going to cheat, no matter who you think you’re watching. The likelihood of someone being unfaithful does not increase or decrease based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, you shouldn’t have to “compete” to keep your man’s loyalty in general.

"I’m afraid I’ll get HIV or AIDS."
No matter who you have sex with, you need to be using protection and getting tested regularly. You can contract HIV, AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease (STD) from ANYONE. Bisexual men are NOT more likely to carry the illness than heterosexual men. That is a MYTH.

"I’m afraid I won’t be able to satisfy a bisexual man in the bedroom."
Bisexual men enjoy sex with women; that’s why they’re bisexual. No need to worry about those who prefer sex with men, because they’re not going to date you. If you’re concerned about his itch for dick, there’s always dildos, strap-ons and other sexual toys. There’s also dating bisexual men who primarily prefer women sexually. In any case, it’s important to have an open and honest conversation with your partner about desires and concerns. You might find that you won’t have any problems at all. On another, semi-related note, it seems that straight men are a lot less concerned about satisfying their bisexual female mates, than women are about bisexual male mates. That’s likely because of gender politics too. Women are born and raised in a culture that fosters insecurity and low confidence, but that’s a different topic for another day.

The PLUSES of dating a bisexual man.
Believe it or not, there are some.

Sexual flexibility.
For the women who like a balance of control in the bedroom or little adventure, a bisexual man might be up their alley. Because of their varied sexual preference with gender, bisexual men have an easier time sharing control and are more open to trying to new things.
Equality.
Due to the amount of gender politics and issues that affect a bisexual man’s dating life, these men are sometimes more sensitive to and understanding of the plight of women and gender-based double standards. Those who seek out a more egalitarian dating or home life might benefit from having a bisexual man as a partner.

Think twice before you turn down a man who offers everything you’re looking for just because he’s bisexual. Analyze why you are reluctant to date a bisexual man. Are those reasons inherently and unfairly prejudiced? The mistreatment and dismissal of bisexual men has led some to conceal their orientation from female partners. Not to condone the dishonesty, because I don’t, but I understand why they would consider it.

In the middle of a conversation, my friend says “you think women are more important than men.” I replied “That’s not true. What makes you say that?” and she responded “I don’t know. I just think you do.” I couldn’t help but think she felt that way because I’m a self-proclaimed feminist. My assumption was later on confirmed. Later on that day, I was reading an article about women who want to jump on the female empowerment bandwagon, but are hesitant because of the negative stigmas and notions surrounding the word “feminist.” Guess I have to write another stigma-busting article.

Game-changing movements are always met with countering adversity because they challenge long-held beliefs and seek to change our way of life. When the feminist movement of the 1960’s started (1960s-1990s is considered the 2nd major wave of the movement), both men and women were uncomfortable with it because feminism protested traditional gender ideals and a relational dynamic they had been used to. Some men felt threatened; women wondered if it wasn’t lady like or improper to step out of the mold placed upon them. Combine uncertainty, fear and traditionalism and you have anger. Many ferociously opposed feminism, claiming that it would be the downfall of our society (because without gender discrimination, we'd surely fall apart) and its supporters were misguided and classless. Feminism was the Grinch that stole gender Christmas. A bevy of other inimical conceptualizations were attached and fast forward to 2012, "feminism" or "feminist" is STILL kind of a bad word. There are multiple false stereotypes about the movement, but here are the main ones that grind my gears. 

Feminists are lesbian baby-killers.
Feminists are often assumed to be lesbians for a number of reasons; chiefly the movement's centralization on women and the belief that feminists are misandrist (misandry: the hated of men and boys) and anti-marriage (both beliefs are false; I'll get to those later). There are many feminist lesbians, but not all lesbians are feminist and vice versa. As a matter of fact, several of the movement’s key figures (such as Gloria Steinem) are heterosexual. Lesbian and women's issues can sometimes overlap, as sexism is a contributor to prejudice against lesbians.

The accusation that feminists are 'baby-killers' stems from the movement's role in supporting the availability of contraception and legalization of abortion. Some view abortion as a moral issue and wonder why it would be considered a gender issue. Obviously, pregnancy and abortion are a part of women’s health concerns and any legislation governing such is worth analyzing, as gender-bias or lack of sensitivity or awareness of the female experience may impact voting. Additionally, conservative or traditional views regarding women and child birth may be an influence. Abortion legalization support doesn’t mean feminists believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control or that women should approach it causally. Legalization is backed because feminists believe women should have the right to choose what happens with their bodies. Furthermore, it’s important to note that not all feminists support abortion legalization. During the 1970’s, there was a pro-life feminist group called Feminists for Life.

Feminists are against marriage and childbirth.
I addressed this myth in a previous article last year. In short, feminists are against the idea that’s it’s a woman’s DUTY to marry and procreate. Feminists are against the idea of a woman’s value being measured by her marital or childbearing status. Feminists are against women being treated like subordinates or property if they do indeed get married. Yes, some feminists are against marriage and others have chosen to remain unmarried, but that, again, isn’t everyone and the movement as a whole isn’t about being anti-nuptial.

Feminism is about eliminating and/or degrading men.
This is hands-down the biggest misconception about feminism, in my opinion. It makes NO SENSE to try to combat prejudice with prejudice. Feminism isn’t about hating, eliminating or devaluing men. It’s about pursuing equality for women and fighting gender-based injustice. We aren’t saying we’re more important than men; we’re saying we’re equally important.  A few of my male friends feel that feminism is about “reducing the power of men.” Why is it a problem if women feel empowered or just as powerful as you? It doesn’t make a man any less strong, powerful or awesome for woman to be strong, powerful and awesome. Also, there may be only a few, but male feminists do exist.  Any man can actively support causes for women.

Feminists are angry and bitter.
Passionate and outspoken, yes. And yeah, people being prejudiced against us based on our gender makes us a little angry. Wouldn’t prejudice against you make you angry? 

Feminism is useless and unimportant.
Women’s history should seriously be included in grade-school curriculum. I feel many of today’s women and men have no idea how far we’ve come in terms of gender quality. For example, until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, women couldn’t apply for a credit card unless their father or husband was a co-signer. My parents were in high school then. My parents are older than that act. Until 1978, it was completely legal to deny a woman employment or fire her if she was pregnant. 1980 was the first time that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established concrete regulations against sexual harassment in workplace. All of these institutional changes were a result of efforts made by the feminist movement. Privileges we take for granted that we haven’t had for long. Thanks to the feminist movement, women have the right to vote in political elections, establishments can now be prosecuted for gender-discrimination, a number of domestic and sexual abuse centers exist, marital rape laws are in place, women have the same access to education as men, employment classifieds are no longer divided by gender and the list goes on and on. Many of the freedoms and opportunities women enjoy today were provided for by feminists, and the movement is not a thing of the past as sexism is still alive and well.

I’ve had multiple discussions with various people about the origins, impact and application of traditional gender roles and I always end up feeling the same way about them: I kind of think they should be abolished. I feel they do more harm than good, and that might be because of how they’re typically applied, but that’s how I feel. In terms of their usual function in marriage and family dynamics, traditional gender roles can be counteractive to familial bonds, border on being oppressive or paralyzing and build resentment between partners and family members. Under a conservative gender-role model, men are supposed to be the main (if not the only) source of income, manage all the finances/business matters of the home (ex. insurance) and perform any remote physical labor involved in maintaining the household (ex. mowing the lawn or taking out the trash). Women are to handle the child-care, cook and clean.
Resentment can easily build as partners may feel burdened by having to be the only one to do a certain task and desire additional help and/or feel like their contributions are taken for granted, underestimated or undervalued (for example, a man being viewed as an inadequate caretaker because family income is low or some feeling that being a housewife is not “real” work). Resentment can also develop if partners feel forced into or limited by their roles, and judged if they seek to step out of them (ex. a woman being made to feel guilty or that she’s a less efficient mother if she has a demanding job, or a man being labeled as weak for being a house-husband). Counteraction to familial bonds can occur with this model as fathers may be more emotionally detached or distant from their children due to mothers taking a more involved, daily role. Also, children can feel neglected by or detached from their opposite sex parent if parental involvement is delegated by gender (ex. things related to Bobby are handled by daddy and things related to Laura are handled by mommy).

Strictly-implemented gender roles can lead to paralyzation in the event that the other partner is not available to perform their designated duty due to death, disability, incapacitation or abandonment (ex. if a woman has never handled the family’s finances nor has any knowledge of how to do it, and her husband is incapacitated, major complications may arise). It only makes sense to me to gender assign responsibilities if it’s based on the physical differences between men and women. Men are generally stronger than women; there are tasks that women will have an immensely difficult time performing. Other than that, if both individuals are capable of completing a task, I don’t see why both can’t do it.

In our society, traditional ideas about gender permeate almost every aspect of our daily lives to excess. Children can’t even willfully choose what toys to play with because of such stringent ideas on what’s a “boy toy” and a “girl toy.” Not to mention “boy toys” and “girl toys” are hard-lined gender-role reinforcers: girls get accustomed to child-care early with urinating baby-dolls and boys get the notion that they’re the only ones that can serve the country with G.I. Joe “action figures” (forbid they’re called dolls instead of action figures). This saturated application is why I find rigid gender roles to be more harmful than helpful. They’ve created a sense of competition between men and women and an obsession with power as individuals ferociously seek to avoid being in a subordinate position. It’s also at the root of inferiority/superiority complexes and self-esteem issues (ex. why a male feels less than if he hasn’t had sexual intercourse by particular age or why females are so obsessed with reaching beauty standards). Why is it that when a male is sexually-assaulted or domestically abused, no one believes him or he's labeled as frail? Gender role ideas. Why was Nancy Pelosi asked who would take care of her children when she was seeking a governmental career? Male politicians don’t get asked that. Gender role ideas. Why was there a male heckler with a sign that read “Iron My Shirt” at a Hillary Clinton rally? Gender role ideas. Behind sexism, misandry, misogyny, gender-bias and gender-stereotypes are traditional roles.

When confronted with the concept of altering the gender-role model or eradicating it, some people fight it tooth and nail. I think some fight against it so hard because they don’t know life without gender-roles. People are afraid of or confused by what they’re not familiar with. Transitioning to a more egalitarian model won’t be easy, considering how conditioned we are, but it can be done. It begins with openness.