Creativity and Mental Health

On a related topic to my current "Ability Bouquet" drawing (which includes differences in physical, emotional, and mental ability) is the correlation between creative people (painters, sculptors, musicians, performers, composers, fiction writers, poets) and mental health issues. As Lord Byron remarked about himself and his fellow poets, "We of the craft are all crazy. Some affected by gaiety, others by melancholy, but all are more or less touched."

This is a correlation that I've always found rather interesting - both on a personal note (as someone working in creative professions and with mental health issues running in her family) and on a broader scale - and is therefore a topic I've thought a lot about over the years. I even wrote a paper on this topic for an Art History class in college, listing famous 19th & 20th century artists who suffered (or probably suffered) from mental illnesses including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorders, and substance abuse problems.

There are a lot of similar lists out there, linking famous (dead) people to probable mental disorders. For example, Kay Redfield Jamison's book, Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament - a fantastic book, by the way, and well worth the read if this is a subject you're interested in - includes in Appendix B a list of writers, artists and composers with probable cyclothymia (a form of mild bipolar), major depression, or manic-depressive illness. The famous names include writers F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, William Blake, Edgar Allen Poe, Victor Hugo, Emily Dickinson, John Keats, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Sylvia Plath, Walt Whitman, Joseph Conrad, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Faulkner, Mary Shelley, and Virginia Woolf; musicians Peter Tchaikovsky, Robert Schumann, and Irving Berlin; and artists Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh, Michelangelo, Edvard Munch, Georgia O'Keeffe, Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko.

I find understanding people's psychology really fascinating, and it can be a fun (though not necessarily truthful) exercise to speculate on the inner turmoil of historical figures. I also find it interesting (and problematic) how eager our society is to latch onto this creativity-mental health correlation, to the point where we have this prevailing archetype of the crazy, boozy, moody, unstable artist. By putting so much weight on this correlation, we end up stereotyping, exaggerating, and misunderstanding it, to the detriment of living artists and contemporary sufferers of mental health issues. I want to clear up some of these misconceptions in this blog post.

First of all, it is important to remember that correlation does not imply causation. Having a mental illness does not make someone an artist - nor does being an artist necessarily give someone a mental illness.

It is possible that certain mental illnesses (especially mood disorders or substance abuse problems that include addiction to mood/mind altering substances) might inspire creative ideas or ideas with emotional resonance. But having thoughts or feelings and being able to turn those thoughts and feelings into a moving piece of art, music, theater, or writing is not the same thing. Thinking or feeling something does not always (nor often) translate into being able to work as a functioning artist.

For that matter, not everyone struggling with mental disorders wants to be an artist, and saying that there is or should be "a creative upside" to a manic episode, to seeing hallucinations, to overcoming pain, or to using mind-altering substances is a dangerous suggestion. It alienates or shames those who don't get anything "productive" out of these things, making them believe that they aren't processing or dealing with their emotional or mental health problems in an acceptable, affirming way.

It is also possible that trying to work as a professional artist - with the erratic hours, variable paycheck, and exposure to potentially dangerous art supplies (lead paints, fumes, aerosol sprays, sharp carving tools, exacto knives, etc) - might trigger or exacerbate an episode of a mental disorder in some people. But this type of work environment does not affect everyone in the same way, and usually when it comes to mental illnesses, nature and nurture work concurrently. Someone's environment alone won't cause mental illness - they also often have to have a genetic predisposition that makes mental health issues more likely to cause them problems.

What's more likely, then, is that instead of it being one OR the other, it's one AND the other. They each feed off each other in people who are both artistic and deal with mental health issues: their chosen profession will sometimes impact their mental health and their mental health with sometimes impact their professional life.

In addition, other outside factors might cause, inspire, or impact both. Maybe thinking creatively is a personality trait that both makes someone more likely to consider a career in the arts and to suffer from mental health issue; maybe genetic strengths in senses like vision, hearing, or touch (or in the parts of the brain that regulate those functions) make someone more likely to develop talents in visual, auditory, or tactile fields which are also creative, as well as making them predisposed to certain mental illnesses.

It has also been suggested that it is not actually true that more writers and artists suffer mental illness compared to the general population - just that they are perhaps more sensitive to their own mood states, and therefore more able or willing to articulate and report on them.

Science is still searching for the answers to these questions - and may never find them. Rarely is there just one cause; usually it is a whole plethora of possibilities, all working together - and yet also all working differently in each person.

The second important point I want to make is this: just because some artists suffer from very serious mental illnesses doesn't mean that all artists do - or should. It doesn't mean that a healthy, functional, well-adjusted artist is "less of an artist" for not struggling with inner demons. It also doesn't mean that mental illness makes someone a better artist.

In fact, the opposite is often true. Though periods of depression or mania might seem to give someone deep access to human emotions or spark artistic inspiration, an artist suffering from those mood disorders is often unable to actually function as an artist (that is, produce creatively) during those periods. It is only after they have somewhat recovered that they will have the motivation, focus, and ability to produce quality work or follow through on their projects to completion.

And yet we have this prevailing stereotype of the emotional artist, which romanticizes damaging and dysfunctional behaviors as something vital and required for anyone wishing to create serious art. As Jamison writes, "The assumption that within artistic circles madness, melancholy and suicide are somehow normal is prevalent, making it difficult at times to ferret out truth from expectation."

When people believe that their mental disorders are an integral part of who they are - the part that makes them special, gives them creative inspiration, or improves their work - they sometimes purposefully suffer them, even when other options are available. They might refuse treatment, deny medications, or choose to self-medicate instead (with harmful substances like alcohol or drugs), all in the spirit of retaining the core of their personality, being "true" to who they are, or tapping into a mythical artistic well of deep emotions/real creative inspiration.

Like any job, there will be times when it's easier or harder, when ideas come faster or slower, and when it seems like you've been waiting years for inspiration or recognition. But artists, writers, musicians, and performers are also sometimes expected to put themselves in dangerous positions or situations that others wouldn't, just for the sake of the story; suffer mental illnesses that others would not put up with, in an effort to carry the emotional weight of the world and see/understand universal truths about the human condition; or even purposefully self-harm with destructive behaviors in a misguided attempt to "become a true artist" - all expectations that are grossly unjust for anyone to endure. When it's such a prevelent idea in society, it's hard to shake - but the truth is, artists do not have to suffer for their art, and I resent the implication that they do.

Mental disorders are serious things. I personally know several people (most of whom are NOT artist-types) who suffer from depression, anxiety, OCD, bipolar disorder, and others; I see how it impacts their lives. It's not something to joke about, minimize, ignore, stigmatize, or fetishize. Suffering isn't romantic. It doesn't automatically make people stronger or more creative, and it doesn't open imaginative doors to them that would otherwise remain closed. People can find inspiration in a lot of places - their suffering included - but no one has to suffer to find inspiration. There are always other ways.

The Sexuality Umbrella

Everyone might not agree with me on this point, but I believe there is a much wider range of different "sexualities" than we usually suppose. 

First there is someone's sexual orientation - what "type" of person you are physically attracted to. This is often what we think of when we talk of someone's sexuality, and it is often broken into only three categories: straight (attracted to someone of the opposite sex), homosexual/gay/lesbian (attracted to someone of the same sex), and bisexual (attracted to both sexes). 

The problem with these three categories is that neglects to consider the true spectrum of genders/sexes that exist within humans (see this previous post for more on that topic). There are people who are not male or female, and still others who identify as both male and female, and the above three categories assumes that no one would be attracted to someone who does not have a clear sex/gender label one way or the other. 

To rectify this problem, new terms have developed (or been reclaimed) in recent years, including pansexual, omnisexual, and queer, which refer to being attracted to people of all genders, including transgendered individuals.

But this still doesn't cover the entirety of the human sexuality experience. What about people who bristle at the idea of labeling what gender/sex they are attracted to? After all, it's not like straight women are attracted to all men, or straight men are attracted to all women, or gay men are attracted to all men, or pansexuals are attracted to every single person on the planet. We are attracted to and forge connections with individuals, not entire genders. Or what about people who aren't attracted to anyone, and have a very low or non-existence sex drive?

These people are often glossed over when we talk of sexuality - but there is a vocabulary out there that's being increasingly used, in an effort to include them. There's demisexual, meaning that someone doesn't experience primary physical attraction, but may experience secondary attraction after forming a close personal bond with another person. There is also asexuality, a term for people who don't find themselves sexually attracted to anyone. (Asexual individuals often do form close bonds with people, and might even have (non-pleasurable) sex with them - but that is a choice, and has to do with sexual behaviors - which I'll get into more in a bit.) Gray-asexuality is another recent term, used to describe someone who feels their sexuality falls somewhere on a spectrum between sexual attraction and complete asexuality.

Keep in mind that these terms are not mutually exclusive. Someone could have a low libido and little interest in sex and therefore identify as asexual or gray-asexual or demisexual - but also identify as a specific sexual orientation (i.e. gay) because of who they are attracted to (i.e. someone of their same sex) on those rare occasions when they have sexual desire. Still others might have so few experiences of attraction or desire to draw from that they aren't sure how to label their orientation - or if they should label it at all.

Besides this, there are other things that might complicate someone's sexual orientation. For one thing, we all define attraction and desire a little differently - including or excluding physical attraction and emotional attraction depending on the person. For another, most of us are capable of understanding if someone could be considered "attractive" - even if they are not a gender we typically look at or would say we are personally attracted to. 

I feel like women especially have this tendency to recognize (or appreciate, or feel threatened by) attractiveness/beauty/sexiness in people of any gender - because our world is built for a male gaze, and billboards and magazine covers and television ads and porn sites are plastered with still images and videos of attractive women; and because women are culturally taught to look at other women and judge themselves against each other; and because women are expected to make themselves more attractive to men (or to other women) by the way they dress, wear their hair, do their makeup, etc. This sort of environment can breed jealousy and envy, and I feel like there is often only a fine line between coveting someone's body because you want to have sex with them and coveting someone's body because you want your body to look like theirs.

This might transition into identifying as bisexual or pansexual for some women; for others, it would never. Close friendships between two people can also complicate things - particularly among those who form emotional bonds first and foremost, and rely on that emotional intimacy to lead them into physical/sexual attraction.

Finally, there are behaviors and choices to consider, which are other important parts of sexuality. These categories would include someone's past sexual experience and someone's future sexual experience - what they have done, and what they will choose to engage or not engage in in the future.

Celibacy is refraining from sexual behaviors of any kind, usually born from a desire to prioritize other areas of life instead (such as one's psychology or spirituality). Abstinence is choosing to refrain from sexual intercourse (though not necessarily other sexual behaviors) - often for religious/spiritual reasons or for medical reasons.

On the other end of the frequency spectrum are people who choose to have a lot of sex or engage in a wide range of sexual behaviors, perhaps with many different partners. There are plenty of terms used to describe such behavior - and many of them are gendered, because our society tends to view women and men differently in this regard. Women with multiple partners are "sluts" or promiscuous; men are "lucky" or "studs." These terms stem from the dual stereotypes that women don't or shouldn't want to have sex often, and if she does, something is wrong with her; and that men do or should want to have sex often, and if he doesn't something is wrong with him. Both of these are cultural bullshit. Some men don't want sex. Some women do. Every person is different (and can furthermore change from day to day), and gender stereotypes like these are both ridiculous and dangerous.

There are still other terms to describe how we form relationships (or how many relationships we form). Monogamy is the practice of forming a one-on-one connection with someone (sexual or otherwise), and not forming similar connections with anyone else simultaneously. Most marriages in the U.S. are monogamous - there are only two people in the marriage, and these two people have vowed to be in a closed, exclusive relationship with each other and no one else. 

Open relationships, on the other hand, allow for multiple simultaneous relationships. Participants are often still in a core relationship they can rely on, with other additional experiences being only periphery, usually to fulfill specific needs that that person is not receiving from their core relationship. These could be physical needs (i.e. because their core partner is physically or emotionally unable to provide them with sexual pleasure or reproductive success), or emotional/romantic needs. For an open relationship to be successful and not breed resentment or confusion, it's important to set up specific agreements beforehand, and to keep lines of communication open throughout the experience.

Polyamory is the state of being in love with or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time. Often, polyamorous individuals find others who wish to structure their relationships in a similar way, and may even form bonds of more than two people - committed triads, quads, or complex networks of five or more people. This is different from an open relationship or open marriage in that there is not one "core partner" and then other "side partners"; instead of hierarchy, there is community. These bonded groups act as a family, and everyone in the family is as committed to each other as a monogamous long-term couple are to each other. 

Those who never have sex are just as important as those who have sex every day; those who are attracted to or desire no one are just as important as those who find themselves attracted to people of all genders. All of these types of individuals should be included in conversations about the different types of sexuality found in humans.

And that's what I mean by the "Sexuality Umbrella" - sexuality encompasses more than just your sexual orientation. It also includes your frequency of sexual attraction or desire, your experiences, and your behaviors.

With so many things to consider, it might seem the height of uselessness to bother with any of these labels at all. If their definitions are so murky, and have the ability to change over time, why even bother? But the truth is, labels can help people define their experiences both for themselves and for the benefit of others. The human brain is hardwired to categorize things and people, and making these sorts of categories helps many of us better understand our world and our place in it. Deciding what to label themselves or even inventing new labels is a wonderful liberating experience, a key part of their journey through self-discovery, and a crucial part of their journey to find (a) partner(s) to spend their lives with (or part of their lives with, or one night with). Why would anyone discourage someone from doing what they need to find happiness?

Indeed, the nihilistic "why even bother?" attitude is often perpetuated by well-meaning but ultimately ill-informed heterosexuals. It's the same idea as asking, "Why can't we all just be 'color-blind'? Why do we have to categorize race at all?" It's easy to say when you already fit the label that's used as society's default (i.e. heterosexual and white) because if all subcategories ceased to exist and we were all considered just one type of sexuality or just one race, that person's identity (heterosexual and white) would still remain - it's all the others that would get erased. Acknowledging them is to validate them; to ignore those labels or pretend that they do not matter is to invalidate those labels and therefore also the people who use them to describe their experiences - which is something I would never want to do.

Gender is a Spectrum

There are two terms that we use more or less interchangeably - sex & gender - but which actually mean slightly different things (depending on who you ask). 

As I see it, sex usually refers to someone's biological sex (as characterized by the genitalia and other secondary sex characteristics you were (or weren't) born with, or by the chromosomes you were or weren't born with), whereas gender is the outward expression of one's sex - how you think of yourself/label yourself or how you are thought of/labeled by outsiders who interpret your behaviors (how you dress, how you wear your hair, your mannerisms, your ways of speaking, how you process or express emotion, how you interact with others, etc.) through the lens of contemporary gender stereotypes.

Often (but not always), one's sex and one's gender are the same - such as when a biological female considers herself to be a woman, and embraces/identifies with many (but rarely all) stereotypical behaviors of contemporary womanhood. These people are cisgender, also known as "gender-straight" or "gender-normative," meaning they conform to the gender/sex based expectations of society. 

Other times, a person's self-concept of gender does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. These individuals might identify as transgender. They may reject the stereotypes of the sex they were assigned at birth in favor of ones that better match their self-concept, may dislike the parts of their biology that do not represent the gender they feel they truly belong to, and may request that those they interact with change the gender pronoun they use to refer to them. They may take hormone treatments or go through surgeries to transform the parts of their biology they dislike, so that their physical appearance better matches their true gender. Some individuals who are transgender know from a young age that there is a disconnect between their minds and bodies; others do not realize it until much later in life. It is best not to assume any of these things, because every transgendered individual (just like every person in general) is unique and experiences life differently. 

>> Side note #1: Rejecting some gender roles does not automatically change someone's gender - "effeminate" men and "tomboyish" women exist, and they are not less of a man or less of a woman than manly men or feminine women (unless they want to be). 

>> Side note #2: A person's gender identity is not the same as their sexual orientation. Though being attracted to women is a stereotypical gender characteristic for many men, it is only one of many. Someone could be a gay man (and therefore reject one of the stereotypes of their male gender role), or even an effeminate gay man (and therefore reject many of the stereotypes of their male gender role), but still identify as male. Similarly, a woman could be attracted to women, or even be attracted to women and reject other female gender stereotypes, but still identify as female.

Behaviors or proclivities are gender-specific only because we have made them so. Women are not inherently "more nurturing" or "more domestic" than men. All genders/sexes are capable of providing quality childcare, and in completing household chores; like any other tasks, these are tasks that one gets better at with training or practice. Behaviors that we see associated with women, and behaviors we see associated with men, are things that women and men do because of how they are brought up, what they are taught, how they are treated, and social norms they are exposed to and encouraged to emulate (whether consciously or subconsciously).

Gender characteristics are fluid, changing throughout time and differing among cultures. For example, in America, it used to be acceptable for all children, regardless of gender, to wear dresses, and the color pink used to be associated with boys and blue with girls. In another example, some cultures associate displays of emotion as exuding manliness, while others associate emotional sensitivity with femininity. It doesn't take too much research to realize how arbitrary those characteristics are assigned to one gender or another - and not too much further thinking, once one has reached that realization, to conclude that it is ridiculous to insist that women or men "should" act a certain way. There is more than one way to be a man; there is more than one way to be a woman.

Gender is therefore more of a spectrum than a simple binary between male and female. You can have supposedly masculine traits even if you're a woman; you can have supposedly feminine traits even if you're a man. In recent years, this has developed into some people choosing to identify as neither a man nor a woman, or choosing to identify as both man and woman. They are the same person they always were; they are merely looking for a more appropriate label to use for themselves - a label that recognizes the arbitrariness of gender characteristics/the lack of a gender binary, and a label that encompasses how they truly feel about themselves and what group(s) they belong to, or want to belong to, or want not to belong to.

Some terms you may hear include:

• agender: a person who is internally ungendered or who does not have a felt sense of gender identity
• bigender: a person whose gender identity is a combination of a man and a woman
• pangender: a person whose gender identity is comprised of all or many gender expressions
• gender diverse or gender non-conforming: a person who either by nature or by choice does not conform to gender-based society expectations
• gender fluid: a person whose gender identity or presentation shifts 
• genderqueer or gender non-binary: a person whose gender identity is neither man nor woman, is between or beyond genders, or is some combination of genders; often used as a reaction to/commentary on the social construction of gender, gender stereotypes, and the gender binary system

Sex characteristics seem more rigid at first glance (males have penises; females have vaginas), but are actually just as fluid as cultural gender conventions. There are different ways to define one's biological sex, and all of them are less clear-cut than the strict male-female binary we suppose. 

You could define sex by observable, external characteristics (penises and scrota and facial hair, vulvae and hip width and breast size), or by internal sex organs (ovaries, uteri, prostrates) - but to use such a narrow definition would be to exclude or shame those who have had hysterectomies or mastectomies or other surgeries, those whose secondary sex characteristics are inconsistent with their primary sex characteristics (i.e. a "bearded lady" or someone with "man boobs"), and those who were born with conflicting or absent characteristics (i.e. an intersex child born with male and female organs, or a child born without any reproductive organs at all).

A male does not stop being male just because he's had surgery on his prostrate. A large-chested female is not "more female" than a small-chested female. Nor does a starving female who starts to grow extra body hair (to keep her skeletal frame warm) or lose the ability to menstruate (due to a lack of key nutrients in her diet) stop being female because of these physical changes to her body.

Every body is different; these differences can occur naturally, from genetics or environmental factors (such as diet), or they can occur medically, due to life-saving surgeries, medications, or elective procedures. They could even occur through abuse, such as someone who has had their genitals mutilated or altered. Girls who have had their vulvae stitched shut are still girls, just as the man whose wife famously cut off his penis is still a man.

How then can we insist there is a standard body that every male should have, or a standard that every female should have? Every female body looks different from every other female body, every male body looks different from every male body, and there are still other bodies that do not fit cleanly into a male or female category at all.

You could also try to use hormones to divide humans into males and females, looking at levels of testosterone, progesterone, or estrogen. But some males or females have naturally occurring levels of hormones that are typically found in someone of another sex, and others see altered hormone levels due to medical treatments, surgeries, or medication side effects. 

Females with Type 2 diabetes, for instance, have pancreases that must produce extra of the insulin hormone - and sometimes increased production of other hormones, as well, including testosterone, which can affect ovulation and fertility. PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) is another common illness which can affect hormone levels and impact reproductivity. 

Should such individuals no longer be considered female, just because of hormone imbalances or fertility difficulties? Of course not! If being female only meant that one was capable of ovulation, then girls could not be considered female before menarche either, nor older women after menopause. As much as it sometimes seems like we're heading in that troubling direction, we are emphatically not living in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale; females are worth more than their ability (or willingness) to bear young.

Finally, you could also classify people by chromosomes - XX for female, and XY for male. But there are other chromosome combinations that naturally occur in humans, including Turner syndrome (X0, or only one sex chromosome), Triple-X syndrome (XXX, or even XXXX or XXXXX, where multiple X chromosomes are inherited), Klinefelter syndrome (XXY or XXXY, where extra X chromosomes are inherited with a male Y chromosome), and XYY (aka Jacobs) syndrome. 

Some of these individuals see their fertility compromised because of their condition; others see no obvious symptoms that they have a chromosomal abnormality and go through their entire lives never knowing. 

People who are born with any of the non-typical XX or XY chromosome combinations listed above, and/or people whose reproductive or sexual anatomy at birth does not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male are known as intersex. These individuals are proof that gender is a social construct; there are not "only" two sexes, and therefore not only two genders, either. Sex/gender is a spectrum, rather than a simple either/or. Whether you look at physical characteristics, hormone levels, or chromosomes, there is more variation than the dichotomous "female" and "male" categories we are taught.

And so, if sex and gender are divided rather arbitrarily into different categories, than it makes no logical sense to treat people differently or give people different privileges or limitations based on their sex or gender. This is what feminism is - an insistence that woman and men should have equal rights and equal opportunities. Women and men should earn equal pay for equal work, should be treated with the same dignity and respect, and should feel valued and safe in whatever realm of society they choose to inhabit. 

"Woman" and "man"; "female" and "male" - these are just words, just labels that we came up with in an attempt to understand our world. Their definitions can change, just like any word evolving over time. Furthermore, new words can be added to the lexicon if needed (and I would argue - they are needed). There should not be any controversy in this - it is just people trying to explain their experience, use words carefully and conscientiously, and have some say in how people are or aren't labeled. There is no harm to it, and in fact often a great deal of good. Discovering who you are and who you want to be, and being allowed to define yourself as you see fit, are important aspects of being human and being free.

Implicit Bias/Unconscious Racism

Everyone is a racist.

No, really - it's been scientifically proven. (For some examples, check out this article, and also this article.)

Even liberal activists who would never consciously or purposefully utter a racist slur or generalize groups of people; even people who belong to minority groups themselves - everyone is prey to implicit bias and unconscious racism. We subliminally pick up on stereotypes portrayed in the media, or inherit knowledge of those stereotypes from others around us, and they sink in to our subconscious. We would never admit them aloud; we often don't even know they're there at all - and if we do (temporarily) know, you better bet we pretend not to.

For example, the stereotype that black men are inherently more dangerous or threatening than men of other races. Most of don't believe that's actually true at all, and will explicitly and publicly denounce such stereotypes as misguided at best, horribly racist at worst. But how many times have those same people kept a bit more distance between themselves and a stranger who happens to be black than they would an identical stranger with lighter skin? It's not a behavior that we even realize we do, but we do it. If we were to be confronted with the reality of this implicit bias that's just manifested itself, we might deny it, or try to make excuses.

This article has a great definition of implicit bias: "Implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual's awareness or intentional control. Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness. Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection."

It goes on to say that implicit biases are pervasive: "Everyone possesses them, even people with avowed commitments to impartiality such as judges." Furthermore, "the implicit associations we hold do not necessarily align with our declared beliefs or even reflect stances we would explicitly endorse."

Another great article (yes, one that I already linked above - but it's just that good that it warrants linking again) takes that last idea even further, and says: "We bury [implicit bias] deep in the subconscious in layers of denial to protect our social reputation. We might explicitly deny our internal reactions, but implicitly we follow their whispered mandates."

The real problem is that implicit bias can be just as dangerous as explicit bias. You don't have to be an uber racist, vocal neo-Nazi/alt-right/white supremacist type for your racism to harm people. You don't have to intend harm to cause it.

If you're not on board with me so far, the rest of this post is not for you. This post is for people who are open-minded, self-reflective, and willing to admit things that might make them uncomfortable. I am also making other assumptions about the type of person you are - namely, that you're generally tolerant and "woke," and that you don't want to be racist (or that you want to find a way to be as least racist as it is possible to be). You also already understand what implicit bias is, how harmful it can be, and that everyone has some of it (including yourself). If that sounds like you, keep reading.

In my unprofessional opinion (but as someone who has given a fair bit of thought to this, in an abstract way), here are some things that we need to focus on in order to dismantle some of the implicit, unconscious bias we have:

1) Recognize where your personal implicit biases lie. This isn't easy, because they're not biases we actually believe in, or ones that we're usually aware of. But when something from your subconscious "breaks away" into your awareness, take the time to acknowledge it. Did you just catch yourself crossing the street when a black man approached? Were you describing a scene you witnessed to a friend and heard yourself referring to a non-white by race - where you didn't see any reason to indicate the race of the white people in your story? Did you have a nightmare where a stranger was invading your home, or threatening your family - and this dream villain was the only person in the dream of another race? They don't even have to be "negative" associations - maybe you found yourself asking your Asian friends to be study partners for an upcoming math test, or wanting to be picked to be on a team with the tall black kids during a pick-up game of basketball.

Whenever you recognize a moment of implicit bias coming forward like that - don't ignore it. Take the time to acknowledge what happened, to self-reflect and unpack where that gut reaction came from and if you've ever had a similar gut reaction in a similar situation before. Maybe even write it down. Keep a list, or write a journal entry. If you feel comfortable talking to your friends about it, ask them if they've had similar experiences. Follow the train of thought and extrapolate how your snap judgment could have been harmful to the others around you who witnessed it - especially if it was a seemingly inoccuous bias, or one that could be spun in a positive way (i.e. "All Asians are smart!" or "All black men are good athletes!"). Even "positive" stereotypes like these are harmful - because they lump everyone together to make incorrect assumptions, thus alienating anyone of those groups who doesn't fit the idea of what a member of that group should be good at, and because they might attribute a good quality to a group at the expense of other groups. If all Asians are inherently smart - does that mean other races are inherently dumber?

2) Don't shame yourself. This can be difficult for a lot of us (if the rather small sample size of me and my perfectionist friends and family are any indication). We don't want to be racist, and then we witness ourselves thinking racist thoughts. Even if they are something we had literally no conscious control over, we might find a way to blame ourselves for our mistake. We feel guilty and ashamed. This is understandable. You might even argue that it's the proper reaction - because if we recognize it was wrong, and that we are to blame, we're more likely to fix it, right?

Actually no. In my experience, the more we shame ourselves for something, the more likely we are to bury it and insist that it's not a problem. The shame makes us feel bad, so we avoid reflecting on it or doing anything to take concrete steps to make sure it doesn't happen as often - which then means when we inevitably slip up again, we'll be even more ashamed, and so on, until we've created a shame circle that just gets worse and worse and spirals us into depression or anxiety. Furthermore, the harsher we are on ourselves, the harder it is to see the positive attributes we have, and the harder it is to have confidence in ourselves to change. If we focus only on the negatives and beat ourselves up over our shortcomings, over and over again, everything will start to seem impossible - and once you're in that defeatist mindset, it's really hard to find the motivation to work toward any positive change. We might also start to believe we don't deserve to succeed in that positive change - we get stuck in this mindset of, "I said/did a bad thing, and that makes me a bad person, and as a bad person I am not capable of being a better person, or deserving of being seen as a better person, and anyone who forgives me for my mistakes is being too nice to me, nicer to me than I deserve."

3) Don't pass the buck, either. It's decidedly unhelpful to get stuck in those shame cycles mentioned above - but it's equally as unhelpful to try washing your hands of the whole thing. You alone are not to blame - but as a society, as humans, we are. It's a collective effort, and that means we're all a part of the problem - and the solution. The trick is to find a way to balance these two responses. You have to recognize your (probably minuscule) part in contributing to systems of oppression and discrimination and make efforts to change, while at the same time allowing yourself to be imperfect.

I think the best way is to approach it as a learning opportunity. It might sound silly, but it will probably help if think of yourself as a friend you're talking to, or even a young child who just needs a bit of guidance. I know I'm always quicker and harsher to pass judgment on myself than on others, and I bet some of you are too. If you overheard your good friend say something that sounded surprisingly racist, would your first instinct be to disavow that long, solid friendship? Probably not. You would assume she "didn't actually mean" what she said, and ignore the problem. Even better, you might gently talk to her and figure out if she realizes what she said and how bad it sounded. Similarly, if you saw a child have a reaction that clearly came from implicit bias (i.e. trusting a white stranger more than a black stranger), it would be a better idea to talk to him about his behaviors and thought processes than to let the opportunity for learning pass, just because you know he "didn't mean it."

So when you recognize yourself falling into prematurely labeling people or making assumptions based on stereotypes, call yourself out on it and face it head on. Allow yourself the luxury of being human (all humans make mistakes sometimes), but still make sure to think through what happened and reflect on what a better response might have been instead. Soon enough, you'll find yourself being more aware of implicit bias - which in turn will make you more likely to recognize it before it happens, and to start correcting for it so it doesn't happen as much.

4) Don't shame other people. Maybe you're more likely to judge others harsher than yourself. In that case, treat others with the same respect you allow yourself. Accusing someone of acting in a racist fashion is not going to put them in a receptive mood to really self-reflect and figure out what happened or why. If you want to talk to someone about examples of their implicit bias you've witnessed, think long and hard about the best way to do it. Maybe bring it up at a later date, or be prepared to offer some examples of times you had a similar reaction and then immediately regretted it. You can bond over your shared mistakes, and come up with some solutions of what you could have done or said instead.

5) But also don't let other people get away with implicit bias. Remember how I said you have to find a balance between allowing yourself to make mistakes/forgiving yourself for the mistakes you do make, yet still taking responsibility for your inadvertent racism? Same goes for other people. They might need some (gentle) assistance in realizing they've said or done something racist - and you might be the only one in the room to notice this fact. If you don't speak up, the perpetrator and the other people in the room who witnessed it might never recognize that something problematic even happened. You don't have to make a big thing about it - and in fact it might be a better idea not to (see point #4, above). It can be as simple as saying, "Did you realize you started walking faster once that black man turned the corner and came into view?" or "I know you didn't mean that the way it came out. What did you actually mean to say?" You'll help them be more diligent in observing their own slip-ups, and make sure everyone around you knows that you won't stand for racist behavior, whether it was intentional or not.

In a similar vein, if someone says a racist joke, don't laugh. If you find yourself laughing inadvertently, make sure you follow up with: "I'm only laughing because that joke actually made me really uncomfortable - and not in a good way." If someone starts defending their joke ("It was just a joke; I didn't mean it" or "I didn't make it up myself; I'm just repeating it"), ask them: "Would you have told that joke in mixed company?" If they wouldn't say the joke in front of a black person, for fear of offending them, why would they think it's okay to say the joke in front of white people? We should all be offended when we hear racist comments - not just the comments that apply to our race.

I know all of this advice is "easier said than done." Don't expect to recognize every time some of your implicit bias shows, or to feel comfortable pointing out when someone else's does. Allow yourself to understand that this - like so many things in life - is a learning process. Progress is going to be gradual, and maybe not even noticeable. You're going to make the same exact error in judgment at age 60 that you did at age 20. This doesn't mean you're failing. It just means you're human. They're called implicit and unconscious biases for a reason. You're not aware of them until it is too late, and because they're embedded into our unconsciousness they're also really hard to successfully eradicate them - and keep them out. Don't expect yourself to be better than everyone else. You will not reach an unattainable level of "racistlessness." Literally everyone is a racist. That means that you're not exempt from the problem. It also means that you're not exempt from the solution.

If we all just put in a little bit of effort to be more aware of the things we do and say, and to be kind to our fellow human beings, wouldn't this world be a much better place?

Millennials Living at Home

Listening to the radio on the way to work recently, I heard the morning deejays bring up the topic of so-called "Millennials" (people born between about 1980-2000, depending on who you ask) still living in their parents' homes. The conversation was specifically about older Millennials (those who are between 25-35 years old), an age group which currently is living with their parents at a greater rate than any 25-35 year old group in history, since the U.S. census began collecting data in the late 1800s.

The conversation followed a pretty predictable pattern. The DJs, who themselves are probably just too old to be considered Millennials themselves, lamented the sorry state of such a world. They cited two reasons for the increased number - the economic downturn/increased student debt dilemma, and the fact that people are getting married later - but seemed to think that such reasons were 1) only "excuses," 2) temporary issues that would eventually fix themselves or cease to be problems/influences on young people's life decisions, and/or 3) not "good enough" to justify the "horror" of living at home. One DJ in particular started pulling the "Entitlement Generation" nonsense, citing his younger brother, who lived at home with his parents despite earning a six-figure salary. Clearly, financial problems were not a factor in all cases; you know those entitled Millennials - they never learned to grow up/they just want everyone else to take care of them/they're dependent and whiny and want the world handed to them on a silver platter.

Then - also predictably - came the calls from listeners. Millennial after Millennial who tried to explain their situation to the DJs: Outrageous student loans. Mental illness. Few job prospects. The DJs "sympathized" with them when they called - but their general thesis remained the same: it is a travesty to be living at home after age 25, even if someone has solid reasons for making such a choice. In a perfect world, everyone would go off to college at 18, "find themselves"/become self-confident/self-actualized, become immediately socially, emotionally, and financially independent, and never have to live at home again. They would move into their own place after graduating college, and start their "own" lives. They would be perfectly happy and well-adjusted, even far away from everyone else they've ever known.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.

First of all, Millennials are no more entitled than any other generation, and the trope of "this newest generation reaching adulthood is the worst one we've ever seen" is literally repeated every single time the previous generation spawns the next one. For that matter, "Millennials" and generational boundaries in general aren't actually a real thing. They're just societal stereotypes used for click-bait, created to sell books. People between the ages of 25-35 are about as similar to each other as they are to people of any other age group. It's like we're all individuals or something.

Second of all, everyone takes their own path. Some people are more independent and are probably ready to "live on their own" at fifteen; others take a lot longer to feel comfortable being alone, or never get there. Some people get along great with their families and want to stay near them; others may also get along great with their families but yearn for distance from their relatives and the town in which they grew up. Some people are lucky enough to be interested in a field that has lots of job openings and high salaries; others choose to study other subjects, pursue other degrees, or pursue no degrees at all.

One of these paths is not better than the other; they're just different.

To say that there is a "right" way to be living life is not only ridiculous, but insensitive/borderline shaming to the people who choose a different way. Some Millennials live at home because they can't pay rent yet for a place of their own; some because they rely on the social support of their families; and yet others for other reasons. Some probably don't have any reasons at all; having no particular reason to move out, they simply never did.

What's so wrong with that??

Why do we insist on shaming adults who "still" live at home? There is implicit and explicit judgment in that question: it asks, "What went wrong in your life/What did you do wrong, that you would be living in the house you grew up in?"

Why don't we instead ask, to the Millennials who do move out, "What went wrong in your life/What is wrong with you, that you can't get along with your parents, or that you feel entitled to self-confidence or independence or an entire apartment all to yourself? Isn't that wasteful?"

There is a stigma attached to relying on other people; in a different era or a different area of the world there could just as easily be a stigma attached to NOT relying on other people and thinking that one can live life alone. There is nothing inherently wrong with living with your family, no matter what age you are. There just happens to be a social stigma attached to it if you are of a certain age.

Humans are social creatures. It is not a bad thing to want to live with other people, to want to stay close to your family, to rely on others for help, or to stay around to help others.

I am a 27-year-old Millennial. I don't live in the house I grew up in. But if I didn't have my husband, I probably would. I did not graduate with a job. It took me years to find ways to make any sort of steady income; for a long time I relied on my husband's salary and contributed only sporadically to our finances - as is often the way for those of us devoted to creative fields. Without my husband, there is no way I could afford my own place, let alone the nice house my husband and I live in. I was lucky enough to find the person I wanted to marry while I was still in college. We got engaged before we graduated. We made plans to move in together and start our life together right after college - as many past generations did. If I had not been a statistical anomaly for my generation - getting engaged at 20 and married at 22 - I'd be in the same boat that many Millennials are.

My brother, who is 28, does still live at home with my parents. My 89-year-old grandmother also lives there with them. He struggled for a long time to pay off student loans while he worked night shifts at Kroger, stocking groceries, but finances were not the only reason he stayed behind. He is not very social and has a hard time forging connections with people, so it's nice that he has a built-in social support group in my parents and grandma. Furthermore, he helps out around the house. My dad is turning 62 this year and looking ahead to retirement. He has always had poor eyesight and has never had a driver's license; my grandma also decided to give up driving and sold her car when she moved in with my parents a couple years ago. If my brother weren't living in the house, my mom would be the only driver, and it would fall to her and only her to drive my dad to the bus stop every day so that he could go to work, or to drive my grandmothers (the one who lives with them and the one who lives 2 miles away in an independent senior living facility) to their doctor's appointments, or to drive to the grocery store, or to any other errands that needed doing. It's not like my parents are frustrated that he's still there and begging him to leave. Everyone has fallen into a rhythm, and no one is desperate to disturb it. Even if they're not thrilled, they seem content, or at least content enough. If none of them are upset about it, why does it matter? Why can't my brother just live there forever if that's what he and my parents all want/agree on?

I know so many Millennials who are living at home. They do so because they need to, because they want to, because it just makes sense. Often, these people are not in long term relationships and have no built in support system other than their families; if they didn't live at home they would be so much worse off. In some cases, their families would be worse off, too.

Some case examples:

1) A, now 27 years old, who lived at home and commuted to college for most of his undergraduate degree, because he felt more comfortable doing so than trying out the dorms or an apartment close to campus. As a senior, he finally moved out and shared an apartment with a roommate. For his Master's degree, he moved halfway across the country, prioritizing the prestige of the program he was in over his own comfort. He struggled to be so far from his family and people he knew, and had trouble feeling like he belonged. When he finally finished grad school, he moved back home, severely depressed. For the last few years, he has continued to live at home, fighting depression/anxiety and OCD. It is difficult for him to get a job because of the particular field he is looking in/the economy, but also because of his mental illness(es) that prevent him from feeling confident or capable of holding a full-time job.

2) A's younger brother, now 19, who recently graduated high school and decided not to go to college. He has a part-time minimum-wage type job in the service industry, and lives at home. He obviously cannot afford his own place on his current wages, but at least doesn't have student loans to worry about. He also has a history of anxiety issues, though as far as I know they've been under control for awhile. But he's close with/gets along with his parents and brother, and I'm sure likes still living at home with them.

3) B, now 27. She graduated college at 21 and got a great job in computer programming right out of college - her dream job. She also made pretty good money at it - or at least, it always seemed to me that she did, for a just-out-of-college gig. Still, she lived at home for a few years after graduating, commuting to work from her parent's house. They had two houses because they had moved a few years prior and were never able to sell their old house during the recession. She used her salary to help them pay for those two mortgages they were working on, rather than moving out and putting her money into rent for an apartment. She could've lived in the old house (it was just across town - only adding an extra 10 minutes or so to her commute to work) but she chose to live in the house her parents were living in. She got along great with her family and her brother; when her brother moved out to go to college/etc., and her parents finally sold the old house across town, she did finally move out and get her own apartment. I wonder how much of that is because she wanted to or how much was because she felt shamed/was teased at work for still living with her parents.

4) C, now 24. He has a history of epilepsy, and had several surgeries done. Sometime in college or soon thereafter, he had a mental breakdown with severe depression - to the point of hallucinations and an almost schizophrenic break with reality. He lives with his mother now because he literally can't take care of himself anymore, and is severely dependent on her to help him get through daily life amid the fog of his mental state and the medications he is taking. He is also a suicide risk. He will probably be living at home for the rest of his life - unless he is moved to a care facility, or his situation greatly/miraculously improves.

5) C's younger brother, 22. He just graduated college and is living at home with C while working a minimum wage job. He is studying for entrance into a program to become a police officer, and is in no financial place to move out at the moment - though perhaps he can also be of some help to his/C's mom, who is juggling a full-time job with taking care of C and their grandparents, who also live with them.

6) D, now 30. She has completed two degrees and is about to start working on her third - a PhD in History. She will be going to school for at least six more years. When she is at school, she lives on her own near campus, but whenever the school is on a break or she is in between degree programs, she moves back home. She is an only child and gets along well with her family. She likes spending time with them, helps them with a lot of chores around the house (her mom has chronic back pain), and has helped her dad get a new business off the ground.

7) E, now 36. She married a man from Columbia and they moved back in with her parents while her husband finished schooling, practiced his English, and took the necessary medical exams to be qualified to practice as a doctor in the U.S. Her parents helped take care of their two young children while she supported her husband and looked into jobs for herself. He applied for residencies all over the country - willing to accept wherever would take him. For a couple years, he found work as a doctor in Mexico and they both temporarily moved there with their son (their daughter wasn't born yet). When he next got an assignment far from her parents - first in New York, then in Puerto Rico - she decided to stay behind with her parents. Now that they had two children, it was just too difficult to keep moving around and adapt to a new city/state/country as a single mother while her husband put in long hours at work/school. Her children are now 8 and 6, and she is still living with her parents, and working as a middle school teacher. They made their long-distance relationship work for awhile, but are now divorced.

8) F, now 23. When F was in college, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer and temporarily stalled his college studies to move home for treatment. He has since returned to school, but did, for a time fall into the "Millennials Living At Home" category.

9) G, now 27. She was not married when she got pregnant at 21; because she was still living at home while she pursued job/school options, she simply continued living there while she was pregnant and after the baby was born. As a single mom, it was a huge help to her to have her parents around to help her care for her son while she was at work and battling a custody case with her son's father. The son is now 6, she has a new boyfriend, and they just last week moved out of her parents' house and into a new house with her boyfriend.

And these are just the people whose stories I know.

Sometimes we need help. Sometimes we want company. I don't think it's a Necessarily Bad Thing to live at home as long as it's something you and your parents are comfortable with and genuinely want to do. If you're there only because you feel like you have no other options, and want nothing but to leave as soon as you can - yeah, there can be some resentment there, which doesn't lend well to an ideal living environment. But it still might be the best solution, at least on a temporary basis. And for many Millennials, living at home is a relief, because there is that built-in support system they can't get anywhere else.

It is not the same living with roommates or friends, even if you know each other well. By definition you are trying to live your own lives and explore your options; living together is not seen as a permanent solution or even ideal solution, but a necessary/temporary one. When you fall sick or injured (physically, emotionally, mentally, financially), they are not obligated to help, nor often willing. They have their own jobs, their own relationships, their own lives they are also juggling, and even if they are willing to help with your problems, they may not be able to. Family, on the other hand, do help. Whether by obligation or choice or a little of both, they help. Part of that is because it is often easier (logistically) for them to do so - an employer would easily let someone come into work late to drive her son to chemotherapy treatments; not so much if you have to schlepp your roommate/friend to an appointment. The urgency just isn't there. There would undoubtedly be questions - why is your friend all alone? where is his family? Parents don't stop being parents when their children turn 18; they are, to some extent, expected to help their offspring when they come into trouble, no matter what age their offspring are.

When you get married, your spouse basically becomes an additional parent. You're agreeing to help each other in sickness and health: to drive each other to the hospital when one of you falls sick, to hold the brunt of financial obligations for a time if your partner is unable to contribute, to be there - physically, emotionally - if someone is going through a hard time and needs support overcoming/enduring depression or anxiety.

But if you aren't married or in a long-term relationship, who do you have to rely on in times of distress other than your family? Your parents, your siblings. This is your support system. And it is perfectly okay to rely on them, or go to them for help. There should not be so much stigma attached to asking for help. It is not a sign of admitting defeat. It is a sign of strength. It is not always easy. But sometimes it has to be done.

(Neither is the solution just to "get married," by the way. Not only is "finding someone" easier said than done; it's often impossible when you're already juggling low-paying jobs, financial stress, debt, and/or mental illness - not to mention an entire society of people getting married later in life to influence your decisions. Furthermore, to have someone to dump all your problems on is probably NOT a good reason to get married; the being-able-to-dump-your-problems-on-them comes at the cost of you also having to help them with their problems. And further furthermore, a lot of people don't actually want to get married - nor should they have to want to. Just because you are single, whether by choice or circumstance, does not mean your worth is diminished, that it's "your fault" for not having another support system, that you don't need support systems, or that you don't deserve them.)

One last point: It is often a relief to get help - but that does not mean that someone feels entitled to a stress-free existence and is living at home just to be taken care of. They're living at home so that they have a support system while they learn how to take care of themselves - unless it is a case (like person C, above), where they literally can't take care of themselves and do have to perpetually rely on other people. I don't know any Millennials who are living at home because they love Mom and Dad cooking them dinner and doing their laundry; even if their parents do cook them dinner and do their laundry, that is NOT the reason they are home.

And often their parents are cooking them dinner and doing their laundry in the first place because the Millennials are helping out with other chores around the house (much like how egalitarian spouses divvy up household chores so that everyone chips in for one area or another), or because the Millennials are struggling with too many other things. If you knew someone was going through a shitty time and that bringing them a dish of lasagna or a plate of cookies might make them feel better and a little less stressed - wouldn't you bring them a freaking lasagna? This is what we do for other people when we don't know what else to do. We bring recent widows food, we bring cancer patients (or those caring for cancer patients) food; we offer to run errands for them, etc. We don't know how to solve their cancer, or their anxiety, or their OCD, or their depression; we don't know how to find them a job or help them gain self-confidence. But we can help them with their everyday tasks at least, so we do.

You don't know what people are going through. Depression is often invisible; it doesn't look the same in everyone, and often doesn't look like the gloomy people in Zoloft commercials on TV. Growing up is hard; figuring out life post-graduation is hard; doing these things in a sucky economy with a pile of student debt is even harder. There is more than just financial stress going on here. According to the National Alliance on Mental Health, more than 25% of college students have a diagnosable mental illness and have been treated in the past year. And what about all the ones who haven't been treated? Or the ones who crumble after graduation?

So can we stop shaming people already?

We don't all live the same life trajectory, nor should we.

Why Are You So Quiet?: A Modern Double Standard

It used to be that men had no qualms about verbally disparaging (or physically abusing) womenfolk if they spoke "out of turn," voiced opinions, or socialized - with other men, or even with each other. A well-behaved woman was meek and silent; like a child, she was allowed to speak only when spoken to, or only in certain places. The specific customs varied depending on location and historic era, but a popular one was that women could only speak at home, and that their voices were unwanted in public.

In the Bible (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), for instance, Paul said: "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV)

In some religions or cultures even today, women are discouraged from speaking. An overly loud, gregarious, or social female is seen as dangerous, unruly, and impolite. Often, it is a seen as a reflection of other "moral failings," such as sexual promiscuity. A woman who speaks freely also probably has sex freely; a sociable woman is therefore a bitch and a whore.

This is an extreme opinion. It is not usually said so harshly - at least in modern America - and yet some of this idea remains and permeates our culture more subtly. Women do not generally fear physical abuse or being called a whore if they were to voice an opinion in public or interrupt a man - and yet it's statistically observable that in many gender-integrated public spheres (classrooms, business meetings), women are less likely to raise their hands or speak up. They're less likely to be called upon to speak up. And they're less likely to interrupt their male counterparts, compared to how often women are interrupted by men. Women don't participate in public in the same way that men do - because we've been conditioned not to. We've been raised that interrupting others is impolite.

The standards of "good behavior" are different for girls and boys - "boys will be boys," we're told, and so they are allowed physical and verbal freedoms like running through the house, making a mess, interrupting each other, and speaking loudly. I could see how someone might even try to argue that it is the boys who are discriminated against with such cultural allowances - because girls are seen as more capable of good, polite, restrained behavior, at a younger age, and so are given a higher standard. A boy is going to have a hard time believing he has a capacity for patience to wait his turn or to sit still in his seat if such behaviors are not modeled for him or encouraged, or if he is met with a laugh or a shrug or a "oh well, we tried" attitude when he missteps from this desired behavior. He comes to believe instead that he can't help fidgeting, that he can't help playing rowdy, that it's in his very nature to do so. When he gets away with interrupting others, he comes to believe that his words are important, that his opinions are important. He learns that a louder voice can be heard over a softer one, and if he speaks up, if he yells, if he interrupts, people will pay attention.

Similarly, girls often learn that their gender is predisposed to politeness, to empathy. They care about others, and so they care about listening to what others say, and they're willing to put others first. They will listen to someone else complete his or her thought before voicing a response. They have the capacity to wait their turn, to be patient - and indeed embody the positive qualities of their gender when they do so.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - gender roles hurt both genders. Boys who are not loud or rambunctious might feel ashamed for not acting like a boy is supposed to; he may then purposefully act like the other boys to fit in. And girls who are too harsh or too loud or too opinionated or too rambunctious are called tomboys or bitches.

Of course, at a certain age, these prejudices about how boys act more or less fall away. Men are expected to conduct themselves with politeness and good behavior in college lecture halls and business meetings. While they may get away with interrupting colleagues on occasion, it would be noticeable (and potentially worthy of an HR write-up, or a chat with the boss) if he interrupted constantly, or acted particularly rudely when doing so.

Furthermore, while there is an expectation that women are quieter than men in professional settings, there are other public settings where women are expected to be more talkative than their male counterparts. When surrounded by other women, women are in fact "known" for their socializing. There are myriad jokes and (derogatory or derisive) phrases about their tendency to talk: gossiping, chatting, prattling, "clucking hens." In private, it's a well-known trope that wives "nag" their husbands, or just in general try to talk to their husbands about their day. (It's no wonder men are so reluctant - they spent all day at work getting a chance to talk, and now that they're home, they only want quiet, relaxing time.) At parties, women often engage both sexes in conversation, often doing the brunt work of moving a conversation forward, trying to engage those at the fringes of conversation, prompting others with questions about how they're doing, etc. If there is a person in your family who takes on the role of keeping track of everyone and updating the rest of the family on the goings-on of the others, chances are it's a woman - a mother, a grandmother, an aunt, a female cousin.

Even as girls, females are expected to be social - but only during "social times." I went to three different elementary schools growing up, and anytime I started at a new building and had to make new friends, I would go through a period of transition where I would be particularly quiet and shy. Recess monitors came up to me that first week to ask if something was wrong. Why wasn't I talking with or playing with the other girls? I was shamed for not talking, for not being social. Yet later, after I made friends, I was told off for being too social. For those who know me now, it may be hard to believe - but my third grade teacher in particular had so much trouble keeping me quiet during class that she regularly kept my assigned seat away from those of my other friends. I have the report card to prove it - she wrote in the comments section that I talked too much in class, when I wasn't supposed to.

To be fair, I don't think this is necessarily gendered - we all have to learn growing up when we are and aren't allowed to do things. There is a time and place for socializing; this is true for everyone, regardless of gender. Additionally, I think the lines become more blurred, more subtle as we age. Men and women don't talk or act so differently as adults as they do as children. We all interrupt each other sometimes, we all speak loudly sometimes, and we all stay silent sometimes. We find our own rhythm, and it's often more individual and based on where and how we feel comfortable, than about gender specifically. I'm very reserved with strangers, or in large groups, but I'm comfortable talking a lot with my husband and other close friends and family members.

Yet what I do think is gendered is the policing of one's decision of where and when and how to socialize or speak up. A man can speak as loud and ardently as he wants with few repercussions; a woman does not have the luxury of always speaking her mind unless she's comfortable with being called a bitch. A man can also be as quiet and reserved as he wishes with few repercussions - if a man isn't social, he's painted as the "strong, silent type" (stoic, unemotional, manly), or it's assumed that he has "better things to do"; he's not talkative because he's busy, he's tired, he's been working hard all day. A woman who isn't being social is seen as out of the ordinary. "Why aren't you talking?" "Is something wrong?" "Are you unhappy?"

I would be remiss here if I didn't make this discussion more intersectional. A white man probably gets away more with voicing opinions and speaking loudly than a black man does. When a white man interrupts, he's eager and has strong convictions; when a black man interrupts, he's being a bully or a thug, or his parents never taught him proper manners.

I speak from my own experience when I write of quiet women being called out on their quietness; it happens to me all the time. It's not always a question. ("What's wrong?" "Are you okay?" "Why are you so quiet?" "Do I intimidate you?") Sometimes it's a statement. ("You're so quiet." "You're so reserved." "You don't have to be scared to speak up.") But the questions are still there, still implied. It's wrong, it's weird for someone like me to be quiet or reserved. It must mean something's wrong. I must be unhappy, or uncomfortable, or scared. Maybe I'm just shy and thoughtful. Maybe I'm more comfortable with silence than with talking just to talk, with saying nothing just to fill space; maybe you're the one making me uncomfortable now that you've pointed out my "unnatural silence." I hate when people say these things. What? You think this is news to me? I know I'm quiet; you don't have to tell me.

I suspect that many people point out that I'm being quiet because they wish to draw me into conversation. Instead, it often makes me retreat more, because pointing it out makes me self-conscious about how quiet I was being, and I turn even quieter to reflect on how I was acting or how I am being perceived.

On the other hand, other people may point out that I'm being quiet because they are uncomfortable with my silence - and, for some reason, think their discomfort is my problem. What they're really saying is: "I didn't expect someone who looks like you to be quiet, and you not being how I expect you to be is making me uncomfortable - which is your problem, not mine, so please get around to fixing it and acting more like how I expect you to act, so that I can be comfortable again."

Many women complain that they are told to smile - by complete strangers. They are policed on their apparent happiness and told to smile - not because the stranger is trying to make the woman feel better or feel happier, but because the stranger is uncomfortable and wants the woman to smile, to pretend that she is happy or at ease, so that the stranger can feel secure. I don't think this has happened to me; I can't think of a time (other than when I was child throwing a pity party or a temper tantrum) when I was told by someone to smile, or act happy. I certainly can't think of a time that a stranger has approached me to harass me about not smiling. But I do hear a lot of comments about how quiet I am (from people close to me and strangers or near-strangers alike), and I think these are related. Maybe it's a level worse than "not smiling." I'm not smiling and I'm not talking, not engaging socially with the world, and it's the worst offense that people pick up and try to call me out on.

I wonder, too, if it's not because I'm blonde. I'm a 20-something blonde woman, and young women and blonde women are particularly stereotyped as social, as extroverted, as talkative, as friendly, as perky, as happy. We're supposed to all be cheerleaders, sorority girls. I'm sure Black and Hispanic women who are quiet, introverted, shy, or bookish have similar stories. Because these groups (like blondes) are particularly seen as loud, extroverted, and social, with a love of raucous parties and/or dramatic displays of emotion, a Black or Hispanic woman who does not embody the expected stereotype might hear similar "concerns." What's wrong? Why aren't you friendly? Why aren't you talking? Asian women on the other hand, are not expected to be loud or talkative, so they probably don't see similar surprise from strangers when they act quiet and reserved. I can't imagine an American woman in a hijab being told: "You're so reserved. I hardly ever hear you talk." But someone like me does.

Being a woman - even an American woman - is not a universal experience. Double standards are going to be slightly different among different groups of women. But as a young blonde white woman, I am exposed to these double standards:

- If I talk a lot, I'm seen as gossiping and idly pilfering time on silly chats; yet if I'm quiet and choose not to take advantage of opportunities for small talk, I must be unhappy or uncomfortable, because a blonde anti-social female is unnatural.

- If I'm too friendly, I'm a social butterfly, a ditz not to be taken seriously - or, even worse, a flirt, a whore, a slut, sexually promiscuous, "asking for it," begging for attention; yet if I'm not friendly enough - if I prefer solitude to parties, if I'm reluctant to smile or share personal stories - then I'm uptight, uncool, rigid, old-fashioned, I have a "stick up my ass" or my "panties in a wad," I'm a prude, a tight ass, a virgin, a bitch.

- If I interrupt someone else (especially a man, especially in a professional setting), I'm rude, I'm selfish, I'm impolite, I'm a bitch; yet if I never speak up, I'm seen as weak, scared, intimidated, and unwilling or unable to stand up for myself: a doormat, a wimp, a pussy.

- If, in the process of continuing or sparking a conversation, I ask too many "personal" questions, I'm a nag, I'm nosy, I'm a bitch; yet if I don't play this role and inquire how others are doing - or if someone else were to ask for an update on my life and I were to give what they consider a short, unrevealing answer - I'm a brat, I'm snotty, I'm not feminine or empathetic enough, I'm rude, I'm uptight, I'm a bitch.

Double standards are, by definition, a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Because there is no way to win, I've gravitated over the years to one end of the spectrum. I decided it was safer or more comfortable for me to be thought of as uptight or unfriendly than it was to be seen as sexually promiscuous or flirty, or seen as a frivolous, vapid, unintelligent ditz. I decided I'd rather be too quiet than too loud. I was okay with being thought of as snobby or rude; I told myself I was being mysterious and unknowable, that it was a virtue, that men get away with it all the time. And so I played up my introversion more. I policed myself, I made myself quieter. I think I was predisposed to some shyness and reserve, but I definitely became more shy, more reserved, and more quiet, starting in high school and college.

I've taken the Myers-Briggs personality test a few times, and though I've nearly always come out at INFJ (and always I, in particular), for many years the amount of "I" I was on the Extroverted-Introversion spectrum only increased. I went from being like upper-60s% Introverted to high-90s% Introverted from the beginning of high school to the end of college. No wonder I seemingly lost my ability to make new friends and started giving off more austere and less friendly first impressions.

I'm not trying to be rude or impolite, and I'd rather not be called a bitch (who would?) - but what hurts me more is when my reserve is interpreted as me being a doormat, or weak, or scared, or intimidated, or sad. Maybe because there's a bit of truth in there, and that's why those words hurt more. I don't see myself as rude (on the contrary, I think I'm one of the nicest people I know); but I do worry that I don't stand up for myself enough, that I don't think enough of myself. I do worry that I'm too sad, or too anxious, or too easily intimidated. Isn't the whole reason that I became more introverted because I was afraid? I was afraid of being seen as a ditz, as unintelligent, as flirtatious, as "asking for it." Being quiet seemed like it could be my protective shell.

So to all of those who have ever asked me "Why are you so quiet?" - feel free to pick your favorite answer from the ones provided below:

- Because being quiet often feels safer to me than the alternative.

- Because being quiet often feels more comfortable to me than the alternative.

- Because by now being quiet is a habit.

- Because I'm tired of being asked why I'm quiet.

- Because I'm just tired in general.

- Because I'm mysterious and unknowable. Because still waters run deep.

- Because you wouldn't ask me that question if I were a man and I'm silently protesting your belief that you have the right to police whether or not I engage you in conversation.

- Because I'm actually not paying attention to the conversation and have zoned out and am thinking about my novel or some other much more fascinating thing.

- I actually don't owe you an explanation at all. And I suspect you weren't really looking for a thoughtful response anyway - you just wanted to get me to say something in response.