Why I’ll still be taking pills even if I get pregnant: a follow-up

A few months ago, I shared a post in which I revealed I’m planning to continue taking my ADHD medications even if and when I someday get pregnant. I explained that I literally wouldn’t be able to afford to stop taking my daily dose of CNS stimulants; sans pills, I can barely function, which means I would be unable to work (or even drive to work, for that matter). In short, I would have to risk exposing my unborn child to all manner of adverse health outcomes in utero.

Pregnant-Woman-with-pill-in-hand

As it turns out, however, such exposure may be far less likely than originally thought. As reported in a Nov. 29 ADDitude article, “The risks associated with taking an ADHD stimulant medication during pregnancy are real, but quite small,” according to an extensive population-based study published last month in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology

In the study, the authors examined a cohort of pregnant women “and their liveborn neonates” enrolled in Medicaid from 2000 to 2010. They compared women who took Adderall or Ritalin alone in the first half of pregnancy to unexposed women, and women who continued to take the medication past 20 weeks’ gestation to women who discontinued.

The takeaway? 

Psychostimulant use during pregnancy was associated with a small increased relative risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth. The absolute increases in risks are small and, thus, women with significant ADHD should not be counseled to suspend their ADHD treatment based on these findings.

This is an indisputably significant development in the field of ADHD research. Until now, studies of methylphenidate (Ritalin) use during pregnancy were based on cases “not representative of the general adult ADHD population having methylphenidate as monotherapy during pregnancy,” according to a 2014 systematic review published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. That is because “all the articles reported combinations of methylphenidate with either known teratogenic drugs or drugs of abuse.”

But this new revelation is equally noteworthy for what it represents. In the past, discussions of whether women should discontinue their ADHD medication during pregnancy were cloaked in foreboding language, declaring it should only be done “if the potential benefits to the mother outweigh the potential risks to the fetus.” To me, it seems inevitable any woman faced with such tacit guilt-tripping would opt to go off her daily pill regimen — to, in short, prioritize the safety of her unborn child over her own well-being.

Also, this new knowledge has given me a newfound sense of legitimacy. While I’m an ardent feminist, I can’t deny that in Western society, motherhood is held up as the quintessential state of womanhood. So when years ago I found out having ADHD may mean I could not become a mother — at least, not if I wanted to continue to receive treatment for it — I felt like an essential part of myself was forcibly eroded. It was as though I was no longer a real, full-fledged woman because I probably wouldn’t be able to have a baby. And it wouldn’t be for a legitimate reason, like income or infertility; it would, like so many other things, be dictated by my need to take medication, to engage in preemptive damage control of my disability. In essence, it would have meant a disability I had from birth would prevent me from giving birth, myself. And when that dawned on me, one thought repeatedly ran through my mind: “It’s not fair.” 

I don’t know if I’ll ever end up having a baby. As I said in my earlier post, because of the strong likelihood my offspring would have ADHD as well, I would only want to bring a child of mine into this world if I knew it were a world more tolerant of ADHD than the one in which I grew up. Plus, I couldn’t handle single parenthood, and I don’t know what the future holds for me vis-à-vis finding a life partner. 

But with the publication of this study, for the first time in my life, I know if circumstances do align for me, I’ll be able to do what I’ve always wanted — become a mother — without stigma and without the overwhelming fear of putting my baby at risk in the process. 

That’s an invaluable gift. 

Pregnant-woman-with-hands-forming-heart-shape-on-belly

Is Twitter the next big thing in ADHD diagnosis?

anna-demianenko-12400 (2)

Yesterday, I received my daily Google Alert email update for the search terms “attention deficit.” I’ve had this set up for several years, but I must admit, I don’t often check it; I can offer no better excuse than that it is rather hard to keep abreast of daily news about attention deficit if you suffer chronically from it. In any case, this time, something compelled me to read through the headlines compiled in the email, and one caught my attention (no pun intended): “Searching for ADHD in a Million Tweets.” It states: 

After analyzing 1.3 million tweets written by nearly 1,400 Twitter users, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have created a machine learning model that can predict which of the site’s users are affected by attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). […] Researchers monitored Twitter users with self-reported ADHD, comparing them to a set written by age- and gender-matched controls. The team then used various machine learning models to search for patterns in the two sets of tweets.

It might come as a surprise to you, my readers, but I must say, I find the whole thing terribly problematic. Why? Because it fails to take into account the fact that there are as many manifestations of ADHD as people living with it. The effects of ADHD in the life of one person may be entirely different from that of another.

For example, Lyle Ungar, one of the study co-authors, was quoted as saying, “I didn’t realize how common it was for patients to use marijuana to treat their symptoms, so you see people talking more about dope and weed.” But in contrast to these ADHDers, I avoid pot like the plague, not wanting to be any more dumbed down than I already am.

Meanwhile, according to the abstract of the article accompanying the research, published Nov. 8 in the Journal of Attention Disorders, “Users with ADHD are found to be less agreeable, more open, to post more often, and to use more negations, hedging, and swear words. Posts are suggestive of themes of emotional dysregulation, self-criticism, substance abuse, and exhaustion.” It seems to me the way these results have been reported is liable to reify negative stereotypes associated with ADHD. 

ADHD: not ‘one-size-fits-all’

I commend anyone wishing to shed light on ADHD, which after all is still arcane to most people who neither live with it or know someone who does. Also, for the record, I’m well aware of the inherent value of the internet, and social media, in particular, having minored in communication studies as an undergrad at the University of Oregon.

Even so, this research is misguided. It assumes there is one, and only one, kind of life ADHDers live, regardless of gender identity, socioeconomic status, race, etc. 

True, some health outcomes are more likely for people with ADHD. Depression, eating disorders, and self-injury are among a slew of comorbidities, or co-occurring conditions, in ADHD women, for instance. But therein lies the salient point: These aspects are common in ADHD women, specifically. As Devon Frye notes in a blog post on ADDitude, “men with ADHD are more likely to have substance-abuse problems while women with ADHD are more likely to have personality or mood disorders.”

Thinking outside the ADHD box

Cat-out-of-a-box

Far from demarginalizing ADHDers, the reasoning driving this research homogenizes the ADHD experience. I love the idea of a group of researchers at an Ivy-League institution setting out to make things easier for people who may have ADHD. This is especially so because Ungar has said while ADHD is less well studied than conditions like depression, “Understanding the components that people have or don’t have, the range of coping mechanisms that people use all leads to a better understanding of the condition.”

What we really need

What people with ADHD — those who have been diagnosed with it, those who suspect they have it, and especially, perhaps, those who live with it unknowingly — really need is for the medical community to realize there is no one, singular ADHD experience.

Yes, this does make it harder to single out people who are likely to have undiagnosed, and thus, untreated ADHD. Yes, this does mean there would need to be a concerted effort to map all tweets from studied ADHDers, and not just those that appear so frequently as to be acceptable to make generalizations about said ADHDers.

But the effect — newfound insight into ADHD in all its countless iterations — would be well worth it.

 

7 tried-and-true tricks for traveling with ADHD

ADHD profoundly affects many aspects of our day-to-day lives. Travel is no different. But luckily, after years and years, I’ve learned how to minimize the fallout of ADHD-induced, travel-related trials and tribulations. And with the holiday travel season drawing ever closer, I thought I’d share seven of my foolproof methods.

Barefoot-girl-in-sundress-and-fedora-walking-down-path-with-suitcase

1. Invest in a large suitcase.

Pro tip: As long as a suitcase weighs less than 50 pounds, you may check it like any other bag. So instead of trying to be someone you’re not and attempting to squeeze two weeks’ worth of luggage into one medium-sized suitcase, go big or stay home! And if you really want to ‘go the extra mile’ with your ADHD-proof luggage, choose a suitcase that’s indestructible, like this stylish pink one

2. Pack everything you’ll need — AND everything you MIGHT need.

We ADHDers have a reputation for being underprepared — a reputation that isn’t ENTIRELY unwarranted. That said, if you’re anything like me, you tend to overcompensate by overpacking — and then later, trying to thwart everyone’s judgment that you’re a pack rat, ending up underpacking. All things considered, I think it’s better to be overprepared than underprepared. Don’t you?

3. Do a packing dry run.

 As early as possible before the start of your vacation, gather all of the items you’ve decided on after reading tip #2 and try packing them in the suitcase purchased after reading tip #1. Granted, some things, like your toothbrush or your medications, can’t be packed until day-of. However, you can TEMPORARILY pack them, and you should; you need to verify that your luggage hasn’t exceeded that 50-pound weight limit. To do that, you first need to weigh yourself. Then, pick up your full suitcase and step on the bathroom scale again. Finally, subtract your weight from the weight of you and your luggage. After that, you can adjust your packing list accordingly. 

4. Spring for TSA Pre✓

As the Transportation Security Administration website boasts, with a five-year, $85 membership, “you can fly through security and don’t need to remove your shoes, laptops, liquids, belts and light jackets.” I know, I know: Not everyone can afford this. But if you CAN pay for this option, then by all means, for the love of all that is good and holy, DO.

5. Set up a mobile boarding pass in addition to printing one out.

It would surprise me very much if I were the only person with ADHD ever to misplace a printable boarding pass while en route to a flight gate. Those damn little pieces of paper are just WAITING for us to lose them! Phones, on the other hand, are much harder to lose track of, if for no other reason than that you can track them using GPS. Avail yourself of these technological innovations — you’ll be glad you did.

6. Pack your medications in your carry-on — NEVER a checked bag.

Inevitably, luggage sometimes gets lost; and it can be days before its owner reunites with it. If you make the mistake of packing your ADHD medications in the said checked bag, you could face multiple days sans pharmacological symptom control. Granted, my ADHD is particularly severe; nevertheless, I think I speak for all other ADHDers when I say having to go neurologically ‘au naturale’ for even a single day can be pretty much the worst thing imaginable. 

7. Treat yourself and pay for some Wi-Fi time — BEFORE the day of your flight.

When I was preparing to fly to Washington, D.C. to visit my boyfriend last month, I surprised myself by getting everything together ahead of time — or so I thought. On the day before my flight, I received an email trying to entice me into paying $16 for a day’s worth of in-flight Wi-Fi. I smugly chaffed at forking over so much money for web access when I had already downloaded four e-books on my iPad that could be read without an internet connection. Unfortunately, it wasn’t until I was on the plane and in the air that I remembered something: It’s impossible for me to concentrate on reading while flying due to the cacophonous sounds coming from every direction on the airplane. Suddenly, I was stuck in the sky for three-plus hours sans any entertainment. And as it turned out, Delta Airlines doubles its prices to for a full day of Wi-Fi once the day of the flight has arrived. In the end, I just bit the bullet and shelling out $6 for an hour online.

1 (8)

That’s really the salient point: Something WILL go wrong, no matter how many fail-safes you’ve devised. The key is to expect it. And above all, you have to have a sense of humor about problems while peregrinating. Otherwise, your ADHD may keep you from enjoying yourself.

…Bon voyage!

If it’s not comprehensive, it’s not really sex education.

In a recent post, I reported that since the inauguration of Donald Trump (shudder), the federal budget for sex education has been heavily favoring abstinence-based programming, and I said exposure to sex education based on abstinence is the worst thing for anyone whose parents want them to practice safe sex. I realize that sounds like a pretty outrageous claim, so it seems prudent for me to show my work here. 

A brief history of sex education in the U.S.

The following is an adapted version of a timeline of the history of sex education that I composed as part of a journalistic research project I completed during my freshman year of college at the University of Oregon:

  • 1981: Republican senators Jeremiah Denton and Orrin Hatch sponsored the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), which was designed to prevent premarital teen pregnancy through quote-unquote family-centered programs to promote chastity and self-discipline. The statute emphasized so-called religious, charitable organizations. In the opinion of many religious and human rights groups, this inherent fusion of church and state flouts the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  • 1986: A group of priests and activists challenge the AFLA.
  • 1993: The AFLA is ruled unconstitutional.
  • 1994: Social conservative Representative John Doolittle unsuccessfully proposes limiting the content of HIV-prevention and sexuality education in school-based programs, indicating to conservative groups that to make headway in abstinence policy, it will be necessary “to circumvent the federal laws by restricting, and shaping, education programs through health policy and funding…without drawing Congressional or public debate.”
  • 1996: During the final version of welfare reform debates, Congressmen Ernest Istook and Tom Coburn persuade Speaker Newt Gingrich to include $50 million annual federal funding for an abstinence-only-until-marriage program (Title V).
  • 1998: The ruling deeming the AFLA unconstitutional has expired, paving the way for an eight-point, (a)-(h) definition of abstinence education, requiring states that accept federal funds to match every four federal dollars with three-state raised dollars and to teach abstinence only. 
  • January 2001–January 2009: Federal abstinence-only sex education (AOSE) funding doubles under the George W. Bush administration, peaking at $1.76 billion.
  • Spring 2009: Half the states have rejected Title V funds, and President Barack Obama calls for the elimination of AOSE programs.

Comprehensive sex ed > AOSE

fullsizeoutput_1c6e

It’s more effective at delaying teen sexual debut.

Studies show that teens who receive comprehensive sexuality education are more likely to have sex for the first time later in life. According to a publication of Advocates for Youth*, “Evaluations of comprehensive sex education and HIV/ STI prevention programs show that they do not increase rates of sexual initiation, do not lower the age at which youth initiate sex, and do not increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active youth.” Teens exposed to AOSE, on the other hand, tend to have sex earlier and are less likely to practice safe sex when they do (see below).

It’s more effective at teaching teens to practice safe sex.

Comprehensive sex ed has been proven to be more effective at teaching teens to engage in behaviors that reduce the likelihood of spreading sexually transmitted diseases: According to a fact sheet of the CDC, “Research shows that well-designed and well-implemented HIV/STD prevention programs can decrease sexual risk behaviors among students,” including delaying first sexual intercourse; reducing the number of sex partners; decreasing the number of times students have unprotected sex; and increasing condom use. 

It’s more effective at preventing teen pregnancy.

There’s an abundance of evidence that when it comes to preventing teen pregnancy, comprehensive sex ed is the way to go. This is because it includes discussions of contraceptive use (see above). Unfortunately, according to a September 2017 fact sheet by the Guttmacher Institute, “Many sexually experienced adolescents … did not receive formal instruction about contraception before they first had sex; fewer received instruction about where to get birth control.”

It isn’t heteronormative.

Modern comprehensive sex ed incorporates discussions of sex beyond just male-female intercourse. AOSE, by contrast, provides an incomplete version of a practical sexual education to the 52 percent of teens who don’t identify as “exclusively heterosexual.” 

It teaches teens that sex isn’t wrong or shameful, but a a simple ‘fact of life.’

Last but not least, as Amie Newman of Our Bodies, Ourselves puts it, “Young women who are exposed only to “just say no” programs learn little or nothing about what it means to find pleasure in sex and in their own bodies.”

What lies ahead for American sex ed

As I mentioned, sex education (or rather, a lack thereof) under the Trump administration has been seriously lacking in evidence-based, effective because comprehensive, sex education. If this isn’t rectified, the Republican Party will have more welfare mothers to deal with and a more exhausted public health budget for its citizens’ HIV/STI treatment. And since virtually every aspect of Trump’s public persona flies in the face of Christian goodness or any religious influence, it would be in his best interest to bring back the Obama-era sex ed days — and fast. 

jj-thompson-142854


In this post, I cite articles from the websites of pro-comprehensive sex ed advocacy groups. While I’m aware that such groups can’t be taken as credible sources on their own, their claims are supported by scientific evidence, the citations of which are included in said articles.

Why reproductive justice is routinely jeopardized

As a feminist activist, back in grad school and today, my pet cause has been reproductive justice — not reproductive rights, but reproductive justice, “the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.” I’m quoting here from the website of the Sistersong Collective; they first coined the term to incorporate the lived experience of WOC

Now, I don’t mean in any way to co-opt this term or downplay the singular struggle of WOC and other marginalized women — especially given that many who share my identity of WWD are always in danger of having their reproductive rights violatedBut as we get further into the new millennium, there has been a unilateral erosion of reproductive rights for all women in the United States. And yes, that includes the college-educated, married, Caucasian ones. 

Contraception

contraceptive pills in woman hand lipstick eye shadow background

Our access to oral contraception and other methods of birth control is perpetually under threat, despite the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. (Photo source: Adobe Stock)

Recently, word came down from our Beelzebub-in-Chief that as of Oct. 6, an interim rule was now in effect that, in the words of Aaron E. Carroll of the Times, “weakens the mandate for health coverage of contraception under the Affordable Care Act, giving more leeway to employers with religious or moral objections.” 

Terrific. Moving on.

Sex education 

The following is a passage from an article that ran last week in the Washington Post

 Abstinence-only education — which attempts to teach young people not to have sex outside marriage and often does not include material on birth control and safe sex — began receiving federal funding in the 1980s. Funding increased when George W. Bush was president. His successor, President Barack Obama, attempted to end the program and direct money to comprehensive sexual education, but the Republican-led Congress kept it alive. Now abstinence education gets about $90 million in federal funds annually, and this past summer, President Donald Trump cut more than $200 million in federal grants to scores of organizations that work to decrease teen pregnancy rates, which could affect sex education programs in some areas.

I did a massive research project on sex education during my freshman year of college. And I can tell you that AOSE, as opposed to comprehensive sexuality education, is, unequivocally, the worst thing you can do for your child if you want them to be in good health and stay that way throughout their reproductive lives. Keep this in mind.

Abortion

And that’s not all: Earlier this month, Congress passed a bill outlawing abortion taking place 20 weeks or more post-conception: It “would punish abortion providers with up to five years in prison for terminating a pregnancy after 20 weeks’ gestation.”

What motivates this? An interest in human rights for unborn children? Science tells us that’s not so: To quote a Mother Jones article from 2016, “The majority of the scientific literature on the subject finds that the brain connections required to feel pain are not formed until at least 24 weeks,” i.e., a full month later.

Now, you will recall that Roe v. Wade (1973) solidified legal protection of the right to have an abortion up to 12 weeks into a chronological pregnancy; by that measure, we’re no worse off than we were before. What I find troubling about this is that some of our lawmakers have now gone on the record vis-à-vis their feelings about expanding women’s rights related to reproduction — and they aren’t feelings of support.

It seems to me that this is part of a more significant, more insidious effort to create a culture that responds punitively to the exercising of one’s reproductive rights, which arises from an ultimate desire to revoke such rights — and with it, our reproductive justice — altogether.

A real-life ‘Handmaid’s Tale’

This past spring, my mom and I became obsessed with the adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s novel The Handmaid’s Tale that aired on the streaming service Hulu. Every Wednesday afternoon (she and I both work from home), we’d sit in the family room and watch the newest installment of this jewel of small-screen speculative fiction, pressing ‘pause’ about five times over the course of an episode to discuss the feminist implications of a particular moment or commiserate over how hauntingly close to home the show was hitting.

After watching the first few episodes (the initial ones were released simultaneously), my mom, who read the book years ago, asked me, a newcomer to the story, what I thought.

I told her that I liked it, but, of course, it wasn’t very realistic. In real life, I reminded her, we don’t have to worry about a backward revolution overthrowing the U.S. government, tearing up the constitution, and effectively reducing women to their reproductive function, allowing them neither jobs nor even hobbies requiring any appreciable amount of intellectual engagement.

However, my mom explained how in danger we, in reality, are in the current U.S. political climate of losing our liberty. And last week, she started saying out loud what I think many of us have subconsciously feared for a long time: that these moves to erode our reproductive rights exist to force women out of the market, i.e., the labor market. No pun intended.

By treating each attack on American reproductive rights as regrettable but existing in a vacuum, we inure ourselves to the concept of undermined reproductive justice as a normal fact of life under the fascist regime that is the Trump administration. If we’re not careful, we’re going to end up just like Atwood’s eponymous handmaids: isolated, powerless, and nothing more than glorified incubators

madeline-brewer-janine-jpeg

Legislation by the U.S. government in 2017 is eroding our reproductive rights and creating a real-life ‘Handmaid’s Tale.’ (Source: Hulu via Uproxx)

Why mobility is a free speech issue

On Monday, Sept. 25, according to the captioning of a HuffPost video,

Over 200 protesters gathered at a Senate Finance Committee hearing for the latest version of the Graham-Cassidy Bill, the latest effort to repeal and replace Obamacare, which would gut Medicaid and allow states to raise premiums on individuals with pre-existing conditions. Protests began as soon as the hearing did.

The next day, The New York Times ran an article with the following lede:

Saudi Arabia announced on Tuesday that it would allow women to drive, ending a longstanding policy that has become a global symbol of the oppression of women in the ultraconservative kingdom.

Other than the week in which they took place, these two events have something else in common: They both illustrate how mobility — or lack thereof — is a free speech issue.

Medicaid is crucial for mentally and/or physically disabled people wishing to live with agency and autonomy. Yet, as stated on the website of Disability Rights Ohio, “an individual with a ‘pre-existing condition,’ such as mental illness, may be denied coverage for that condition as long as other employees … are denied coverage for their pre-existing condition.”

So, in the absence of Obamacare, people with disabilities (PWD) may not be able to afford or have any access to subsidized medication or other essential kinds of treatment. Moreover, many PWD (*raises hand*) can’t work part-time jobs, or even, whether due to architecture or any number of other reasons, full-time jobs, making them inherently ineligible for company insurance. No employer = no employer coverage.

Obviously, speech isn’t always spoken or uttered in protest; a person may be born with a significant speech disorder or impairment, or simply have no desire to speak out on a particular subject on a given occasion.  But when a person with a disability wishes to exercise their right to free speech, it is absolutely (and, in the U.S., constitutionally) essential to allow it. Yet while it seems that healthcare has been saved, at least for the time being, this was not the first time that PWD were forcibly removed from a public forum simply for exercising their first-amendment rights; as such, it is likely not the last.

59c958a01a00002650f0871d

U.S. Capitol Police arrest a protester. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Mobility Matters

The New Oxford American Dictionary gives two definitions of mobility: “the ability to move or be moved freely and easily,” and “the ability to move between different levels in society or employment.” 

It may seem, then, that these PWD do have mobility; after all, the ones with physical handicaps are equipped with wheelchairs. However, although they may move easily, they weren’t being moved freely. Though they peaceably assembled, Capitol police stripped many of the protestors of their mobility by pulling their wheelchairs out of the room against their will, thus keeping them from advocating for the preservation of what they need to be socially mobile: Medicaid. 

‘Moving’ Forward

saudi-drive-master768

A woman behind the wheel in Saudi Arabia. (Photo by Faissal Al Nasser/Reuters)

Assuredly, Saudi women are reacting so elatedly to the news because of the newfound agency it has brought them. And they apparently were not the only ones celebrating. To quote Ben Hubbard, “Saudi leaders … hope the new policy will help the economy by increasing women’s participation in the workplace.” 

What the my dictionary app fails to mention is that in its entry on mobility, the first definition begets the second: The ability to move freely and easily facilitates movement between different levels in society or employment. Whether they seek employment, or guaranteed well-being even in unemployment, all people, including and especially women and PWD, have the right to move or to stay right where they are, thank you very much. And we need to do everything we can to protect that right.

‘What Happened,’ and what needs to happen now

This week, my hero, better known as Hillary Rodham Clinton, had a slew of TV news appearances. Watching her on The Today Show on Wednesday morning, and The Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday night, it all came rushing back: that singular moment when she seized the Democratic nomination; my confidence that during the General Election, she would win the popular vote; and the complete, unprecedented (un-presidented?) devastation on election night, when I realized that I had been only half right.

Hillary Clinton on the TODAY show

Hillary Clinton in her Sept. 13, 2017 appearance on the TODAY Show.

The specifics of her second bid for president and its catastrophic end are well-documented elsewhere. What Clinton focused on during her appearances is the namesake of her new memoir: What Happened.

What, indeed.

According to Clinton, the major blow was dealt by James Comey, the (now former) director of the FBI.

Granted,  Clinton wouldn’t have taken such a severe political beating last fall if Comey hadn’t had such a massive and very public brain fart. I am loath to diverge with my girl Hill, but there was another less obvious but more destructive factor at work than mental flatulence.

The true culprit — the reason Donald Trump is now the president of the United States — is misogyny.

We have made great strides toward doing away with sexism; I readily and joyfully admit that. Misogyny, on the other hand, endures. Pernicious, and systemic, it was without a doubt Clinton’s downfall. Misogyny inheres in our society because, as Clinton so accurately put it, an endemic, generalized hatred of women has been passed from generation to generation.

Freedom from misogyny would require an entire generation to grow up never witnessing an act of sexism — for sexism, essentially, to cease to exist anywhere in the world. Thereupon, that generation would then need to raise their children in a world in which female-identified people never experience discrimination. Only by forming a united front in the name of love and equity can we hope ever to see a woman in the Oval Office.

Now, it certainly didn’t help that the Electoral College is still a thing. But it is no coincidence that the person who should have succeeded President Barack Obama was passed over in favor of one accused multiple times of sexual assault, whose behavior and language (“Grab ’em by the pussy!”) don’t exactly make him look innocent. Too much of the U.S. population operates under the notion that a powerful man is forgivable — nay, even trustworthy — while a powerful woman needs to be punished. 

I will never get over the events of Nov. 8, 2016. I will never forget the feeling in the pit of my stomach when the election swung in Trump’s favor. And I will always resent the fact that someone of the female gender probably won’t be elected to the highest office in the land during my mom’s lifetime.

But we can’t allow what happened to defeat us. It’s time to start the generations-long work of eliminating misogyny — completely, and forever.


*Clinton begins to address sexism and misogyny at about 07:44. However, you definitely should watch this video in its entirety, because it starts with Rachel Maddow showing Hillary Clinton a funny panda video. Seriously. The greatest moment in television history? I think YES.