Skin lightening cream in India

In the comments section is a link to an article related to my "skin color" post. Vaseline has created a "skin lightening" cream and they are marketing heavily in India. Nuf said.

Gloria Steinem on Colbert

I heart Colbert!

Check out the link in the comments section for the video.

Skin color

In the comments section is a link to an article about a school in Prescott, Arizona; the school has a mural on one of its outside walls and the principal asked the artists of the mural to lighten the skin color of the children in it.

Sadly, this did not surprise me. Racism may not be like it was 40 years ago, but racism and interracial relations are so tightly woven into our lives that we don't even recognize it most of the time. But you have to go beneath the surface and keep digging, to see that we still hold expectations and stereotypes regarding groups different from us, and actually, pretty racist values. Skin color is one.

I think that of the two genders, women are the underdogs in most cultures. But feminism cannot be examined without the issue of race. As such some of the biggest and recent scholars in the psychology literature actually stress the importance of examining the intersectionality of race and gender, not gender alone. Women certainly are expected to maintain a certain physical look, bodily ideal, in all cultures, much more than men. In addition, women in non-Western cultures have to deal with being expected to have light-colored skin. It's desirable of the men as well, but for some reason, men feel they are entitled to trophy wives no matter how out of shape they themselves are. And a woman who has a man who "will take her" has a lot to be thankful for. George on Seinfeld is a completely annoying jerk at times, but unfortunately his behavior isn't far out there. There probably are many bald men for whom it's important to have women with "thick lustrous hair."

But where did this value for light skin come from? Part of it might have to do with that dark skin implies lower status from having to work in the fields. Part of it might have to do with light skin being equated with power, given the spread of the British empire. When I was in Ghana we noticed that the people on the billboards had lighter skin, and someone had told us that darker-skinned Ghanaians didn't make it in their mainstream media. Many Asian Indians avoid fun activities like hiking because they don't want a tan darkening their skin. I'm not kidding.

So racism is embedded so deeply that we consciously think we're not racist when in a way, we all are. Even someone like me, an ethnic minority in the U.S. Let me explain. Back in college a friend of mine recommended that I buy a foundation that to me, appeared to be too dark and not match my skin tone (and another friend agreed with me about that later). I was offended. Lately I've been asking myself why. I think there are many layers as to why. One, I felt misunderstood and not acknowledged by someone who was supposedly a friend; she assumed I had dark skin just cuz I'm from India without really noticing that my skin is not that dark and that I just tan easily in the summer. Another layer beneath that is that I was hurt that she didn't trust that I knew my own skin tone. And perhaps the deepest layer is that I secretly liked being "the fair skinned one" in my family and didn't like being considered as having dark skin. And being from an orthodox Hindu family where dating is a no-no and marriages are arranged by looks, you can see how I'd been conditioned to value my lighter skin.

Yes it's messed up, but there it is. And it would certainly be the pot calling the kettle black if an American said that that aspect of the Indian culture is messed up, because look at what happened in Prescott. Or having mostly skinny, light-skinned, women do make-up commericals. Or having make-up commercials period. Or almost all sitcoms having all white folks. And all of them look similar with similar clothes and similar haircuts. I mean, you could probably switch out Jennifer Aniston with Christina Applegate and not notice a difference. And we celebrate diversity how?

And many Whites might say, "I don't judge by skin color. I actually look forward to getting a tan in the summer." Well they haven't scratched below the surface and really examined their feelings on the issue. Further, they have the option to darken their skin whereas Blacks can't lighten theirs. And more options means more power. It's easy for someone at the top of the ladder to look down and say "I wouldn't mind being down there as a break every now and then." As such it would be very condescending of me if I wasn't honest and didn't acknowledge that I am a "model minority" and have more opportunities, and more positive assumptions made about me, compared to other minorities just because of my background. To put it yet another way, those who are privileged have been so for so long that the fact that they are privileged is not at the forefront of their minds. And having white skin has shown to have much privilege in many cultures. Thus, we often operate in a racist way without realizing that we are.

I think if we really face how racist we can be, then it won't be such a monster for us, leading us to cultivate relationships with those different from us even more strongly. There's nothing wrong with having generalizations. For the most part they're true. But what's important is that we don't stereotype an individual based on that generalization. After all, within-group variation is greater than between-group variation. For example, it's a safe generalization to make that most Asian Indians have arranged marriages. Just don't assume that I want to have one. Someone asking me, "Is it true for you?" is much more with the spirit of getting to know me versus, "So, will you be going to India to marry someone?" The latter is more presumptuous, and we all know what it feels like when people assume things about us. (And as a side note on the within-group variation thing, biology is a very tiny tiny part of ethnicity. I get mistaken for being Latina or Italian American all the time. The idea of don't judge a book by its cover is probably even more poignant when it comes to humans.)

Racism is not something that is tangible and we have to be willing to really think about it to really understand how complicated the world can be. Being honest with myself on my view of my own skin color was hard, but I'm proud of the courage it took. Only with such courage can we *get it* and *get* others different from us.

Happy Belated Mother's Day

I was at the mercy of allergies on Mother's Day this year, keeping me out of commission the entire day, the main reason I didn't post this on Sunday.

Reflecting on my relationship with my mother has illuminated for me that in many ways, it is a stereotypical mother-daughter relationship with some familiar dynamics and conflicts. Listening to some of the memoirs on NPR while cleaning on Saturday made me stop in the middle of a task, just stand there with my mouth open and think, "That is so me and Mommy!" Over the years she and I have grown farther apart with, at least for me, our visits and interactions being more and more awkward. It only makes sense that my walls are up so high with her given that she and I have had a difficult past that we went through together, and the child in me is still very angry with her for "not protecting me." At the same time I love her so much, empathize with her and get such a heavy heart when I think of the horrible and scary marriage she went through and despite that, she managed to raise healthy and intelligent daughters and give them many opportunities. It's been tough feeling torn between those very intense feelings of anger and sadness for a long time and as I've chosen to process the former more fully in order to move forward, it makes sense that I've become distant with her. But now I think I'm at the readiness of accepting her for who she is while also protecting myself, making it easier to enforce my own boundaries while also appreciating her.


But it's not easy; not only do we have a generational gap, but we also have a cultural one and I often struggle with living my own life while also trying to appease her, the latter being the acceptable behavior for the first-born in a more collectivistic culture. And what really makes me mad is that it's my father who is to blame for these difficult relationship residuals between me and my mother (and me and my sister). He chose to hate rather than love and when he left, we got left in the suffocating dust. It's my mom and sister who get the brunt of my anger when he was really the catalyst. Don't get me wrong, I know that he misses out on the beauties of life by choosing to hate, but for all intents and purposes it has been a shitty deal for everyone.


I think that despite the family dynamics, mothers get the brunt of the criticism because in most families, they are the primary care-givers. Not only has empirical research shown that, but I constantly hear stories and see instances where the mothers are doing so much more of the parenting than the fathers. And lo and behold, children tend to criticize their mothers more: "she's crazy" "she freaked out on me" "I leave all my conversations with her feeling frustrated and that doesn't happen when I talk to my dad." Well duh, there's no instruction manual that comes with becoming a parent. And parents often became parents by accident or through some pressure-it only makes sense they not be perfect at it.


Society has put so much more expectation on mothers than fathers. It's like the fathers sit back and let the mothers do "the dirty work" (which is literal in most cases) so the mothers also have to deal with everything else that comes from doing that work. I think I'd go nuts too with years of dealing with screaming babies, 2 am feedings and making sure lunches are packed. My mother had to worry about me and my sister so much more cuz my dad sure as shit didn't.


And even in families where there is no abuse or extreme circumstances, women still do so much more of the child-rearing and housework. Not only is this shown in empirical studies but I see it anecdotally too. From the time that Mileva Einstein (Albert Einstein's wife) had to redraw herself (due to having a baby to care for-and actually being a better mathematician than Albert was by the way) from their scientific discussions they hosted for their colleagues at their home, to today where one of my girlfriends is suddenly MIA on Facebook after getting a job, but her husband is always on it. He is a parent with a job too. He can't watch the kids for a while so that she can get on FB or do what she wants to do for herself every now and then? Betty Friedan's "the problem with no name" is the case for so many reasons; things can seem okay on the surface but women do give up much more of themselves to parent than men do, and that can take a toll over time.

I think changing the language we use can start to remedy the view that mothers should do all the parenting and not have to share it with fathers. Just saying "my role as a parent" versus "role as a mother" "or father" can go a long way. Fathers can give a baby a bottle just as much as mothers. They can also get their asses of the couch and help in the kitchen. I often ask myself "Do I want to be a parent?" versus "Do I want a cute baby and be a mommy?" Parenting is so much more than having a cute baby and being a mommy. It's about being a host of a new person in an often intimidating world.

Happy Belated Mothers Day to all you mothers out there who work so hard. And remember to ask for help; don't assume you have to do all the work at home cuz you're a mommy.

Further progress toward gender equity in India.

The link in the comments section is to a NY Times article reporting on a very important bill that was passed by the upper house of India's parliament in March of this year. The bill proposes an amendment to India's constitution such that one-third of the seats in India's legislatures be reserved for women. Needless to say, the bill is facing much opposition; some opponents say "it will favor wealthy upper-caste women at the expense of the lower castes and Muslims." There are three more hurdles the bill has to cross: lower house of Parliament, at least half of India's state legislatures, and finally the president of India must sign off on the bill.

This is a huge, courageous, step forward toward gender equity. The fact that the bill is being considered is fantastic. The US House and Senate have a overwhelmingly small percentage of women. I do acknowledge that the criticism of the bill taking seats away from other groups is understandable and probably justified. At the same time, progress toward gender equity is also important. Some look at it as a nicety and that is is lower priority compared to other "more important" causes (e.g. hunger, poverty). But with that view, then the time for such a change may never come. It'd be like saying that NASA should not be funded or that animal rights should not be fought for because there is always something more important. But we'll never make progress on those issues if we don't try now. I was similarly torn during the last presidential election; it felt like we were choosing between gender and race with the Democratic party, and we couldn't have both. But Obama is a qualified, admirable president who is also a feminist given that gender equity and women's empowerment have been a large part of his agenda. And you gotta love a man who was okay with a lawyer as a wife who was the main breadwinner for many years. :)

Back to the situation in India's government: given that women make up more than half of the world's population, it only makes sense that half of governmental seats be reserved for women, much like affirmative action for ethnic minorities. If women make up more than half of the world's population, there needs to be an appropriately proportionate amount of female leaders. This bill in India may not get to that fully, but it certainly is a huge step. Increasing the percentage of female leaders could have huge implications for policies related to wages, reproductive rights, and education.

As such, that is the reason why I advocate for women being out in the workforce. By doing so, we as a society make the statement that women working is important, and that can lead to more women being in more powerful fields and positions. Otherwise, we currently have more men making decisions that also impact women. And this is all aside from the other benefits of women working: financial independence, personal power, and a sense of one's identity as an individual.

I don't want to imply that both parents working is something that is easy or possible for all families. And I do understand the traditional family structure because after all, I can only imagine that it must be difficult to juggle careers as well as raising kids. And if the partners are in a safe and loving relationship, then one person being in charge of the home while the other provides financially makes sense (IF the person staying home is happy with that). The "entity" is no longer an individual but rather, a family. Further, housework is certainly work as well, and has been minimized too much for far too long as "just women's work."

At the same time, the person in the relationship who earns the money has more power in a lot of ways. Money does equal power after all. (And desire for power and control is the greatest factor in domestic violence.) Further, though housework is work, we as a society have not figured out how to get women (or even men who stay home) compensated for that work. So in states that are not community property states, the partner who did not work outside the home could get financially screwed in a divorce. As it is research has shown that divorced women are in a worse financial situation than divorced men.

I'm happier to see stay-at-home dads. That is probably hypocritical on some level but, that starts to tip the scales and helps get over the assumption that it is the mother who has to stay home. Further, I think society is easier on men who try to re-enter the workforce.

So I won't negatively judge a woman who decides to stay home but I will wonder if she and her partner have considered all possible alternatives available to them to ensure that both partners are fulfilling their dreams and contributing to society in a way that they want. My sister and I spent a lot of time in day care, and we turned out to be independent, strong, intelligent and contributing citizens (despite having a very abusive father). Plus, my mom modeled for me that women can do math and science just as well as men. There's no wrong way to parent, unless of course there is abuse or the kids are being raised in a crack house. But there is certainly nothing wrong with having help with parenting. If anything, it helps the parents be healthier, leading to better parenting and emotional health overall. It does after all "take a village."

Financial independence is empowerment. And empowering women reduces their chances of being victims and increases welfare of their children. This in and of itself has huge implications for issues of poverty and ethnic inequities.

The 2009 winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry,

is Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, a man from southern India who moved to the US in his 20's to do his graduate work. He is amazingly accomplished in biology and physics as well but there was just one piece in the India Abroad article about him that got tears to well up in my eyes:

In India there was a temple he was about to enter that had a sign on the front saying "Women who are menstruating may not enter."

He immediately turned around and walked back in the other direction.

A man speaking out against oppression of women.

Made Felda's day. :)

How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America, by Cristina Page

In this book, Page provides a recount of the efforts of the pro-life side to take away women's autonomy. You would think that pro-lifers would be supportive of efforts that could actually help reduce the number of abortions, support efforts that make sense and are scientifically-grounded, and encourage comprehensive sex education so that people can have healthy and informed sex lives. But not only has the movement not just been against abortion, it's been about limiting education and women's access to services that actually prevent abortion. In effect it is the movement's attempt to limit free sex and non-conventional lives for women.

The pro-life movement has worked hard to limit access to emergency contraception (EC), something that would actually prevent abortion since it keeps an egg from implanting on the uterine wall. The irony for the pro-life movement is that if more women were not prevented from getting the EC pill, there would be fewer abortions. It is sickening to hear how many pharmacists have turned women away (even rape survivors) despite having a doctor's prescription for EC.

Another key way in which the pro-life movement has in effect encouraged abortions during a later term in the pregnancy is by requiring women to wait a month or so before having one. One, this is setting a woman up to be criticized by those of that very pro-life movement. They want her to wait, and if she has one later in the pregnancy, she's a monster, a baby-killer. Two, this implies that somehow a month after finding out she's a pregnant, a woman's situation, feelings, fears and health might magically change about something as huge as a pregnany and becoming a parent.

The pro-choice side, on the other hand, has actually been more about preventing abortions than the pro-life side. This movement believes in providing all women access to EC, such that a pregnancy does not happen in the first place. The pro-choice movement also sees that terminating a pregnancy as soon as possible is better. The earlier on the abortion, the fewer the cells that are being removed from the uterus and the farther along the abortion happens, the greater the chance of terminating the pregnancy when the fetus could actually survive outside of the womb. But somehow for the pro-lifers, scraping a few cells from the uterine wall has become equated with murder.

Further, pro-choicers are supportive of comprehensive sex education. Imagine that: kids being taught how to use a condom, information on how their bodies work, etc. so that they can be safer and prevent pregnancy and STD's, rather than being ignorant and being taught that talking about such things is taboo and inappropriate. Not having comprehensive education makes kids (even adults for that matter) embarrassed about asking important questions and makes communication (and particularly for women, assertiveness) with one's partner that much more difficult.

Pro-lifers have looked at only their religious beliefs and the fetus when determining policy. The problem with that is, one cannot do that without considering the woman who is the one that has to go through a pregnancy in order to actually give birth to that fetus. There are some pro-lifers who are a little more to the left and agree that abortion should be legal for those whose pregnancies were a result of rape or incest. I can have a little more respect for that. However, would a life conceived in such a way not be one of god? (Guess that is a question pro-lifers need to answer for themselves.) And many pro-lifers also have the argument that a woman needs to go through with a pregnancy as a way to take responsibility for her irresponsibility with sex. Well one, I've already stated that comprehensive education is not widely available and in that sense many women have been pressured into sex without being equipped with assertiveness skills. In effect those situations have been rape. Two, Page uses the great analogy that if a person develops cancer through an unhealthy lifestyle, do doctors tell them that they are not entitled to treatment? And three, where is the man's responsibility? According to our laws, he has none. Lastly, I've had one person tell me that abortion is also not an option for a married couple. Well one of my cousins has had two high-risk pregnancies. I'm sure she and her husband are making sure she doesn't get pregnant again but should she get pregnant, neither of them would want her to go through another pregnancy given how much time she's had to spend in the hospital during the pregnancies of both their children. But pro-lifers believe she *has* to go through with it.

I often consider how drug policy has been similar to abortion policy. Drug use, something that really just impacts the body of the person using it, is illegal in the US. But in countries in which drug use is not criminalized the use and addiction rates are actually lower than that in the US. When there is comprehensive education on such issues, people make more informed and healthier choices. But for some reason, we in the US want to dictate what others do to their bodies despite not providing programs that could actually support healthier and more fulfilling lives.

Finally, I think we need to be vigilant about the language that we use since it can have impact our thinking and values. Particularly in the abortion debate, I believe language has really distorted what's going on. One, "pro-life" implies the other side is "pro-death." Two, I don't like the phrase "deciding whether or not to keep the baby." That literally means a woman is holding a baby and she's trying to decide whether or not to throw it out the window. What she really means is, "I'm trying to decide if I want to be pregnant, to have children." Lastly there's the term "abortion rights." Though I totally agree that a woman has that right regardless of how she found herself pregnant, it kind of sounds like "voting rights." Like we all have that right and we *should* exercise it, pro-lifers have made it sound like women are going to get knocked up just to go out and put themselves through an uncomfortable procedure. What it really is, is a "right to decide the fate of one's body."