Boston College refuses to allow students, administrators, or health providers to distribute condoms, does not mention any other method besides abstinence as an effective means to prevent STI’s and HIV/AIDS on their website, and will only prescribe oral contraceptives to women who claim that they are taking the pill for “other reasons” besides birth control.
Boston College Students for Sexual Health (BCSSSH) is an unofficial student group that formed in 2009 to provide students with information that many feel they would not, or could not, otherwise receive at a Catholic institution. BCSSH hands out condoms on the sidewalk of College Road (or CoRo, as it is more commonly known), which is owned by the city of Newton, and not Boston College. BCSSH has also created “Safe Sites,” a network of dorm rooms and other common spaces on campus where condoms and pamphlets are available for free.
Although many would claim condom distribution is antithetical to Catholic doctrine, student representatives of BCSSH say that the administration had never directly asked them to halt distribution until March 15, when BCSSH received a sort-of “cease and desist” letter that BCSSH chairwoman Lizzie Jekanowski characterized as “bizzarely, vaguely threatening.” The letter, signed by Dean of Students Paul Chebator and Director of Residence Life George Arey, reads: “While we understand that you may not be intentionally violating university policy, we do need to advise you that should we receive any reports that you are, in fact, distributing condoms on campus, the matter would be referred to the student conduct office for disciplinary action by the university.”
The school’s policies are in line with what Jack Dunn, a spokesman for the college, calls “our Catholic commitments.” However, Dunn says that BC does not prevent students from purchasing condoms off campus, or take disciplinary action against students who use condoms. Is BC’s policy of allowing students to use condoms in private, but not encouraging that decision in public, enough to ensure that students make healthy, affirming sexual choices?
The answer is no. First, consider the context. Over 70 percent of BC students identify as Catholic, a statistic that is important for two reasons: 1) it is rational to assume that many BC students went to Catholic primary and secondary schools, where they did not receive comprehensive sexual education that included lessons on contraception; 2) that 30 percent of students are not Catholic, and therefore might feel alienated, confused, or frustrated by the school’s attitudes toward contraception.
Second, consider the message. BC is basically telling students, “Hey, we know that research says that 99 percent of practicing Catholics use some form of birth control, but we are choosing to ignore reality in order to perpetuate an antiquated ideology.” The administration is also rejecting the fact that we know more about effective contraception methods and STI prevention than ever before, and that students have a right to access that information, even if they choose not to have sex. Since BC chose to ignore, and therefore passively accept, BCSSH’s activities since 2009, the fact that they are reversing their position makes them appear aggressive and hypocritical.
Third, consider the greater Catholic mission. Jekanowski said it best: “We see it as very intrinsic of being a Jesuit that we provide these resources and we affirm the whole person,” she said. “Students shouldn’t have to choose between holistic health care and a world class institution.”
Why should Duke students, or more generally, students who do not attend Catholic institutions, care about the BC condom controversy?
One on hand, it’s easy to dismiss this incident as just another one of the Catholic Church’s antiquated political schemes. It’s tempting to say, “Well, BC students know that they are attending a Catholic institution, and agreed to adhere to the school’s rules and doctrines when they signed their acceptance offers.” However, both of these perspectives delegitimize Catholic students’ demands for comprehensive sex education.
College students everywhere undergo a number of paradigm shifts and transformative experiences, and students at BC or other Catholic colleges are no different. Just because the students signed an agreement to uphold the tenets of the Catholic faith does not mean that BC’s students cannot, or should not, challenge those tenets while they are in school. We should applaud BCSSH for standing up for what they believe in, even though it might be unpopular with the administration or the campus as a whole.
In fourth grade, I did a lot of things I’m not proud of. I wore pants to school that were fully ripped up the butt, and not just one time. I let my mom give me a bowl cut – again. I allowed my classmates to nickname me “Beaner”, which neither they nor I realized was a racial slur (made especially inappropriate by its application to the only mildly Hispanic person in the class). Exercising a complete lack of oversight, my mom then let me sew this name on a backpack. This is, perhaps, the most embarrassing thing I have ever worn on my body for two straight years.
Yet what I am least proud of is that for about a month at age 9, I was a bully. I was always the smart kid in a very small class, but in 4th grade, Jane showed up on the scene – and she was smart, too. AND, on top of THAT, she also liked the same boy as I did. So my friends and I decided that we would dislike her. We would make mean jokes about her, behind her back and to her face. Personally, my job was to walk on the back of her ankles in line. I finally got reprimanded when I made a photo scrapbook for a project and put stickers on top of her face whenever she was in a picture. Although I wasn’t the sole perpetrator, I was the only one reprimanded – which was probably just, because I certainly incited the bullying. When I think about 4th grade with Jane, I can still feel a twinge of regret in my stomach - and I deserve to.
This was my first experience with woman-on-woman combat. I would like to say that this sort of self-centered disregard for the feelings and thoughts of others ends when we’re all juniors in high school, as was the expectation created by the movie Mean Girls. Yet there are certainly fully-grown adults (or college student equivalents) that practice their own form of bullying – exclusion, silent treatments, baseless shit-talking, or purposeless spite.
Although it is frequently referred to as such, I think that it is overly simplistic to call this a problem of “women holding other women back.” Something that is often forgotten (by feminists and non-feminists alike) is that women are people, and might not identify first and foremost with their gender above all else. Women are not “holding other women back” in the sense that the terminology implies when female Republicans and Democrats compete, or when two women with different ideas on gay marriage advocate for different sides of the issue, or in most circumstances where women disagree with and critique one another. Women debating is necessarily defined by their womanhood, and no one is holding anyone anywhere simply because women disagree or compete. What I think is more constructive phrasing is to talk about is feminists holding other feminists back through unwarranted or unnecessary criticism.
Now, I’m not saying that feminists should not be constantly critiquing one another. As a group that is, itself, critiqued constantly, advocates for equality should constantly seek to perfect their message. This requires the ability to take criticism, especially from people who are striving for your same goals. It is almost never helpful to silence yourself or others for the sake of sparing someone’s feelings. However, there is a huge difference between critiquing someone’s ideas or actions for a greater good and criticizing for personal gain.
An example of this recently brought to my attention was the story of Sheryl Sandberg – the COO of Facebook – who published a book, Lean In, made up of stories and advice for ambitious women. Yet before the book was even published, feminist authors who had not read it began tearing it to shreds, calling Sandberg’s book “pontification” to women too poor to follow her advice. They called her a pseudo-feminist who was exploiting women’s rights to make money and foster power. Now, I have read this book, and although there are some marks of a very rich woman, Sandberg actually presents a rather clear and inspiring message to ambitious women, in all types of work (not excluding housework). Stories of Sandberg’s life and her own depiction of it in her book do not reek of fake feminism, but reflect a successful, intelligent, feminist woman who I am more than happy to take advice from. Yet women’s rights advocates jumped at the chance to denigrate Sandberg as a fraud of a feminist and her book as a detriment to the feminist cause – although they had little to no knowledge of what the book was actually about. As they themselves were feminists, their opinions were widely accepted and they were literally paid to lay them out in essay format for highly-esteemed newspapers and magazines. When the book came out, there was a backlash to the backlash (albeit smaller in its second wave). This kind of behavior is not only unhelpful to pretty much anyone, but also this type of publicly displayed closed-mindedness and thoughtless, self-indulgent criticism exhibited by some well-known feminist authors could dissuade young women and men from wanting to ally themselves with what, from the outside, looks to be incredibly hypocritical group of people.
This kind of behavior is not unique to the world of literature or the public sphere. It also occurs right here at Duke. DSG elections, Chronicle articles and comment boards, discussion panels on equality issues, and even just everyday conversations can become competitions of who is the better advocate for equal rights. These arguments can range from helpful to downright dirty, with everything from constructive criticism to snide disapproval to outright personal attack. Often, these debates come not from an intellectual level and are not meant to help discussion or others, but are meant to uplift one person by denigrating another. They most often come out of competing personal interests to be right – to be the better egalitarian. Whether it be social approval, respect for oneself or one’s activities, or simply superiority that is desired out of this criticism, it is not necessarily a productive critique that adds to Duke’s culture and conversation. Although focusing on how a message is delivered is important and necessary, it seems that at Duke, we are stuck in our typical competitive nature and are overly concerned with being the best. However, we must be aware that this comes with a price. More often than not, a message’s worth and many of its non-feminist listeners are lost in overly meticulous discussion.
You cannot censor criticism. It is crucial and necessary for critique to be given and taken. However, equal rights advocates need to be especially careful when critiquing others, because their position gives them power. Bigoted and baseless critique can be accepted blindly as correct if it comes from someone who claims themselves an egalitarian. When criticizing others who share your pro-equality views, therefore, it is absolutely imperative to keep in mind whether your critique will further the debate or quash it. We must be mindful to not count our own individual feminism as the only good way to do it. And, perhaps most importantly, we must keep in mind our own personal investments, and be sure that we are critiquing out of intellectuality and not self-interest. Because if there is something the feminist movement cannot become, if for no other reason than to avoid confirming untrue stereotypes, it is a group of self-promoting, pseudo-benevolent bullies.
For more info on the Sheryl Sandberg story, check out these stories:
As I celebrate my youngest child’s 18th birthday, I find myself thinking about all those mothers who will be sending their children to our campus in a matter of 4 months. I offer thoughts that I shared with my daughter on April 5.
Well, Flannery….rumor has it that you, my baby, are 18 years old. Like a branding, the memory of the first time I saw you is burned in my brain. I laid down for a nap and poof, you are 18.
And I simply could not be more proud.
This year, I have struggled and struggled to figure out what to give to you. And finally I decided the only thing or worth I can give you is this mirror of sorts. I am going to share my experience of you.
Sharing this life with you is more beautiful than I have words to express. Let’s be realsies, partners have come and gone, love has been lost, hearts have been broken, bank accounts laid bare. We’ve buried a lot of bodies, right? But, you and my total commitment and attachment to you, like modge podge to magazine pictures, have been unyielding, unwavering and decidedly uncrappy.
And for that and to you, my dear, I am so grateful.
Of all the mothers you could have chosen to share this, part 1 of your journey with, I am eternally grateful you chose me.
And I am really really excited about this next phase of your journey. I suppose it is our journey. To this point as we have traveled down this road together, we have walked pretty much side by side. Perhaps I carried you at first then I put you down and you ran ahead of me, always beckoning me “catch up, mom,” “looks what’s around this corner!” And there have been times, we know what they are, when you have carried me. Remember this? “Mom, he can’t love you if he doesn’t love himself. AND HE DOESN’T LOVE HIMSELF!”
I know it’s your 18th birthday, but honestly, I feel like I am the one receiving the gift. And it’s all elegantly wrapped with a beautiful ribbon and I sit with it and wonder “what’s inside?” And I shake it and try to guess and the anticipation …. You can feel it in the air. The next phase of your journey….what’s in store? What’s around the corner? What surprises lie in wait?
I don’t know and I don’t want to know and I don’t want you to know. Let’s be surprised. Delightfully, giggly, obnoxiously surprised. Goodbye to the little girl Flannery and hello to the woman Flannery. At this part of your journey, it’s time for you to kick me off the train and go alone. Not completely alone. As e.e. cummings writes, you will always be in my heart, but you will take this next leg of the journey without my daily physical presence. But always always with my love, my support and my last dying breath. All of them are yours. Kidneys, spleens, laundry done, soup made….whatever you need that I have is yours. You got that beautiful mop of hair of yours from dad, but let’s be honest, you got those gorgeous legs from your mom. And they are sturdy and strong and about 8 miles long. They will carry you wherever you need to go. And you got that heart of yours, that courageous don’tfuckwithmeorthoseiloveheart from you. Not me, not dad, you made that yourself.
No one, no ONE, no one is more prepared, more deserving, more ready than Flannery Jones of Durham, NC. I stand at the train station and I wave goodbye to you, to my heart and I stand with a fully charged cell phone waiting for your stories of all your adventures, your triumphs and your failures. I am so excited to hear about the failures! The total screw ups!! The heartbreaks. The times you kick ass! I am ready for them all, but more importantly, so are you.
Bon Voyage! Have a safe trip, but not too safe! Saol fada chgat, a ghra mo chroi. (long life to you, love of my heart)
Every time I go home for any break, I’m subjected to two pretty awful things: first, these nauseating oriental herbal drinks that apparently reignite a long-gone growth spurt, and second, my mother’s outdated marriage advice about finding someone superior to me.
I can handle the former because I know it will my mother happy that I still “try” at growing (though how one “tries” to grow is and forever will remain a mystery to me). But I choke a little with the latter. It’s a bit more problematic to digest, and I felt the same way when I read Patton’s viral letter.
The basic premise of Patton’s letter—that Princeton females should find a husband before they graduate—can be summarized in this quote:
“Smart women can’t (shouldn’t) marry men who aren’t at least their intellectual equal. As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market. Simply put, there is a very limited population of men who are as smart or smarter than we are.”
Her words have predictably outraged many in our friendly online community, feminists and non-feminists alike. But before I go on to make somewhat similar criticisms, I will admit that there’s some truth in what she (and my mother) says about marriage.
Yes, if your future husband/partner attends a university supposedly ranked lower than Duke, he might be intimidated by your success. There’s a reason why videos like "I went to Princeton, bitch" exist.
Yes, if he makes less money than you, it might threaten his “leading” or “provider” role in the relationship. You yourself can take on that role but no lie, it feels nice to sometimes be taken care of.
Yes, I do believe that family is a significant influence on one’s future happiness. So I do believe that whom you choose to marry may be “inextricably linked to that.”
All in all, I know that my mother wants the best for me. She wants me to be happy, if not comfortable in my relationship with my husband. So she prepares me for what she regards as “inevitable reality.”
Simply because these are potential realities, however, it doesn’t necessarily mean we should or have to play by Patton’s rules. What is fundamentally wrong with my mother’s views and Patton’s letter is their troubling elitist perception of marriage.
Patton’s argument as to why her “daughters” at Princeton should scout out a husband during undergrad isn’t even all that multidimensional. She assumes that intellectual compatibility will prevent a relationship from being “frustrating” for a woman.
As someone who’s attended a supposedly prestigious institution with highly ambitious and intellectual gentlemen, I promise you Ms. Patton, that a man’s intelligence does not guarantee maturity, responsibility, warm-heartedness, or generosity. This isn’t to say that there are men here at Duke who can be all these things, but to assume that intellect and success will ultimately make me happy is an offensive presupposition of my values.
Men, you should feel pretty offended too. She just cut you off from ever having a chance with any girl at Princeton. Good luck with that. And you poor men from any other school that doesn’t cut it to the top ten of U.S. News and Weekly, you’ll really have it tough if you decide that a woman’s “lack of erudition” actually does matter in addition to her beauty.
Also, I understand that she is not necessarily telling girls to stop striving towards their professional goals and leadership positions. But what is pretty explicit in her letter, especially when she implies that we can’t date younger men, is that we should still look for someone who can lead and take care of us.
I understand that many ambitious, type-A girls (I can relate) often look for a man who can challenge but respect their authority and offer to “wear the pants” in the relationship. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this desire, but it perpetuates the age-old damsel in distress, princess-saving love/relationship theories that unfairly burdens men with standards of perfection and stability, which they obviously do not have. Whatever age, however smart, both men and women are still learning and growing in a relationship.
Lastly, Patton tells me that the “cornerstone” of my “future and happiness” will be defined by the man I marry. I wonder how many men would say the same about their future wives, over any dreams and passions they’ve built about their careers and success. Patton overlooks the massively changing dynamic in the field of working women (she must have missed the Lean In frenzy), and assumes that women can’t be marked by her own professional accomplishments as well.
So perhaps my mother knows things that I don’t, given her twenty years of marriage as opposed to my zero. Perhaps we should just treat Patton’s letter as “honest advice from a Jewish mother,” as she remarked on Huffington Post. But the reality is that Patton neglected the power of the media and openly dampened the growing efforts among young women to be independent, successful, and respected in a still heavily patriarchal society.
Succumbing to reality just because of its long establishments is not only disheartening and sad, but it’s just wrong. Hopefully, that doesn’t come as a surprise. Call me naive for believing in the power of change, but I believe that marriage dynamic has and will continue to evolve. I believe that an elitist standard like one’s educational background will not mark the hierarchy in a relationship. I hope that hierarchy will fail to exist at all.
Shortly after the World Trade Center complex was completed, acrobat Philippe Petit tight-roped across the gap between the two buildings, a quarter mile above the New York City streets.
In the novel “Let the Great World Spin,” this year’s summer reading selection for Duke University’s Class of 2017, author Colum McCann imagines how this single, daring event turned from ordinary to extraordinary the lives of many people watching on the street below.
“The summer reading book should be relatable to the Duke experience, and I think ‘Let the Great World Spin’ is the perfect choice with this consideration in mind,” said Valentine Esposito, a junior and member of the Duke Summer Reading committee. “The book stitches together the experiences of a diverse group of people living in New York by depicting a single event they all witnessed or interacted with.
“At Duke, you will meet many people that are different from yourself in every sense,” Esposito added. “In my opinion, the beauty of the Duke experience is coming to appreciate these differences while recognizing the events and moments that stitch everyone's Duke experience together.”
Duke’s Summer Reading Program is designed to give incoming students a shared intellectual experience with other members of their class. During orientation welcome week activities, students will discuss the book in small groups and the committee will attempt to arrange an author visit for a larger campus discussion.
The selection committee is comprised of faculty, staff and students.
“Every year we compile a list of books recommended by faculty, students and staff, and discuss the merits of each selection. After a few rounds of readings and conversations, our committee reduces the list to five or six books,” said Clay Adams, director of New Student Programs and co-chair of the selection committee. “We then reach out to the Duke community for their feedback.”
In addition to “Let the Great World Spin,” this year’s finalists included:
“Behind the Beautiful Forevers,” by Katherine Boo
“Little Princes,” by Conor Grennan
“Crashing Through,” by Robert Kurson, and
“Purge,” by Sofi Oksanen
“I think the incoming freshmen will have the opportunity to engage in discussion surrounding the substantive themes in this book, and will be reminded that risk-taking, selflessness, and the courage to step outside of a comfort zone are important things to remember in the first semester on Duke's campus,” said Trinity student and committee member Madison Moyle. Currently, the committee is working to arrange a visit by the author to discuss his book. “I hope to meet McCann if he comes to speak in the fall, and I am confident that the incoming freshmen will enjoy their summer reading.”
A special printing of the book for first-year Duke students is underway. The book will be mailed to members of the Duke Class of 2017 in July.
Past summer reading selections include “A State of Wonder,” by Ann Patchett; “Eating Animals,” by Jonathan Safran Foer; “Everything Matters,” by Ron Currie, Jr.; “The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao,” by Junot Diaz; “What is the What,” by David Eggers; and “The Best of Enemies,” by Osha Gray Davidson.
I’ve been writing blog posts about my first year experience at Duke as a way to share my story with Duke families. I am working as an intern with the Parent and Family Programs, and so far I’ve written about topics including O-Week, academics, stress, and communication. To follow up on my last post about keeping in touch with my family, this week I’m writing about how my relationships with family and friends changed when I returned home for breaks.
I’ll never forget the moment my mom drove away only a few short days after I arrived at Duke in August. As I walked back to my dorm from the parking lot where we had said good-bye, I realized for the first time just how different college would be from home. I’d never felt so on my own before! For a while, it was exciting to meet new people and explore the campus. For the first two weeks, I was not homesick. I compared college to summer camp; I had a roommate, a schedule, planned activities during orientation, and a far distance between myself and everyone I knew.
Yet, after those first two weeks I started to miss home. I wanted my own room, my comfy bed, my own bathroom, and my refrigerator filled with all my favorite foods. College was weird! I made a countdown to Fall Break, and could barely wait to go home and reunite myself with my family and friends, in addition to my bed, bathroom, and kitchen.
However, when I finally returned home, I was surprised by the many differences I found there. I had expected to feel as though I had a double life: there was the “Duke Casey”, and the “high school Casey.” But, when I went home, I found that to everyone else, there was only the Duke Casey. I wasn’t a part of high school anymore, and most of my friends still were. I felt separated from them and I didn’t know how to bring myself closer. They talked about people and events I didn’t know about. I was confused! Hadn’t I only been away for two months? How could I already miss out on so much?
When I went back home, I didn’t have the same relationships with my friends. I had expected life to “pause” back home, and hoped that while I was at Duke, people would stay the same. However, as time goes on, people change, and I’ve now learned to accept that. Undoubtedly, I was different as well when I returned home. I have begun to think differently in college; I am more focused on my goals and my future, I want to use my summers to get internship experience, and I have learned to be more independent. College has allowed me to see the bigger picture of my life. I realize that high school has helped me to achieve my acceptance at Duke University, and now my experience here at Duke needs to be able to help me achieve a life-long career. Until I actually got here, my goal in life had been just that: to get here. Now that I’m here, I have created new goals and met new people, all of which has changed my perspective on my future. I realize now that high school is not as important as I thought it had been. Gaining experience in my interests at Duke over the next four years is going to strengthen me much more than anything I did in 9th through 12th grade. This complete turn-around in my perception of my goals has affected my relationships with my high school friends.
When I began writing this blog, it was the week before Spring Break, and my plan was to go on a beach trip with Cru to Topsail, NC. I was upset with my past returns home because nothing had lived up to my expectations. I had imagined myself going back home and spending every free moment with my friends and family. However, the reality was that my friends in high school still had classes all day when I was on break, and my family members still had errands to run and jobs to do when I returned. Because of this, I made the decision to spend Spring Break becoming more involved in Cru through the trip to the beach. I wanted to make new friends in college and to go on a small adventure to Topsail. However, as the week before the break continued, I started realizing how homesick I was. I missed my friends and family, even if they didn’t immediately clear their schedules for me when I came home. Seeing them even for five minutes was better than nothing at all! On Thursday, March 7, I called my mom and we talked about the possibility of coming home. We had already paid for the beach trip, and I even had a plane ticket for a trip home over Easter weekend. Unfortunately, the plane ticket could not be switched to a flight over Spring Break, and all the busses back to Washington D.C. were sold out of seats. It seemed impossible to find a reasonable way to get back to Pennsylvania! However, I finally decided to buy another plane ticket, and on Friday, March 8 I was on my way back home. I spent time with my family during the school day, and when my friends were free in the evenings I was able to visit with them. I was so excited to return home, and so thankful that my mom helped me to come back that I wasn’t bothered by everyone’s busy schedules.
I had a wonderful time at home, and I definitely learned my lesson. I was too ambitious in deciding to go to the beach. I realized at the last minute that I simply wasn’t ready to leave my home in January and return in May. I needed the break in March and I desperately needed to reconnect with my family and friends. Becoming completely independent is a much longer and harder process than I had thought it to be. Some of my freshman classmates went away for the break, and I was likewise determined to prove my independence However, I know it was the right decision to go back. I feel refreshed and ready to take on the last several weeks of the semester.
Stay tuned for the upcoming April Newsletter where you’ll find my final blog recapping my overall First Year experience here at Duke.
“I’m sure I could think of other ways for a pretty girl like you to make a living.”
Did you just read that? Did you shudder just a little? I think we can all agree that there is a large creep quotient contained in the above sentence. This is one of the many submissions on the tumblr Said to Lady Journos. Somehow this person managed to demean women, journalists, and the boundaries of decency in 18 words. The site makes it clear that this kind of occurrence is not uncommon. My personal favorite was said to a woman covering a murder trial, and when the testimony was getting gruesome, a man looked at her and said, “You might want to cover your ears, young lady.”
It’s tough to be a lady journo. The kind of sexism we see on screen and in print is just as prevalent behind the scenes. Men dominate journalism- 74% of journalists at national papers are men. It gets more depressing when you go into more traditionally gendered sections of the paper- 3% of sports writers are women. As a note, at schools like Georgetown 59% of journalism majors are women. So this isn’t about women not being interested in journalism. Surprise, institutional sexism is afoot.
Last year I started a project to see how often women made the front page of large national papers. The methodology was simple. Pick 50 random dates from 2005-2010 and find the gender of the reporters wrote the front-page stories. After hours of looking at microfiche (which is a very unfamiliar experience for a child of the Internet age, by the way) I had some concrete evidence, and results were startling.
I’m not claiming that these numbers gleaned from a small sample are definitive, what I’m positing is that these numbers are indicative of trends that others have (often more eloquently) also written about here, here, and here.
So yeah, there’s a problem of sexism in media. You’re probably about to click the back button while muttering to yourself, “duh.” Here’s why I care, and here’s why you should too- it matter who writes the news. Some might disagree. They might say, “news should be objective” or “the truth is the truth.” I say that if you don’t believe writer’s biases affect their writing, you aren’t paying attention. Our experiences shape how we address issues. The experience of men and women in this country is fundamentally different. Until we have a plurality of experience represented in the media, we’ll never be representing the news as it’s lived by citizens. It’s simple. With only 30% of reporters being female, we aren’t even getting half the story