Down In It.

I've read some writers that breathe a degree of humanness like no other. No sweeping descriptions of crinoline skirts or horses or tempestuous storms - there's just subconscious nitty-gritty laid bare on the page. Even if you don't empathize with their characters, you somehow do because you're also a human. Psychological horror may be one way to describe it, and if we're being honest, we've all done that to ourselves at some point - gripped by a very real sense of fear for the irrational reason of we decided to freak ourselves out. But every author doesn't have to be Kafka to expose their audience to what it feels like to be human and, additionally, being such doesn't have to be so frightening (though it can be).

Karl Ove Knausgaard's series of books, My Struggle, as all six are titled, have reawakened my need to acknowledge that those feelings of humanness exist. We all feel uncontrollable desires and nasty thoughts - some of us choose not only to admit that to ourselves, but to others. In the second volume, Knausgaard has an entire passage analyzing Dostoevsky in which he states he feels "uncomfortable" in Dostoevsky's world. Perhaps, as an author, he views this analysis somewhat ironically, since his prose likely makes many readers uncomfortable. But he's right - in both writers' worlds, there's an "uncanny valley" aspect. A very human text describes someone's inner thoughts in a non-polished, non-John Greene sort of way. This is not a milieu where two teens, dying of cancer,  engage in repartee that conveys they have all the time in the world. This is not the type of stylized speak of Joss Whedon's worlds (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly) or of most television dramas.

In contrast, Knausgaard fleshes out the inner monologue you have running through your mind all day - the impassive thought you have on the check-out line at the supermarket, "Oh man, is that person ugly/fat/lazy/old." Thoughts your very well-mannered superego filter would never let you say aloud, but that still exist inside. And these thoughts aren't necessarily judgments, most are simple observations, categorizational attempts at making sense of the world around you. Though somehow, they can seem so taboo when revealed. Writers who touch on something uncomfortably human through their words are difficult to get through - think Nabokov's Lolita. Many have speculated that Nabokov himself had a predilection for underage girls to be able to get into the mind of his narrator, Humbert Humbert though, perhaps, his fictional explication reveals more about the interpreter than the author.

There's a rawness, a plainness, to a text that's not heavily stylized (or at least one comes off as such). It's not that other writers don't hit on very human emotions or empathetic experiences- the key is that the style of the text is pertinent. Yet, some people find this sort of writing overwhelming and more neurosis-inducing than anything else. Or as being as much of a distraction as any other form of art - clouding the mind from focusing on letting go or transcending to a higher plane of consciousness.

While I can see these opinions holding some weight, personally, I find such works cathartic. I am reminded that my own "flaws" tie me back into the one-ness of everything. There is no perfection to be attained because there is no standard. We all experience ups and downs, loves and losses, and ultimately, the same end -death. Yet in the interim, we're consumed by our thoughts, most of which signify nothing. They're exercises of our consciousness and even if we are master meditators who can make our thoughts sail away like clouds, new ones always form, and must be pushed aside again and again. The only clarity that we'll ever achieve is trying to understand ourselves, acknowledge what we find excitable, deplorable, indispensable, etc.

And thusly, a truly human text may just drag you down into the muck of being alive, and that, to me, is something we should never avoid facing.

Stop "Leaning In" and Fight for Real Change

Did you ever stop and think about the amount of time, energy and personal freedoms women give up to rear children? While I know there are men who do the same or play more egalitarian roles in their households, the trend still overwhelmingly leans toward women to bear the overall burden of this task (this is also not to say that some women don't choose to pursue this life path, and very happily at that). This essay is dedicated to unpacking the myth that there could be any true sort of egalitarian division of labor based on gender, in particular when it comes to the invisible work of what goes on in the home (shopping, cooking, cleaning, scheduling, childcare, et al) in a patriarchal society. As a feminist, my end goal would not be to replace patriarchy with matriarchy and any false dichotomies raised by opponents of feminist theory can go educate themselves further before they object. No, this is an entreaty to effect change that is much more inter-sectional in nature.

As a millennial (*vom*), I find the argument of "leaning in" (thanks, Sheryl Sandberg!), to be weak. Maybe it represents a type of feminism I am not in touch with, or maybe I am too socialistic to see it as doing anything but encouraging women to act like men, rather than respecting them for representing something unique. If, in fact, women will ever be truly equal to men in our society, and I mean, not simply legally having the right to pursue the same path as men, unfettered, we need a radically different socioeconomic structure in place. To support and encourage and, most importantly, empower, an entire class of people who have chosen to dedicate themselves to the domestic sphere, a basic universal income would be necessary. Caregivers, in their own right, would be paid and would not be dependent on a partner for subsistence. In addition to a basic universal income, which would ensure that everyone, inclusive of those who perform the "invisible work" of domesticity, is compensated, a truly egalitarian society would also include: paid maternity and paternity leave, universal health care, childcare and well-funded, "free" public schools (through college). Statistically, children of single mothers, first-generation college students and students of color are at a great disadvantage when it comes to student debt. To equalize playing fields based on family structure, race, and class, making public colleges more affordable or even - *gasp* - free.

It is no wonder that the United States lags begin other developed nations in measurements as diverse as infant mortality rates and student test scores in math and reading. In our mixed economic system, we've falsely equated cost with value. If a government or even a coalition of governments shared services to provide health care, educational opportunities and childcare services, there would be an increase in the average quality of life in addition to cost-savings for the providers of said services. For women who chose not to bear children, and/or take time out of their educations or careers to rear them, the benefits of a more egalitarian society would translate to less harassment and discrimination in the workplace and wider society. How? In a culture in which a successful life style is heavily tied to earning a sizable income, length of service as well as dedication to said service is the name of the game. Men are set up to be better at the length of service at least by not having to make the decision to take time off to care for young dependents. This dedication is "perceived" to be inherent to men, which means women, by the mere fact of being one, will be perceived differently regardless of their desire to be mothers. This represents an implicit bias against women in the workplace. It also robs men of the ability to be "ok" with taking time off of work for paternity leave and sharing parenting duties more equally with the mothers of their children.

If we, as a society, truly value the next generation, anti-abortion laws are the least effective method of achieving great results. The fact that women can choose to have an abortion is not providing much in the way of ensuring the success of failure of children already in existence. To allow for a thriving youth culture that can effectively participate in the next generation of democratic engagement, in a meaningful and educated way, we need bssic social safety nets that teach people how to be resilient and self-sufficient. If the objection to welfare programs is that it breeds reliance on others, then I ask two questions: 1. what is the point of a society if it isn't to band together to help others )might as well promote an anarchist state if you disagree)? 2. Instead of scrapping the idea of helping others through various programs entirely, why not encourage measures that foster real growth and understanding in their participants?

The tired phrase, "Women can't have it all," needs to go. We as a society can have more, at least, for everyone.