6 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/23/15 9:45pm)
By Jennie Sekanicks
Blogger
To say that life is composed of choices is terribly simplistic but nevertheless true. We as humans make choices every day—to brush our teeth, to wake up early, to do our homework, to eat that pint of ice cream sitting in the freezer. We feel pressure in all the decisions we make—to excel, to grow, to be effortless and brilliant, and better than who we were yesterday. But as women, as functioning female bodies there is a different set of pressures we must face, as we are often forced to choose and expected to make specific decisions that will have severe social consequences and political implications following us throughout the course of our lives.
And sometimes, we are forced to make choices we don’t want to make.
My mother chose supporting her family over her education. Her children over her career. And these were decisions she made from the pressures she felt as a woman, as a wife, as a sister, as a daughter. But my mother has worked hard and continues to do so, so that I don’t have to make these same choices. Every day her goal is to eliminate the likelihood of my being in a position where I must relinquish a part of myself or even, my whole self simply because of my existence and identity as a woman.
But what happens when we are in a place where our health and our gender are intertwined? When our health choices and our gender fulfillment are one in the same? When these two entities coexist in such a symbiotic relationship that they can never be wholly mutually exclusive? This place makes us wonder why my mother had to choose her assumed social duties as a woman over her career, why we must relinquish a part of ourselves to fulfill a role we are supposed to perform. We ask where this notion that womanly duties, femininity and strict performances of gender must prevail came from and it starts with the larger choices my mother and many mothers have had and continue to have to make, and its legacy is continued, its roots are released every day in my mundane choice to take a vitamin. To maintain my health.
The general purpose of vitamins is to bolster your health, ensure that you receive the proper dosage of necessary vitamins. Although this may serve as the mission of vitamins on the surface, there is an underlying exchange taking place between the consumer and none other than the surface itself.
My vitamins are pink. They are pink and contain Blue Lake 2, Red 40 Lake and Yellow 6 Lake to make this hue visible.
When the very first vitamin fell onto my palm and my expectance for it to be the bland color created when an item is stripped of fructose and dye was rejected, I wondered how I didn’t see this coming.
It brought me back to when I was 13 and my mother purchased One-A-Day Teen vitamins. They were bright pink and the plastic container had a pink outline of what a “healthy” (extremely thin, long & straight haired, faceless) female is supposed to look like. It made me realize that within my life, I had only consumed pink-coated vitamins. Pink.
Why, when I open my bottle of Centrum Women’s Vitamins, am I told that I must choose my femininity over my health? That I must consume food coloring and dyes to be healthy? That I must reaffirm my love for pink, be reminded of the strict confines I am limited to and must abide by, and confirm my submission, relinquish the part of me that truly loves blue so that I can receive my daily dosage of vitamin A, potassium and calcium? Why must choosing my health mean choosing to reaffirm my femininity?
This moment, although perhaps just a simple, capitalistic reap-off-the-binary marketing tool, was very powerful for me as a female who had just demonstrated a commitment (for hopefully, the last time) to her health and putting herself first by ensuring her body’s basic needs were met. But here, in the palm of my hand, was a vitamin that told me my gender was more important than my health. That my health depended on my submission to femininity. My role as constantly striving to be an exemplary, archetypal female takes priority and succeeds over my simple efforts to maintain my health.
Pfizer and Bayer are telling me that it is better for my system to have Blue Lake, Red Lake and Yellow Lake in it than forget, for a moment, that my everyday life choices depend upon my gender.
My mother cannot change this for me. She cannot alter the fact that my femininity and health are knotted together or change the fact that my vitamins are telling me that to be healthy means to be feminine, to be feminine is to be healthy.
The set of choices my mother and I are presented with through our functioning within society, the decisions we have made and continue to make are connected in the mere fact that we are female bodied. A man is not expected to choose between his career and his role as a father, his masculinity and his health are not one entity. Our health and our health decisions are our gender and our gender decisions—they are one and the same. My mother’s diligence, her story cannot solve this societal dilemma but even if its only function is to help us understand, better comprehend the world we live in and the standards we must live by, then perhaps it is much more than just my saving grace.
But yours. Ours.
(10/01/14 8:45pm)
By Jennie Sekanics
Blogger
Just this past Saturday, Thomas Paine Plaza was flooded with over 1,000 feminist activists and supporters for Philly’s March to End Rape Culture. Many walked around topless, some wore tight-fitting, short dresses which are the garments that rape is often blamed on, and others wore the clothes that they were wearing when they were sexually assaulted. What did I wear this weekend amongst the sea of half-naked, beautiful, powerful activists? You guessed it! A Thor costume.
It's strange to think that cosplaying Thor is a multifaceted and complex decision or functions as anything more significant than simply demonstrating an admiration for a fictional character. Thor is the god of thunder, child of Oden, heir to the throne of Asgard, and owner of a powerful hammer called Mjolnir that can both create force fields and destroy anything in its path. It's simple — Thor is kickass, who wouldn't want to dress up as this demigod? But being Thor this past weekend was as symbolic and as substantial for me as the march itself.
My choice to cosplay Thor stemmed from Marvel’s iconic decision to make Thor a woman. I wanted to embrace this notion, applaud it and encourage it, for a male dominated realm was explicitly ruptured. A space that caters to males, through continuously utilizing men as the front running protagonist superheroes, ultimately yielded to the presence of a female. This motion's power rests within the fact that Marvel acknowledged that this space was limited, divided by gender and Marvel distorted that reinforcement through altering Thor's gender. Thor, a name well-known and marveled at (no pun intended), now belongs to a woman.
Of course, Thor identifying as a woman is complicated by the fact that this space, although having gained the presence of a female figure, was established by man. As Thor was not initially a female, the credibility and distinctiveness of Thor's character was previously established through his functioning as a male superhero. The space she has been given is tainted in this manner, because it was not earned through her functioning as a female superhero but rather, granted to her after being constructed by a male. Her female agency is subtly devalued, as this echoes the idea that man must create the foundation for woman and that is the only way in which she can succeed — by building upon the successes of her forefathers. Thus, present-day Thor as a female would not exist without the initial Thor as a male superhero. This of course, also mimics the relationship of dependency reinforced by patriarchal ideology, in which a woman must and is expected to depend upon the man for the construction of her identity and success. Due to this previous establishment of Thor's regard and triumph with the American audience as a male superhero, altering Thor's gender can be viewed as merely a façade, the result of a feigned attempt to incorporate more leading, female superheroes in the comic book world.
But there is a lurking power, an overwhelming sense of liberation hidden within the decision to make Thor a female. For one, Marvel reminds us that gender should not play a factor in one’s life circumstances, meaning that experiences should not be heavily influenced by or dependent upon gender, as the baseline of Thor’s story remains the same. Essentially, the basic story of Thor has not changed even though the character’s gender has. She is the god of thunder, child of Oden, heir to the throne of Asgard, and owner of a powerful hammer called Mjolnir that can both create force fields and destroy anything in its path. She's kickass. The roots of the story, the crucial elements that ultimately define Thor as a character remain untouched. This notion, the employment of the same entities that make Thor, Thor, reestablishes the fact that gender should not affect a person’s circumstances or the manner in which a person is received or judged by society.
Marvel is saying that Thor as a male superhero is equivalent to Thor as a female superhero. They are both valuable and essentially, there is no difference — they are the same. This is specifically demonstrated in the fact that despite Thor’s change in gender, Marvel kept the title Thor and this is the name that the female superhero will identify with, be associated with, and respond to. Fox News and Friends’ anchors incredulously mocked the truth that the female superhero’s title will remain to be Thor by asking, “Why not ‘Thorita’ or ‘Thorella,’ for goodness sake?” Although the Fox News employees clearly cannot comprehend that we should and could be living in a world where gender doesn’t influence and/or police every action and reaction, they recognize the pattern of demeaning female superheroes through strongly alluding to their gender and allowing this to play a major factor in decisions, such as the title of their character. The names “Thorita,” “Thorella,” “Thorina,” “She-Thor,” and “Lady-Thor” all say that the hero’s gender is more important than her story, her character, her upholding of justice and elimination of evil. It actualizes this notion that acknowledging the character’s gender is a necessary objective, but only for women. For without its recognition, how else would we be able to demean their actions? To patronize their character? We wouldn’t.
So when Fox’s Clayton Morris says, “We’re worrying about gender equality so much and being so politically correct that this is what we’re getting,” the only logical response is YES, of course. This is what we need. We need to recognize the fact that Thor’s gender is completely irrelevant and insubstantial. That Thor as a woman, a man, trans, queer, what have you—they are still Thor, their story is still credible, the character is worthy, and we should listen to their story regardless of these identifications.
I want people to understand that I was Thor as Thor. I wasn't just the classic, Chris Hemsworth, macho man Thor. I was Thor who is now a woman. Thor who is now acknowledged as a person. Thor who demonstrates that gender does not and should not play a factor in evaluating one's credibility or drastically altering one's life circumstances. In this way, I was both the Thor many know as Chris Hemsworth and the Thor just entering this world as a powerful female superhero. The Thor who was always Thor and, the Thor who will always be Thor. Me.
A preview of Thor’s first issue can be seen here.
(09/16/14 6:42pm)
By Jennie Sekanics
Blogger
Within the past two weeks, media outlets have expressed frenzied outrage over the gone-viral video of Raymell Mourice Rice (also known as Ray Rice) abusing his partner, Janay Palmer. Of course, this appalled reaction was justified since Ray Rice not only knocked her unconscious but carelessly left her body on the ground with her skirt up, revealing the lower half of her body. Much of the public, perhaps excluding zealous Ravens fans, demanded for Rice’s football career to be terminated and for justice to be served. But Ray Rice is not the problem — he is an agent, one of many faces of the continuous issues perpetuated by football culture.
Studies have been completed by several different sources on the relative percentage of crimes committed by the men of the NFL. Research compiled by FiveThirtyEight, a polling aggregation website owned by ESPN, revealed that there is currently a 55.4 percent arrest rate for NFL Players ages 25-29 upon the charges of domestic violence. Morris writes, “That 55.4 percent is more than four times worse than the league’s arrest rate for all offenses (13 percent), and domestic violence accounts for 48 percent of arrests for violent crimes among NFL players, compared to our estimated 21 percent nationally.”
A study produced by Deadspin, another major sports news outlet owned by Gawker Media, revealed that the league has 34 percent more arrests for violent crimes such as assault, battery, and domestic violence than the general population. Clearly, there is an evident correlation between involvement with the NFL and perpetuating assault, specifically in the form of domestic violence and violence against women.
These statistics demonstrate how the solution to the problem is not just suspending Ray Rice from the NFL indefinitely (although, it is better than the two week suspension he initially received) and soiling all Rice jerseys in the name of his crime. The answer is not limited to the individual people who have committed these violent offences, despite the fact that their arrests and penalties are well-deserved. (Let’s not talk about the perpetrators who went unscathed for the sake of my sanity.) If we want tangible change, if we want actual, statistical results, the solution, I’m afraid, is much more complicated that.
Domestic violence represents a power struggle. Its roots are entrenched deeply in the need to exert force over another and validate their unquestionable control. Where does this power struggle originate? How is it influenced by the NFL?
Firstly, it is ingrained in our language. Common sports colloquialisms reflect the societally-deemed “inevitable” knowledge that men are stronger than and superior to women. “You throw like a girl,” “Stop being a pussy,” “You’re a sissy.” These frequently used parlances indicate some sort of failure, or recognize the existence of a flaw, for behaving “like a girl.” Mistakes or mishaps upon throwing a ball or demonstrating some sort of athletic skill become associated with feminization and thus, weakness. This language permeates a belief that men have access to a power threshold that women do not and women, accordingly, must submit to the male upper hand.
This jargon ultimately serves as the manifestation of violent crimes against women and as it is extremely prevalent within the NFL, there is no qualm as to why percentages for arrests for domestic violence are high and more particularly, much higher than the general population.
Moreover, the way in which the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell has handled cases of assault reflects how lowly women place upon the scale of priority in male-dominated realms (such as our present-day society — America, the beautiful). With the common response to domestic violence being mostly limited to a temporary suspension from games, the issue of domestic violence is devalued and diluted into the conversation of hampering fantasy football teams rather than standing as what it actually is—a crime against humanity.
Women are not treated as humans in this matter and become entities irrelevant to men and their experiences. The lack of respect Janay Palmer has been given for her responses to the assault is also reflective of the way in which society regards women and the experiences they must withstand at the hands of men, even the ones they love.
Janay Palmer is allowed to love her partner, Ray Rice, and not desire to press charges. This is a right she is welcome to perform as it is hers and a part of her agency as a human being. The outrage at Ray Rice’s actions harms her in the fact that it essentially silences her voice, as how the media handles Rice’s crime overpowers her input on the issue in level of importance, which is unfortunate, as her voice deserves to be heard as the victim/survivor of such abuse.
The focus shouldn’t be placed upon Janay Palmer’s decision not to press charges or leave her partner nor should her experience be delegitimized because she has chosen to do so. The takeaway from this current event should not be that Ray Rice is unique, crazy, and only an individual perpetuator of violence against women and the lack of reverence for women.
The ultimate concentration should rest upon the overwhelming fact that women need to be respected and accounted for within our language. (Yes, I’m talking to all of you who say “guys” when referring to a mixed gendered group.) This occurrence should highlight the need for comprehensive education on how to maintain healthy, balanced relationships and obliterate the need to exert power over another, which is reinforced by the principles of football — a game that utilizes physical power struggles as its main dynamic.
Ray Rice is not the problem; he is a part of a much larger male desire for power permeated by socially-acceptable notions — such as our gender-policing and hierarchy-indicating language — and social institutions, such as America’s precious National Football League.
Feminist out.
(09/10/14 2:44am)
By Jennie Sekanics
Blogger
It’s no secret that over 100 female celebrities’ phones have been hacked and their nude photos have been unjustly disclosed to the internet, giving millions access to their private pictures. Jennifer Lawrence is now not only regarded as a phenomenal actress and spokesperson for body image confidence, but poster woman for the many female celebrities who have been violated.
What is most important to recognize when contextualizing this recent event is the fact that it is, indeed, sexual assault. Viewing another’s personal, specifically private, nude photos without their consent is undoubtedly a form of sexual violence. But since there seems to be a common discomfort with this fact or snicker at the application of such a term to the hacking, I will presume to break down the publication of these naked pictures in hopes of not only clarifying why this is sexual assault but of course, causing more discomfort.
In strictly simple terms and even to dabble with the word of law, the hacker has stolen these photos — an act, I think we can all agree on, that is illegal and deserves tangible punishment. To be even more correct, the criminal is guilty of theft of personal property and the utilization of this property for his own profit. In terms of the grand ol’ American pull yourself up by your bootstraps mantra, the hacker is indubitably violating the law (…and dishonoring his fore‘fathers,’ because we all know how relevant they are in terms of modern day politics).
Yet, the hacker didn’t merely steal a laptop or material item that may be compensated through monetary retribution. The hacker explicitly released sexualized photos of these women, for the sole purpose of others gaining pleasure from them. The women did not consent to this exposure of their naked bodies and their bodies unwillingly became tools for the appeasement of another’s sexual drive. Sexual assault is when a person unwillingly must commit any involuntary sexual act and thus, through the transitive property, the redistribution of theses stars’ naked photos is nothing less than sexual assault.
From the simple Google search to the subreddit known as “The Fappening,” the mass viewings of these photos emphasize the unequivocal lack of reverence we have for women and their bodies. It not only signifies the width of the tolerance we have for sexual assault and crime against women, but perpetuates the primary offense — each time the photos are viewed, the crime is committed again and again. By specifically searching for these photos, viewing them, and exposing them, one is saying it is OK that this hacker stole these sexually explicit, private pictures. It is OK to exploit women, particularly for another’s self-pleasure. It is OK to sexually assault. I am OK with these injustices.
The crime is even more so extended as many use social media to harp on their victim-blaming arguments (the same arguments used in sexual assault/rape cases). The “if she didn’t want her nude photos exposed, she shouldn’t have taken them” logic excuses the actions of the hacker and sharings of these photos by the public and places the blame directly upon the female who is being violated.
Media outlets that have published posts about the releasing of the nude photos contain attempts to explain the complex, absurd reasoning behind taking naked pictures. CNN, for example, utilizes the ancient rhetoric of blaming the “nature” of socially feminized behaviors and qualities, such as measuring progress on a diet, assessing the need for plastic surgery, fulfilling the desire for publicity and just plain naiveté. Forget the possibility of a woman simply appreciating her body, expressing self-love, and feelin’ herself.
Whatever the reason may be, the fact of the matter is IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY SHE TOOK THE NUDE PHOTOS. What matters is that they are hers and the sharing of her nudity requires her consent.
A woman, a man, anyone should be able to take a nude photo simply because he or she wants to and not fear someone infiltrating that personal space. Taking a nude photo is a very private, personal entity. That moment of self-appreciation, self-analysis, or self-understanding belongs to them and whoever they choose to share it with.
These photos have not been leaked — they have been unjustly released and redistributed.
The root of the problem is not the taking of nude photos — the ideology that women’s bodies are always accessible and for others’ (ahem, males’) pleasure.
These women are not to blame — they have been sexual assaulted.
My question is how will we intrude into the lives of women and infringe upon their rights next? Subjective health care plans that exclude birth control? Abortion restrictions? A wage gap? Oh wait…
(03/13/14 2:12pm)
By Jennie Sekanics
Blogger
As a woman and feminist alike, I undoubtedly identify as pro-choice when it comes to the issue of abortion. Even though my identification with feminism may signify a no-brainer when it comes to abortion and reproductive rights, I would like to hope that women, as simply women, would identify as pro-choice or at least support other women in their own respective opinions. But this isn’t always the case now, is it?
Perhaps in reaction to the seemingly liberal stance (I guess…?), Obama has taken on women’s sexual reproduction rights, such as mandating certain insurance’s coverage of birth control under Obamacare (although insurances affiliated with religious organizations have the option to deny this regulation), staunchly pro-life conservatives have created certain strategies to eliminate pro-choice support.
Yet, the directions they are taking to accomplish this abolition are perhaps more disturbing than the horror pro-life activists so commonly associate with abortion.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers, usually posing as abortion clinics or women’s health centers, have proliferated throughout the United States, especially in the more Southern regions. These sites claim to offer counseling, medical advice as well as information about different forms of birth control and methods to attain such contraception. But, the irony of it all is that the center’s main objective is to do just the opposite.
[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="570"] A room in a Crisis Pregnancy Center. (AP Photo)[/caption]
The female pro-life activists willingly manipulate the woman’s perspective on her chosen method of birth control, evoke guilt on her behalf for merely holding that perspective, and ultimately, attempt to dissuade the woman from taking healthy measures to prevent her pregnancy, also known as exerting her own reproductive rights. Through a series of questions, beginning with the medica l— “When was your last period?,” and ending with the downright invasive — “What are the religious beliefs of your parents? Does your father know you’re doing this? Doesn’t he want a grandchild?,” pro-life activists posing as experienced medical informants knowingly utilize their counseling façade to manipulate the prospective patient.
These activists aren’t simply pro-life — they are anti-choice and knowingly mislead, misinform and deceive women on a daily basis.
Although these current extreme pro-life/anti-choice tactics aren’t necessarily unfamiliar or unheard of, there is something extremely disturbing in mere fact that there are women diligently working to severely manipulate and demean other women. These women not only work to simply establish the wrongness that exists within taking preventive pregnancy measures and abortion procedures, but to deliberately insinuate that women are not capable of making their own decisions unless, of course, they mirror the opinions of a central male figure within their life.
The issue of abortion loses its potency in light of the abhorrent measures taken by these pro-life activists. It becomes a question of whether or not one grants respect to another woman’s opinion and conscientious reasoning that led to the finality of her decision regarding her own body and life.
These CPCs are up and running. There are at least 2,000 in the United States.
(02/15/14 5:10pm)
By Jennie Sekanics
Blogger
Women are sexually active. Surprise!
Since the Obama administration is now enforcing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which ensures that health care insurance companies cover birth control (or at least most of it) with an affordable copay, I had assumed that a woman’s sexuality was past mere acceptance. But I have found quite the contrary.
Last year, I planned to go on a low-dosage birth control, but due to the high costs of the pill ($35), I decided to wait until Obama acted upon his promise to aid a woman’s right to affordable pregnancy prevention, which he ultimately did. Presently under the ACA, if you have health insurance, your preferred method of birth control should be free. But the devil is in the details.
My gynecologist prescribed me another birth control pill just this past month and my mother and I were baffled by the price required for the pill of my gynecologist’s choosing: $70. How within the year 2014 and under Obamacare is my birth control more expensive?
Some insurance plans, like mine, are grandfathered. If a health plan existed before the implement of the new healthcare law, it may be grandfathered and grandfathered plans may exclude insured females from the benefit of free birth control and even the slight advantage of a low copay.
Of course, brand-name medication, like the one my gynecologist prescribed is more costly and thus, the option to purchase a generic brand is always available, but I was still furious at the fact that some plans can choose whether or not to cover birth control and have the ability to deny a woman her right to preventing her own pregnancy.
Perhaps my frustration truly derived from the fact that men’s sexuality is highly publicized and widely accepted through the commercialization and wide insurance coverage of Viagra, the elevated status that surrounds the term ‘player,’ and the simple expectation and latter praising of men who maintain multiple partners. Ultimately, I realized the issue lies less within the monetary sphere of insurance coverage and resides completely within the political rejection of female’s sexuality.
In the year 2014, I wonder if a sexual enhancement medication for women was discovered and proven successful, like Viagra for men, would ever be so commonly recognized and placed within public view. In the year 2014, I cannot even name a single drug designed to aid the woman who is not sexually satisfied (Is it assumed that we all are?). Under the Affordable Care Act, I am currently taking a generic birth control and still paying $20 per month for it.