A trying process

I once wrestled with religion, as my longest readers may remember; I spent a period of my life figuring out what I believed, or could believe. Nowadays, I’m wrestling with motherhood – with whether I can, and whether I should. In many ways it’s a similar process. For one thing, it’s plagued by anxiety: I’ve somehow managed to maintain a near-paralysing level of fear about being a parent at the same time as becoming desperately fixated on seeing a positive pregnancy test. (My partner, meanwhile, suffers from neither affliction. Maddening!)

Early on, I scared myself by stumbling across ‘trying-to-conceive’ forums. These have a culture of ruminating obsession, where posters think nothing of writing about various intimate bodily signposts, in a cryptic, acronym-filled language that I couldn’t even understand. The single-minded desperation that was being expressed there was not something I could relate to, nor did I want to.

But perhaps part of my horror reaction was that I knew I had it in me to be like that. The uncertainty of when and if, coupled with the succeed-or-fail nature of the monthly cycle of trying, waiting, and checking – these are the ingredients for neurosis. I was already concerned about a baby changing my life, and here was evidence that it could take over my life in an unhealthy way long before it was even conceived!

Trying to conceive is essentially a monthly gamble, and a fixation on “winning” can grow into a monstrous, disproportionate thing. To make matters worse, you are rolling a dice whose weightings are completely unknown. Every month is a rollercoaster ride of heady hope followed by crushing disappointment and the horrible suspicion that the odds may be much worse than you first assumed.

Because after all, when you don’t want to get pregnant, you operate under the assumption that even one little lapse in protection will be bad news. When you throw the protection in the bin and nothing happens, it naturally leads to a sense that something must be wrong.

The early days were quite intense. I lay awake at night grappling with the enormity of the knowledge that I might become pregnant soon. I daydreamed about having good news to share. I awoke early with random butterflies of excitement, as if it was Christmas. I found myself upset and worried, after just two or three months of trying. This disturbed me a lot. It seemed so pathetic, and considering that even being in a position to be trying is a privilege I’d waited a long time for, it seemed wrong to be feeling anything negative at all. (Not that it’s ever been possible to shame myself into feeling more positive, but I always try…!)

But I got used to the routine, and no longer think much about it, except at key points in each cycle. I check for the surge in my luteinising hormone right before ovulation; always fun at work peeing into a cup and dipping the little stick in. I can usually forget about it all for the following two weeks, but the beginning of a new cycle is always a blow, no matter how much I know it’s coming by then. I don’t put myself through the torment of pregnancy tests any more, except when I am looking forward to a big glass of wine. 🙂

Unfortunately, prolonged uncertainty feels like instability. Every month is a fresh chance to change my mind and let the ever-present fears and doubts about parenthood get the better of me. They never actually do. But they go unchallenged, untested, and grow arms and legs and teeth. If I’d got pregnant when we first started trying, we’d have a baby by now, and I can’t help but think I’d be better off.

Instead, the clock ticks on, and I drift through life like a traveller stuck at an airport. I wake up on the weekend feeling empty and bleak, looking for anything I can occupy myself with that might feel a little bit worthwhile for a moment. I have become desperate for pregnancy, to relieve me from this suspended animation; to set me off on a journey again that, however frightening, will at least give me direction and purpose.

I couldn’t wait for the laparoscopy, which seemed like it would end this uncomfortable limbo. Clearly that hasn’t quite been the reality. It has made me aware, though, that it may not be enough to grit my teeth and wait like this. I may need to be prepared to undergo invasive medical procedures to have a chance of getting pregnant – and still live with considerable uncertainty and waiting.

Since it seems my drive to have a child only just trumped my doubts and fears to begin with, would a need for risky endometriosis excision be the final straw that breaks its back? Or is its tenacity in the face of so much fear just a sign that it cannot be snuffed out; that ultimately I will do almost anything I have to do to make it happen? I don’t know.

It just seems so unfair. The last thing this anxious over-thinker really needs is lots more time to anxiously over-think.

But I suppose this process can be thought of as a journey in itself, that, no matter the outcome, will teach me something about myself. Maybe I will come out the other side a little wiser, even a little happier. Here’s hoping.

Posted in endometriosis, personal reflection, trying to conceive | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

On finding nirvana in the middle of the night in a hospital bed

Warning: this is a personal post reflecting on my experience of a laparoscopy to diagnose endometriosis and a night in hospital.

I had been worried the laparoscopy would be postponed due to the infuriating appearance of cold symptoms right before it. My temperature was slightly raised, but the nurse said that wouldn’t hold me back. The anaesthetist wasn’t concerned either by the mild cough or sore throat. I still wanted reassurance that I wouldn’t choke to death under the general anaesthetic, so I casually asked whether it would “be a problem” if there was catarrh in the back of my nose/throat. He replied that it wouldn’t be able to go anywhere it shouldn’t, as he would be putting a tube down my wind pipe anyway…! Apparently they don’t usually tell patients this…

I had been feeling fine about having the op, looking forward to getting clarity on whether I had endometriosis – and if so, getting it treated and moving on. But nerves did get the better of me when it came to walking into the anaesthetic room, getting on my trolley surrounded by scary-looking machines, hearing them prepping up the surgery room through the double doors at the other end… then hearing my heart beeping rapidly through a machine. The anaesthetist gave me a couple of shots of sedative to begin with, which immediately made me woozy and I remember commenting on that. And mercifully I think that’s about the last thing I remember.

Until some time later, opening my eyes at the sound of my name, my consciousness rebooting with no sense of temporal continuity; knowing I was in hospital but not immediately realising that I had had my surgery. I can’t be sure how much time passed between opening my eyes to nurses’ faces, and the appearance of my surgeon’s face and voice – it seemed immediate. I tried hard to record in memory what he was telling me. I had endometriosis; I should keep trying to get pregnant. Something about a problem with one of my tubes? I later thought I remembered being shown a photo, but couldn’t be sure.

DSC_0177The first hours of recovery passed quickly, punctuated by little surprises: sipping water through a straw and finding my swallowing mechanism hard to control. A bit of nausea whenever I tried to sit up. The discovery of dressed incisions, pads, iodine painted on my skin. At some point I seem to have taken a selfie. 🙂 After a while I felt more back to normal and was able to eat a sandwich – slowly, as my mouth and throat were like a desert. My other half came to see me for a bit but I couldn’t go home with him. I had yet to get enough water through me, and would have to collect any pee I was able to produce through the night and write my bed number on the cardboard vessels, much to my amusement, for the nurses to measure it later.

My first ever night in a hospital ward was mostly a sleepless one, but a surprisingly happy and tranquil one. I got short bursts of sleep; I would wake with the noise of a machine beeping somewhere nearby or a person coughing and then find myself wide-eyed for long stretches, comfortable in this warm, dark, safe environment of recuperation and care, on a mind-blowingly comfy bed, my whole body in a state of calm and with an enormous feeling of well-being – feelings I hadn’t had for a very long time. I reflected on having got through the operation and got myself cleaned up and comfy, and recognition of this filled me with a sense of self-confidence. I felt practically invincible!

It was only when the cocktail of drugs finally wore off the next day that I realised the true source of these feelings! I had wondered why I wasn’t in more pain, though. And niggling away somewhere in my head that night was the unanswered question of what had actually been done during the laparoscopy. Seeing cuts on either side of my lower abdomen, I assumed that my endometriosis had been treated, but I didn’t remember the surgeon actually saying that.

In the morning, the staff nurse attempted to decipher the surgeon’s notes with me, but it mostly seemed to be a catalogue of adhesions found, a list of organs stuck to other organs… “Where does it say about my treatment?” She suggested I phone the surgeon’s secretary later on to ask for fuller information. As it happened, though, both the anaesthetist and the surgeon came around before I left. I got to see the photo again – and it was a horrible stringy mess. I finally learned that the endo was too extensive to do anything about on this occasion – all they could do was take stock of the situation. They put dye through my fallopian tubes and saw it come out quickly from one tube, but with a delay from the other. This may have helped clear them out a bit. But the best he could say about my current prospects for pregnancy was that I “could be fertile” and should certainly keep trying, but that the follow-up appointment would go through next steps with me.

Recovering at home for the last few days, the nirvana has definitely passed. I feel more emotionally bruised than anything else. I’m now a bit fed up of the constant awareness of my wounds and vigilance to notice the slightest sign of a complication or infection. But I also seem to be in a kind of intermittent grief. I have bad endometriosis: I can’t quite take it in. I keep looking back at our efforts to conceive so far – the excited and fearful anticipation, the stress – and just feeling so sad that it was seemingly all destined to be in vain; that for who knows how long, unseen, rampant endometrial cells have been busy weaving their cruel cobwebs between my organs, stitching me – and now my emotions – up in a nasty tangle.

It makes sense of a few things: the horrifically painful periods I sometimes experienced when I was very young; the episode of intense abdominal pain a couple of summers ago that I’d thought was a kidney stone; the recent and more constant aching hum in my pelvis… and the persistent cyst that had been seen on ultrasound scans. In truth, though, I am very lucky not to have had far worse symptoms.

I will just have to see what the consultant suggests next. The only thing that’s clear is that more uncertainty lies ahead.

Posted in endometriosis, personal reflection, trying to conceive | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Responsibility and Stoicism

A constant theme running through many of my recent posts has been around the overburdening of individuals with responsibility for their own plight. Shame resilience, for example, is partially about letting ourselves off the hook, and empathising with each other’s struggles, failings, and misfortunes – recognising unrealistic expectations for what they are. “Lean Out” feminism is in much the same vein, acknowledging structural barriers to women’s security and equality and relieving individual women of the responsibility to “lean in”.

Have I gone too far in that direction? Where does personal responsibility kick in?

In this post, I even went as far as questioning whether the dependence of material well-being on ability and effort was fundamentally unfair, since it doesn’t recognise the barriers some people face to developing skills and making effort. And I suppose any inequalities could be argued to be unfair in the sense that there is no such thing as “free will”: in that we (and our abilities and decisions) are all ultimately a product of our genes and environments. But of course we have a collective influence on some of that ‘environment’ part: we can punish criminals to deter criminal behaviour, and we can reward talent and training to encourage development of essential skills.

Most people would say that we need these external motivations and rewards – no-one expects someone to undertake the years of training to do a stressful, challenging job like surgery out of pure altruism or intrinsic motivations alone. But there are other barriers to productivity and accomplishment besides external motivation, that we seem to find harder to recognise.

We don’t make individuals responsible for self-motivation, but we do make individuals responsible to a large degree for their ultimate success – and this is completely unbalanced. Responsibility should be balanced to take into account the ease or difficulty of following through on it; and in the inter-connected web of causality, those with the most power in a situation have the most responsibility. I think that’s as close to an answer as I’m going to get. 🙂

As I’ve been reading up on Stoicism, I’ve been trying to figure out where it fits in with all of this. Because of its emphasis on accepting external circumstances while working solely on improving oneself, initially it seemed cold and unsympathetic, like something that might go hand in hand with “Lean In”. But eventually I realised that the division between what is and isn’t under a person’s control is potentially quite a radical and sympathetic concept.

Stoicism relieves us of inappropriate responsibility for things outside of our control, replacing it with the serenity and peace of acceptance. As discussed the other day, I don’t think that means doing nothing to fight injustice or improve your own circumstances; it just means being clear with yourself about what actions you can actually take, versus the outcomes that are not in your power to control.

Stoicism encourages you to look carefully at what you can do, and weigh up what would be the most rational, wise, beneficial thing to do. For a Stoic, after all, that is the ultimate good, and is what brings contentment – knowing that she has done her best. I think I would still need to watch that I didn’t turn this into an unrealistic expectation of perfection; but sometimes, being very upset or angry at external, uncontrollable things doesn’t help wisdom to come forth.

So, Stoicism might be a good companion to an awareness of injustice. Not that I would emphasise it as a way forward – I mean, I would sooner speak up in support of people who are rightfully angry, than start telling them how to be less angry – but it is definitely a philosophy I would like to explore for myself.

Posted in philosophy, politics, social justice, Stoicism | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Learning to relax

I have written before about being driven to be highly organised, and not feeling sure whether this is an entirely healthy thing. I’ve been thinking about this again in light of my recent forays into Brene Brown’s shame resilience work, and Stoicism.

I think the habit started in my mid-twenties. I have been sort of a late bloomer in terms of finding my way into a career, and did not progress through the expected milestones of adulthood through my twenties. It turns out I was at the head of an entire wave of young people that would experience such things; at the time, though, I think I internalised it as a large chunk of personal failure. I could see that I had it harder than the previous generation in terms of things like house prices, but I still felt I should have been “wise” to this and pre-empted the issue with better life planning.

It seems I embraced being organised, goal-driven and intentional about how I spend my time, to try to protect myself from further insecurity. Which is sensible up to a point; but I think my excessively teeth-gritting, self-policing, whipping-myself-into-shape approach to everything in life has been an overreaction to the “failure”, and reflects an overly negative view of my own fitness for adult life. There is something in me that tends to always see the worst, to be pessimistic; I crave safety and control, to be on top of everything, to close down every possibility of things going wrong. Put simply, I am a worrier.

There is also a shame aspect to it: I was running away from the unwanted identity that I ascribed to my younger self of a naive drifter, coasting through my education not thinking about the world of work and the bigger picture of life. I felt foolish and stupid and determined to change who I was.

Under this oppressive mindset, it is hard to ever feel completely happy about how I spend my time. The same fear of failure driving me to be proactive about important things also makes the important things daunting; there is a resistance in me to the vulnerability of trying new things. Attempting to live life by a to-do list and operating constantly in analytical mode does not always help, either: such a safety-seeking, closing-down orientation is the opposite of the vulnerable opening-up approach needed to be creative.

Rebalancing my expectations of myself is helping. I have just spent a pleasant week off work with lots of unstructured time, allowing myself the flexibility to go for walks when the sun is shining and rest when I am tired, not burdening myself with over-ambitious lists of things I must get done in this time. I am OK with not having got around to any DIY jobs. And I am learning to like being the dreamy, thinky person I am.

I think Stoicism has some pretty good answers to the fear part of the equation. The “premeditation of adversity” was the practice that first piqued my interest, having read about it in Oliver Burkemann’s book. Facing my worst fears head-on and bringing reason and rationality to them – particularly, the notion that it would, somehow, still be possible to feel OK about my life even if the very worst things happened – is helpful for dispelling habitual fear and getting back that sense of adventure.

And I’m starting to think that recognising the limits of my control, and developing Stoic acceptance of what lies beyond them, could also be very helpful. Although it may be uncomfortable to acknowledge those limits, it is also kind of a relief.


Posted in personal reflection, philosophy, self-improvement, Stoicism, suffering | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Stoicism, acceptance and happiness

I have a negative bent, a tendency to see the bad in life more clearly than the good. I get very affected by bad news – and there’s a lot of it: worsening inequality, dismantling of the welfare state, another financial crisis potentially around the corner while we’re still in debt from the last one, climate change, antibiotic resistance, global conflict / power struggles, refugees living in squalid camps…

Thanks to media such as Twitter and Facebook, I find it easier than ever to learn about all these things, and to access really stimulating viewpoints and analysis that is constantly helping my own understanding and awareness to develop. I would much rather have that access than not; however, there are times when I just have to scroll past it all and look for some cute puppy video instead. I get exhausted with concern.

And I have difficulty with Sunday Assembly’s ethos of “celebrating life” because, when it comes down to it, I’m not convinced human existence is a good thing. The rest of the planet would be better off without us, for sure. It’s hard to feel joyful about being alive while keenly aware of how spectacularly the human race is fucking up at the general aim of not doing harm to ourselves or each other. And even if we were doing much better, nature alone can be cruel enough to us. What’s there to celebrate?

On the other hand, what good does it do to feel so negatively?

I’m reading a book about Stoicism just now. According to the Stoics, the only thing needed for deep happiness and well-being (eudaimonia), is to be the best human being one can be. This means perfecting the rationality and practical wisdom that humans alone can develop. This in turn entails acceptance of things outside of one’s control; it doesn’t make sense to worry or get upset about things you can’t do anything about.

I’m really wrestling with this! I find myself wanting to protest: that there is no clean division between what is and isn’t under your control; that it’s unrealistic to expect your happiness to not be affected by your circumstances (and has the potential to trigger shame); that even if it were possible to be that detached, it would surely lead to amorality – that there wouldn’t be any point in justice or making anyone’s circumstances better because their happiness can only come from within.

But I do wonder if I’m missing the point on that last part; Stoicism, after all, does promote justice and compassion and there is a sense of some outcomes being ‘preferred’ (even though they are ultimately indifferent with regard to eudaimonia). It’s confusing. It reminds me of similar confusion I’ve had with Buddhism in the past.

Maybe the answer is that eudaimonia, although important (and heavily emphasised in Stoicism), isn’t the only thing that matters?

Perhaps the problem I’m having lies in the English language and the fact that words like ‘happiness’ and ‘joy’ are just too broad-brush. One example of this comes to mind from the Pixar film Inside Out, in which the main characters are anthropomorphised emotions inside a human character’s head. In the film, Joy has to learn that there is a place for Sadness; that Sadness is able to help their human host come to terms with an unwanted change in circumstances, and connect with the love and care of others, in a way that Joy cannot. Joy does not represent all positive experiences – she merely represents an upbeat, cheerful mood. I think we lack a clear word in English for the positive experience Sadness was able to bring about – in the film, we see the creation of a core memory that is a mixture of sad and happy.



And I think there are probably many distinct emotional and mental states that we lack distinct words for and that get muddied together under words like ‘happiness’.

So, maybe this is partly why I have difficulty seeing how a positive emotional state can coexist with concern about problems. Maybe it’s possible to really want things to improve while at the same time being able to really accept that things are as they are. This seems like a contradiction to me but I have moments where I can see these as two separate processes.

I think Buddhism and Stoicism really come into their own in situations of extreme suffering that cannot be averted – where the only way forward is to be ‘philosophical’. Their emphasis on eudaimonia and its possible independence of circumstances is perhaps an over-emphasis for the context of my everyday life of relative comfort. I keep having difficulty with them because I have the exact opposite approach: can’t feel OK about life until all the problems are solved. But that is also why I keep being drawn to them.

Posted in absolute goodness, meditation, morality, personal reflection, philosophy, Stoicism, suffering, Sunday Assembly | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Social justice, fairness, and ableism

In his post “Who owns the world?“, Doug Muder looks at the ‘justice’ in social justice, and argues that economic justice – or fairness – requires recognition of one’s debt to the commons. He explains that private ownership of natural resources (starting with fertile land) was essentially a human invention, and that this monopolisation of the means of wealth production was unfair. A parallel pattern now exists in people developing commercial products using pre-existing knowledge and technologies that are, or should be, part of a common legacy. Because of this, a mechanism is needed to continually re-level the playing field, to keep correcting for the inherent unfairness in people being allowed to make money from things that were not wholly theirs by rights.

That’s a pretty radical understanding of the rationale for progressive taxation. But there is a further problem with the concept of fairness, which is explored in an interesting article by Dylan Matthews, “The case against equality of opportunity“.

Equal opportunities would be impossible in practice, but even if we could all somehow have the exact same start in life, each person’s ‘opportunity’ to create a decent life for themselves would still depend on their innate talents and weaknesses and their ability to work hard. When people say there should be equality of opportunity, what they mean is that success should depend on talent and hard work alone – which might be perfectly reasonable, but when material well-being depends on achieving success (at something), it has this dark, unspoken corollary that those who are not so talented or cannot work hard are less deserving of a decent living standard. I think when you take into account the genetic and environmental lottery we all play, there is no real way to define the concept of “deserving”, and it seems inhumane that some people should just fall through the cracks.

Doug Muder touches on this problem towards the end of his post, but his answer seems to be that charity is still needed even in a world with equal opportunities. Which doesn’t really address the issue around “deserving”, because it puts people who can’t work at the mercy of the generosity of those who can. I don’t really think that is a whole lot more humane, or fair: a society in which wealth is stratified by intelligence and hard work is arguably not much better than one stratified by persistent accumulation of wealth and privilege, since intelligence and an ability to work hard are privileges in a way also.

I think most countries in the ‘developed’ world do provide a basic standard of living for those who can’t earn it for themselves (although we probably can’t take even that for granted; as I write, our government is busy cutting chunks out of disabled benefits, potentially to reduce middle-class tax bills…). And more wealth is not necessarily better for well-being, past a certain point. Dylan Matthews seems to suggest that we should ensure that everyone is at least OK and then not worry too much about the inequality above that, and I can see the point there.

But inequality does have real effects on the overall well-being of a society. It’s clear that we do tend to view our relative material position as a value judgement from society, and not as merely an indifferent consequence of impersonal labour market forces. Besides, money is power – people with wealth can influence and shape society in ways that others cannot (through the media, through political lobbying, and so on).

I read somewhere a while ago that ableism is the basis of all oppression. I have been mulling that statement over ever since. It’s true that every type of oppression, every instance of one group having power over another, is a result of the opportunistic grabbing of that power – they could, so they did. (Gender inequity, for example, perhaps originates in the difference in physical strength and the unequal division of reproductive “work” between male and female bodies.) Sometimes it’s just down to who got there first – as in those who got the first title deeds to productive land.

In an age where Darwinian natural selection and “survival of the fittest” is widely understood, and the Protestant work ethic deeply embedded in our culture, it’s difficult for our sociological imaginations to see structural ableism as something that can be questioned, and to conceive of another way. What would it be like if we didn’t have to work for a living? Many people are discussing this since technological advances may sooner or later render most people redundant. Would we find a way, as a society, to come to some agreement that we all have a share in the wealth produced by that technology? Probably we would have to for practical reasons, but would that in turn change how we thought about fairness?

Posted in moral issues, politics, social justice | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Lean In vs Lean Out, and thoughts on diversity

I recently read “Lean Out” by Dawn Foster, a response to “Lean In” by Sheryl Sandberg. It gave me a lot to think about.

I think these books together highlight two contrasting approaches to resolving inequality: one is to try to remove differences and distinctions between people; the other is to preserve differences but try to change the power balance.

Based on having seen her TED talk, Sheryl Sandberg’s advice to women seems largely to come into the first category. It teaches women how to succeed in the male-dominated world of big business, essentially by being more like men in having greater self-confidence and willingness to promote themselves. She does suggest that workplaces need to become more woman-friendly (or motherhood-friendly), too, but seems to put most of the onus on women to start getting into top positions in greater numbers so that this kind of change can be created. This approach has been heavily criticised because it’s mostly concerned with the success of elite women, and ignores the awkward fact that such success depends on an army of nannies, housekeepers and unpaid interns, to whom none of the benefits “trickle down” in practice.

“Lean Out” seems to be more concerned with political change to obtain protection, better conditions, and financial security for the majority of women nearer the bottom of the pyramid. There seemed to be nothing in the book about challenging cultural gender roles – it’s more about seeking protection for women in the roles they currently find themselves in (not just in terms of work, but motherhood, particularly single motherhood, unpaid caregiving, and so on) and getting society to value the work they do.

What about my own feminism? Well, I have some issues with the “we are all the same really” approach. My generation has been taught to be colourblind, to believe that we are all the same underneath the skin; I have more recently become aware of how this actually erases people, denies them true representation, whenever one group is particularly dominant. (See for example Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s excellent talk ‘The danger of a single story‘.) The same is true with gender – males and females are socialised differently throughout life and to deny or minimise those differences when trying to get more women into male-dominated arenas essentially just means women have to assimilate into the male ‘culture’. This seems to me what Sandberg is trying to do and I don’t really agree with it.

Foster on the other hand doesn’t really question the fact that there are differences, and instead sees the problem as lying in women’s traditional roles being under-valued, rather than women needing to be better-equipped to “succeed”. A lot of which I agree with, but I guess I see gender role segregation as a bad thing, too; not just for the resulting inequality, but for exaggerating the differences between the sexes.

I want all labour to be valued. I also want roles to change, but in the process, for differences to be respected and valued; I want true diversity in that sense. I think it would challenge unhealthy norms and groupthink, everyone would learn more, and problem-solving could be more dynamic. Is that all just pie in the sky really though?

I noted in my previous post that my feminism had developed into, partially, an idealistic mandate for women to mitigate their collective vulnerability by insisting on equality in every area of life. In other words, there was a good bit of “Lean In” in there, in the sense of putting the onus on individual women. I had created new expectations for myself and others, around embracing diversity and challenging traditional role segregation, that need to be critically examined.

Diversity is really hard! One of the examples of diversity in action that I most admire is Unitarianism – I found Unitarian church much more radically inclusive than the global Sunday Assembly community has turned out to be – and yet, of course, I stopped going regularly because I didn’t feel there were “enough people like me there” (i.e. secular types). I treasure diversity and yet it seems I cannot bear to be in a minority, even when I know I am welcome. How much more careful, more neutral, would the content of the services have to be so that I would feel I belonged? If this is an analogue for, say, state-schooled students in elite universities, women in politics, or men taking a chunk of parental leave in a country where baby-changing facilities are hardly ever provided in men’s bathrooms, what does this say for the prospects of my “diversity” ideal?

Of course, none of these approaches is easy. But I think what “Lean Out” has given me is a greater appreciation for the need to focus on addressing the power imbalance directly – rather than purely indirectly through desegregation of gender roles.

Posted in feminism, gender, personal reflection, politics, social justice, Sunday Assembly, Unitarian | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment