Engender Zine Mar 2015

a p roduction of the

Visit us at the RMC Learn about us on women.rice.edu Like us on facebook.com/RiceWRC Contact us at womenrc@rice.edu

letter from the

editors

miley cyrus Kaching Ho

dangerous

s dichotomilsieon Julian W

a little b

it of rain

bow

Seth Lau

er

vag mons live on Clara Roberts

ologues n the monija h Erskine

o reflections

Khad

gendered political communication Alisha Zou

re review literatuJulian Wilson

Let

ter

from

the edit o

rs

This zine is a collection of thoughts, comments, and research on gender and related topics. It is a continuation of the discussions that are already happening within the Rice community and beyond. The purpose of this zine is to create a platform that consolidates ideas and perspectives to give voice to concerns specific to our Rice community.

Our goal is to engage the entire campus by exposing students to conversations on gender and sexuality among other things through a unique lens a lens created by and for our community!

Even as mainstream platforms propagate the fallacy that gender inequality is a thing of the past, we recognize that true equality of opportunity is yet to be realized. It’s even more difficult to find identities outside the gender binary of man/woman in popular discourse, but we firmly believe that the representation of diverse identities is essential to any movement towards equality and recognition of all human dignity.

It is with this in mind that this zine was created.

We hope that this zine will engender discussion among friends, classmates, and colleagues about the many ways in which gender and sexuality shape and are shaped by our culture. We welcome your feedback and contributions - contact us at womenrc@rice.edu or stop by the Rice Women’s Resource Center in the RMC. Thank you for reading, and be on the lookout for future issues of engender!

cing u d ro on p e R essi d n a pp r o O and aching H

Pop culture is pervasive and its influences are steeped in our culture. They both reflect and constitute the society we live in. For sociologists and feminists, a hot debate surrounding pop culture is to what extent female celebrities have agency and how they further feminism or by oppression. To begin untangling this debate, I focus on one prominent female artist, Miley Cyrus. This essay by no means tries to resolve the aforementioned debate, but to add structure and perspective to the ongoing conversation. I choose to apply two social theories, structuration theory and the matrix of domination, to the actions of Miley Cyrus.

K

According to structuration theory, the relationship between structures and agency is that agents use social structure (medium) to engage in actions that transform and/or reproduce the structure (outcome). I define the structures that Cyrus works with as primarily the hegemonic pop cultural media and its audiences, patriarchy, and white supremacy. I identify these specific structures because they are systemically oppressive forces that very much make up the patterns of social life and exist beyond the individual.

Structures have “rules,” which are stocks of knowledge and hegemonic binary oppositions in society; and “resources,” which are objects and knowledge that can be used to enhance or maintain power. The matrix of domination is about the intersections between people’s locations in different binary

e

S

tu r c u r t

oppositions, which create privileges as well as oppressions. The experiences of each type of oppression and privilege are not separate or distinct, but these intersections are bound together, each shaping the other. I will show that Cyrus’s places in different binary oppositions create space for her to be oppressed and to oppress others.

In accordance with the structures I specified, the binary oppositions and norms that constitute the rules that Cyrus works with include the sexism and racism rampant in the music industry. Exploiting women and hypersexuality are rewarded with fame and success, particularly for female celebrities. Cyrus’s resources are money, the power and knowledge to

influence who and what she works with, the knowledge on what is appealing to audiences, and the capability to exercise all that power to stay successful.

Cyrus’s appropriation and exploitation of Black culture reproduce the structures by conforming to the norm that exploitation is okay if it makes money and by affirming and catering to America’s majority white audiences and their racist fantasies. Cyrus’s most notable offense is her performance at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs), where she performed twerking, a dance style largely originated from and made popular by the Black community, and shoved her face into and groped the behind of a very large Black woman on stage. Cyrus has been notorious for appropriating twerking, by haphazardly performing it almost exclusively with Black female dancers and in contexts that imitate the Black community. Cyrus reinforces oppression by capitalizing on someone else’s culture that is otherwise deemed crude, unworthy, and inferior.

Then there was the giant Black woman who Cyrus objectified for entertainment. The long history of objectifying Black female bodies can be traced back to 1810, when the British doctor Alexander Dunlop transported Sarah Baartman, a Khoikhoi woman from what is now South Africa, to London.

The matrix of domination is about the intersections between people’s locations in different binary oppositions, which create privileges as well as oppressions.

The experiences of each type of oppression and privilege are not separate or distinct, but these intersections are bound together, each shaping the other.

He capitalized on exhibiting her as a female, and her sexuality may be assumed freak show attraction because of her heterosexual, or at least normative and “unusual” body features. Baartman’s thus unquestioned. As a white person, unusually large (compared to Europeans) Cyrus reproduces the structure of buttocks and genitals were gaped at and white folks appropriating marginalized judged by Europeans. She was further communities with her appropriation exploited by French scientists and she of twerking and exploitation of Black died at the age of 25 after years of abuse. female bodies. As a CIS female whose It is no coincidence that during Cyrus’s sexuality and gender are unquestioned 2013 VMAs performance, apart from her by the audience, Cyrus is allowed to don normal Black female “boyish” dress and Cyrus uses structures and dancers was a standing haircut (since 2012, Black woman, whose the matrix of domination to she has been rocking body shape uncannily short hairstyles) and resembled Sarah advance her own interests in exploit/“glamorize” Baartman’s, with her other women’s a way that reproduces behind strategically bodies. Because she structures, rather than positioned to face is so safely female, it Cyrus.

Cyrus’s is okay for Cyrus to transforming them. inappropriate touching play with her gender and attention directed at that woman’s performance, while people who are buttocks are in line with the long history labeled as and/or identify as transgender of Black female body exploitation and do not always have the privilege of being racism against Black people in general. immune from marginalization and abuse Using the structures, Cyrus reproduces for transgressing gender norms. Similarly, racism and sexism for entertainment and Cyrus as a normatively straight woman is her own fame. given more flexibility to casually sexualize other women’s bodies without being

Cyrus has made her purposes marginalized like men are for the same clear. In 2010, she told Harper’s Bazaar actions. Interlaced with these privileges magazine that her performances and and powers is Cyrus’s upper class celebrity actions are controversial because she status, which is another privilege for her wants to sell herself in ways that she to oppress others. knows people like, and also because she is still figuring out how to act for herself.

Yet Cyrus’s occupations along One of Cyrus’s few responses to the the binary oppositions place her as not outrage regarding her controversial VMAs only the oppressor, but also at times the performance is that she knew she was oppressed since she is a white woman. making history and proud of it. Cyrus uses According to Ayesha Siddiqi, femininity structures and the matrix of domination is traditionally constructed around to advance her own interests in a way whiteness, which is in turn constructed that reproduces structures, rather than around purity. Therefore, there is the transforming them. desire to break away from this expected and hegemonic white pure woman identity

Cyrus’s identities can be to distinguish oneself. Cyrus began as an categorized as intersections of binary expected, pure, white girl who was the oppositions that prescribe power star of a Disney Channel show, and for differences. Cyrus is white, upper class, CIS much of her adolescence, she continued

“WE CAN’T STOP” to be constructed as such. The problem is, Cyrus then uses Black people to break herself out of her white girl stereotype.

The VMAs performance is indicative of Cyrus using Black women’s bodies and Black culture to distinguish herself as not the typical white girl, but as the white girl who acts like and objectifies Black women.

But race still matters in our society, as evidenced by continuing systemic state brutality and many people’s complacency in and defense of it even as many Black people have lost their lives in the hands of police officers. This part of being black is conveniently left out by Cyrus and others in their exploitation.

What would it look like if female celebrities were to go against the grain and exercise their agency to transform the structures, fighting oppression? Patricia Hill Collins argues that to overcome domination, one must have a stable sense of self-value and self-definition that is not warped by outside influences. Cyrus as a stereotyped white woman can work towards self-awareness and decrease societal constraints on women’s influence

on her so that her sense of self does not need to be fostered by appropriating Black people and/or dehumanizing women. The process of dismantling oppression and transforming structures is hard and slow, but it is possible through human actions.

It requires intentional work at rejecting the matrix of domination and actively creating spaces for the marginalized to be acknowledged and celebrated. There are artists in mainstream and alternative media who do stand in solidarity with justice for all people, and all of us, even Miley, can learn from them.

The process of dismantling oppression and transforming structures is hard and slow, but it is possible through human actions. It requires intentional work at rejecting the matrix of domination and actively creating spaces for the marginalized to be acknowledged and celebrated.

DANGEROUS Simplifying societal issues into a dichotomy is often both false and uninformative. Many scholars of gender studies today recognize the dangers and limitations of a simple male/female sex binary as well as a man/woman gender binary. Isolated from a societal context, a single binary can be even less helpful in illuminating the nature of the issue. Divorcing a form of marginalization or oppression from the surrounding web of structural violence and axes of oppression is counterproductive.

In this way, racism is not the cause of inequality and injustice but rather the way those in a position of power rationalize their privileged position as inherent and static...the problem lies not in recognizing differences but in evaluating differences that inherently encourage the dominant group of people to marginalize the minority.

In “Assigning Value to Difference,” Memmi examines the ways in which racism develops and is used as a justification for existing imbalances in power structure.

Memmi argues that racism is used to justify the pre-existing inequalities and exploitations that have taken place because racist attitudes consistently reinforce negative associations with the historically disadvantaged, not those who are privileged. In this way, racism is not the cause of inequality and injustice but rather the way those in a position of power rationalize their privileged position as inherent and static, not a direct result of benefitting from the misfortune of others. This article acknowledges that the problem lies not in recognizing differences but in evaluating differences that inherently encourage the dominant group of people to marginalize the minority.

Peggy McIntosh’s article, titled “White Privilege,” demonstrates the way in which privileged groups are taught to be oblivious of their own privileged position.

McIntosh concludes that those privileged by systems of oppression are taught to be blind towards the fact that their privileges are received at the expense of others.

As a white woman, McIntosh acknowledges the multitude of privileges that she has unknowingly enjoyed. However, this article could be improved by addressing multi-racial individuals, who do not fit clearly into any societally defined racial category, and ‘white-passing’ individuals, who identify as people of color but are often perceived by others as white, and therefore can receive some forms of white privilege.

DICHOTOMIES

By Julian Wilson

“Racializing the Glass Escalator”, by Adia Harvey Wingfield, demonstrates that it can be fruitful to examine the intersections of oppression. Wingfield points out the ways in which interlocking axes of oppression operate together in the real world, and that they are often a grossly uninformative, over-simplified method to look at any one form of oppression as though it is not part of a larger system. This article is a reminder that examining any one issue on its own gives an incomplete and occasionally inaccurate understanding of reality. Particularly relevant to gender studies, this article reminds researchers and analysts to view issues as a part of a larger picture with many interlocking axes of oppression and marginalization, rather than neglecting important information for simplification.

Martin’s “The Sperm and the Egg” deals with how science, although often considered unbiased and infallible, can be heavily influenced by societal structures and stereotypes. Martin specifically discussed the falsity of the binary system which places science above all as a true and unchangeable fact of nature. Martin demonstrates that the subtly gendered diction used in descriptions of reproductive systems in common medical school textbooks is a direct reflection of gender roles. The female reproductive system is described as passive, helpless, and wasteful while the male reproductive system is described with words that reflect strength, agency, and productivity. This article could have been strengthened by a discussion of intersex individuals, demonstrating even more clearly that attempts to reduce biological processes to fit into societal gender roles creates inaccuracies in the recording of scientific knowledge.

An informative study of our society involves acknowledging difference without assigning value, as well as recognizing the limitations of any binary system, and especially a system that views issues as separate binaries that do not intersect.

Examined together, these readings demonstrate how intersectional studies of systems of oppression are applicable both to everyday lives and the world of academia. These readings also stress the importance of examining issues in a nuanced perspective, and avoiding the problematic nature of essentializing social issues or groups of people into a dichotomous relationship. An informative study of our society involves acknowledging difference without assigning value, as well as recognizing the limitations of any binary system, and especially a system that views issues as separate binaries that do not intersect. Understanding the danger of creating dichotomies is crucial to understand the intersectional nature of oppression and marginalization.

a little bit of rainbow

There’s a little bit of col A little bit of color Some blue, some red, Each special in its right, But when we get together, we become something bigger, A little bit of rainbow Everyone can see us, Come mix in your color, Until we stretch far and wide, At it’s end you’ll find no treasure, Because our secret treasure:

by Seth Lauer

lor, in each and every one. hidden deep inside. some yellow, some green. no two quite the same. and let our colors shine, bigger than just ourselves: spread wide across the sky. see our rainbow shine. help our rainbow grow. no one can see the end. no leprechaun and no gold. making our rainbow together.

VAG MON’S LIVE ON!

by Clara Roberts, co-director of the 2015 Vagina Monologues

Everyone who performs in and attends The Vagina Monologues should appreciate what is problematic about the piece being presented, should be mindful of who the words are written by and who they exclude, but they should also be given the opportunity to consume the monologues and process their purpose.

Every Valentine’s Day weekend, female students across the country waltz onto campus stages to talk about vaginas.

Their words are not their own, are uniform nationwide, and change only slightly each year. These words form the legendary Vagina Monologues. The play consists of a series of stories penned by one woman who distilled interviews with 200 women into narratives about the experiences of some women who have vaginas. The monologues are largely exclusive of the non-gender conforming and those who identify as women but do not have vaginas. Several of the monologues reek of colonialism. The play entirely ignores key aspects of the vaginal experience, like the menstrual cycle, and contains material that may be deeply triggering for some. The Vagina Monologues are thoroughly flawed and painfully dated.

The day I hear a Rice student call her vagina a ‘poopelu’ or ‘mushmellow’ in earnest is the day I retract all past and present vagina opinions.

Everyone who performs in and attends The Vagina Monologues should appreciate what is problematic about the piece being presented, should be mindful of who the words are written

by and who they exclude, but they should also be given the opportunity to consume the monologues and process their purpose. Perhaps someday soon, not a soul on this campus will bat an eyelash at a casual clitoris mention. The entire Rice community will understand birth, vaginal sex, and menstruation as natural processes that do not require hushed tones and euphemism. Sufferers of gender based violence will live without stigma. Boys will no longer quip with indignation, “What about penis monologues!” People with vaginas will wear them proudly and everyone will have moved on to more nuanced conversations about sex and gender continuums.

Until that day arrives, I will continue to support The Vagina Monologues as a Rice tradition, but also to expect that they exist in the context of broader and more groundbreaking discussions about what it means to experience sex and gender in our patriarchal society. While some students are taking huge strides in pushing for institutional and cultural reforms that go beyond the third wave, others are still struggling to use anatomically correct terminology without blushing—and that’s okay. Performers of Vag Mons everywhere are working on it.

SAY IT WITH ME: V.A.G.I.N.A ({})

I would like to highlight that these women injected their own personalities and experiences into each monologue for every performance.

From the very beginning I was amazed by the vast amount of talent and personality from all of those who auditioned for this year’s production of the Vagina Monologues. The sheer number of people who wanted to be a part of the production displays the impact and presence the Vagina Monologues has had on the Rice community alone. The production itself is meant to promote V-day which is a “global activism movement to help stop violence against women and girls”. This year 26 Rice women volunteered their time, efforts, and talents to put on a show for the Houston’s Area Women’s Center that raised over $1700 . Regardless of anyone’s view on the actual show and content, the Vagina Monologues has become a great contribution to organizations that support and improve the lives of abused women and children.

Notes on the Vag Mon’s

by Khadijah Erskine, co-director of the 2015 Vagina Monologues

It is necessary to remember that the show itself is an annual fundraiser that helps women and young girls around the country. Some people have expressed their opinion that the show has become repetitive and monotonous. It is delusional to think that the Vagina Monologues has to be an entirely different show every year. The show, with the exception of a few rotating monologues, is the same script used annually.

I was disappointed in the criticisms that focused on trivial aspects of the show and comparing it to past productions. I would like to highlight that these women injected their own personalities and experiences into each monologue for every performance.

Lynn Fahey was inspired by her own past to put a sassy and strong interpretation on “Hair”. Maddie Camp embraced her inner Vagina Diva and did a priceless performance on “Reclaiming Cunt”. All of the performers did an amazing job and as a director, I wanted to give every person the space and support to interpret their monologue that made the most sense to them. Realistically, some monologues will be similar from year to year, but that should in no way depreciate it’s entertainment value and potential to create dialogue around campus. Many women have experienced sexual assault, violence, birth but the inclusion or exclusion of many experiences only serves to extend the discourse around sex and gender. I hope that Rice continues to keep up the Vagina Monologues as it long as it needs to keep an open discourse around sex and gender.

u sha i m l A om y

C l a c iti

ol P ered

d n e G

Many female politicians have downplayed their gender and women’s rights issues throughout the course of their political careers, often refusing to identify as feminists. But rather than focus on the public discourse and social commentary surrounding the silence of these prominent female politicians, this paper aims to look critically at the political rhetoric of female politicians who have chosen to publically recognize gender and women’s rights as an influential and important part of their political experience.

Returning to Patricia A. Sullivan and Lynn H. Turner’s introductory chapter “Politics, Power, and Gender” of their book From Margins to the Center: Contemporary Women and Political Communication (1996), this article seeks to analyze the words and experiences of these female politicians in the context of Sullivan and Turner’s three “lenses” of gender: androcentrism, gender polarization, and biological essentialism. By looking closely *Bibliography at end

on u i t a nic Zo

at political r h e t o r i c delivered by Aung San Suu Kyi, Christine Lagarde, and Hillary Clinton regarding gender issues and women’s participation in political and economic spheres, we can see what lenses these politicians view women’s issues through and to what degree they subscribe or attempt to subvert the three lenses of gender that have worked insidiously against them. Whereas the words of Aung San Suu Kyi and Christine Lagarde show both politicians looked through, rather than at, the lens of gender polarization with the intention of elevating and enhancing the value of “naturally” occurring traits or qualities in women, Hillary Clinton looks critically at, rather than through the same lens in order subvert it. Aung San Suu Kyi also happened to look through the lens of biological essentialism in a way that Christine Lagarde did not; and perhaps it was necessary for her to “scientifically” justify the strength of these “naturally” occurring feminine qualities to her 1995 audience. Sullivan and Turner would most likely align themselves with Hillary Clinton’s approach, seeing as they describe the lens of gender polarization to not only presume that men and women are polar opposites, but that “their activities and spheres of influence should also remain separate.”[17] In order to fully recognize and subvert this gendered lens, the rejection of “natural” or “biological” gender roles must come first. We can only hope that as more women become politically engaged and economically involved, that these three lenses of gender become increasingly opaque.

b

“

“

Nobel Peace Prize-winning Aung San Suu Kyi has delivered many speeches on human rights and democracy – stressing that the education, empowerment, and political participation of women will help lead countries to a peaceful new order. She is currently the chairperson of Myanmar’s National League for Democracy as well as the opposition leader. Having been detained under house arrest for over fifteen years, Aung San Suu Kyi’s peaceful struggle for human rights and democracy against military junta rule has been internationally recognized. In her desire to showcase the potential strength behind “gender-weaknesses” and promote the inherent value of women, Aung San Suu Kyi identifies characteristics and skills that she explains women and men “naturally” possess, such as talkativeness, verbal skills, and inclinations to physical action. This slice of rhetoric indicates a degree of acceptance of the lenses of gender polarization and biological essentialism. The lens of gender polarization asserts gender roles for men and women that are mutually exclusive and

“naturally” occurring. Limiting men and women to separate scripts and spheres of influence of masculinity and femininity, the lens of gender polarization is shaped by cultural influences and social norms.

These same cultural norms punish those who deviate from their assigned gender script. However, Aung San Suu Kyi attempts to elevate women’s position in Myanmar society by highlighting the value of these “inherent” or “biological” traits that women uniquely retain. She argues that these “feminine” traits could prove to be beneficial in certain “masculine” situations, such as conflict or negotiation.

Although Aung San Suu Kyi is looking through rather than at these two lenses of gender, she does so in efforts to level the playing ground between what she views to be the two separate, gendered spheres that need to work together in harmony.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI We need mutual respect and understanding between men and women, instead of patriarchal domination and degradation, which are expressions of violence and engender counter-violence. We can learn from each other and help one another to moderate the “gender weaknesses” imposed upon us by traditional or biological factors. There is an age old prejudice the world over to effect that women talk too much. But is this really a weakness? Could it not in fact be a strength? Recent scientific research on the human brain has revealed that women are better at verbal skills while men tend towards physical action. Psychological research has shown on the other hand that disinformation engendered by men has a far more damaging effect on its victims than feminine gossip. Surely these discoveries indicate that women have a most valuable contribution to make in situations of conflict. [5]

CHRISTINE LAGARDE

“

The International Monetary Fund’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde has been forthright in speaking about her experiences as the only woman at the table, and has pushed for gender equality policies across the globe to encourage economic growth. As France’s former Minister of Finance, Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Commerce and Industry, and former head of international law firm Baker & McKenzie, Christine Lagarde has acknowledged yet broken the metaphorical glass ceiling multiple times throughout her career.

Rather than dismissing the implications of the male-dominated environment that she works in, Christine Lagarde reveals how her experiences as a woman are smilingly cast aside as the “other”.

Sullivan and Turner explain how the lens of androcentrism asserts male experiences as the “taken-for-granted, unspoken norm… and female experience as deviations from the norm.”[8] In light of this androcentric lens, Christine Lagarde’s clearly considers her gendered contributions as out of place, revealing her understanding of the institutions

I honestly believe that women are better-equipped than men to deal with all sorts of situations. I’m not saying that women are better than men, but I think that they are betterequipped to deal with all sorts of situations, and better able to adjust, which is a sign of intelligence. So as a consequence of that, if my theory is correct, we are a threat. And we are a threat to men. I’m serious. So when we progress, when we affirm ourselves, we should not threaten them. They’re okay. But they shouldn’t be terrified of what we can achieve, because we can achieve lots and lots of fabulous things, and more than they can. It’s true. [10]

”

she engages with. By accentuating the “inherent” advantages women have over men, Christine Lagarde’s successfully energizes, motivates and entertains the predominantly female audience, echoing the previous sentiments of Aung San Suu Kyi. She proclaims that because women are “naturally” more flexible and can more easily adjust to various scenarios, they are “better equipped than men to deal with all sorts of situations”[11] and can ultimately do more than men can.

Although she prefaces her statements with an assurance that she is not saying that women are superior, she is very much looking through the lens of gender polarization rather than critically at it, attempting to elevate and enhance the value of these “feminine” traits. In citing gender as the one variable that would’ve made all the difference in social, political and economic contexts, Christine Lagarde is subscribing to the culturally produced, polarized scripts of gender.

With her renowned political background as former United States Secretary of State, New York senator, and First Lady of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton has spoken extensively about gender issues both abroad and at home for decades. In an interview conducted by Midwest Today in June of 1994, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke of a “double bind”[13] that she had noticed young women faced, and explained: “On the one hand, yes, be smart, stand up for yourself... On the other hand, don’t offend anybody, don’t step on toes, or you’ll become somebody that nobody likes because you’re too assertive.”[14] Given that Sullivan and Turner’s book was published in 1996 and that the three lenses of gender they refer frequently to were based on claims made by American psychologist Sandra Lipsitz Bem in 1993, Hillary Clinton’s observations revealed a degree of clarity and awareness of these “invisible” cultural norms that academics had only just begun to formally name.

Hillary Clinton’s description of American society’s “double standard” in a recent interview closely mirrors the “double bind” that Sullivan and Turner illustrate

“

as an example of gender polarization.

This “double-bind” illustrates a situation where a woman must adopt “masculine” qualities to succeed in male-dominated fields, yet is castigated when she becomes too “manly”. In acknowledging the existence of what she describes to be a “deep… cultural, psychological view,”[16] Hillary Clinton encourages people to look at, rather through, the lens of gender polarization in order to eradicate the effect it has on the way we view and characterize people based on their gender. Unlike Aung San Suu Kyi and Christine Lagarde, Hillary Clinton did not refer to any inherent traits or biological advantages of either gender, choosing instead to once again assert that women’s rights are human rights.

There is a double standard, obviously.

We have all either experienced it, or at the very least, have seen it. There is a deep set of cultural, psychological views that manifests through this double standard… Some of these attitudes persist, and if they persist in as open, and in as many ways as in our transformational society of the 21st century, you know how deep they are. And that’s why it’s important that we surface them, and why we talk about them, and help men and women recognize when they are crossing over from an individual judgment…into a stereotype – into applying some kind of gender based characterization of the person. The double standard is alive and well, and I think in many respects the media is the principal propagator of its persistence and I think the media needs to be more self-consciously aware of that. [15]

HILLARY CLINTON

”

by w e vi e r on e r s l u i t ra lian W e t i l a Ju

This nonfiction book follows Rebecca Skloot on her journey to discover the life of the rarely acknowledged woman behind the “HeLa” cells, that have been, and remain, instrumental to biomedical research and medicine.

The sample of cells from which the “immortal” HeLa line has grown was taken from a fatal cervical cancer of an African-American woman named Henrietta Lacks without the consent or knowledge of Henrietta or her family.

The author interviews Henrietta’s remaining family and those involved with her case while examining the effect of her identity as an African-American woman on her story. Skloot details the various reactions of Henrietta’s family members and the way in which Henrietta’s story fits into a broader framework of unethical medical research at the time. At the same time and place of where Henrietta’s cells were cultivated for the testing of the polio vaccine, the infamous Tuskegee syphilis trials were taking place. The HeLa line was often incorrectly credited to fictitious names while Henrietta received no credit, reflecting the little agency she had over her physical body.

Additionally, her family remained completely uninformed about her cells and their spreading influence in the scientific community. Henrietta’s cells, which are still dividing today, are sold worldwide in mass quantities and have facilitated the development of many invaluable medicinal applications.

Meanwhile, Henrietta’s family, unable to afford basic health care, has received no compensation. Skloot’s subject matter is relevant to anyone interested in biomedical research, medicine, or studies of race and gender, yet her writing style is easy to read and entertaining for a casual reader.

see you in the next issue of the engender zine!

Editor in Chief

June Deng

Guest Editors

Mehek Gagneja Samantha Love Clara Roberts

Contributing Authors

Khadijah Erskine Kaching Ho Seth Lauer Clara Roberts Julian Wilson Alisha Zou

Contributing Artists

June Deng Sarah Klein Seth Lauer Helen Little Clara Roberts Danielle Whyte

Want your ideas on gender issues published in future engender zines? We welcome all original content, both visual and written - anything from commentaries to comics to recycled academic papers. We want your thoughts represented! See inside cover for more information.

Gendered Political Communication Biblography [5] “Opening Keynote Address by Aung San Suu Kyi.” Gifts of Speech.

NGO Forum on Women, Beijing, China, n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. <http:// gos.sbc.edu/k/kyi.html>.

[8] Sullivan, Patricia Ann., and Lynn H. Turner. “Politics, Power, and Gender.”From the Margins to the Center: Contemporary Women and Political Communication. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996. 3. Print.

[10] “Transcript: Thomas Friedman Interviews Hillary Clinton and Christine Lagarde.” The Daily Beast: Women in the World. The Daily Beast, 5 Apr. 2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/ articles/2014/04/05/transcript-thomas-l-friedman-interviews-hillaryclinton-and-christine-lagarde.html>.

[11] “Transcript: Thomas Friedman Interviews Hillary Clinton and Christine Lagarde.” The Daily Beast: Women in the World. The Daily Beast, 5 Apr. 2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/ articles/2014/04/05/transcript-thomas-l-friedman-interviews-hillaryclinton-and-christine-lagarde.html>.

[16] Sifferlin, Alexandra. “Hillary Clinton’s Best Advice on Succeeding in a Man’s World.”Time: Feminism. Time Magazine, 4 Apr. 2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. <http://time.com/49751/hillary-clintons-best-advice-forsucceeding-in-a-mans-world/>.

[13] Jordan, Larry. “The Real Hillary Clinton.” Midwest Today. Midwest Today, June 1994. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. <http://www.midtod.com/ highlights/hillary.phtml>.

[14] Ibid, pg. 1.

[15] Sifferlin, Alexandra. “Hillary Clinton’s Best Advice on Succeeding in a Man’s World.”Time: Feminism. Time Magazine, 4 Apr. 2014. Web. 8 Dec. 2014. <http://time.com/49751/hillary-clintons-best-advice-forsucceeding-in-a-mans-world/>.

[17] Sullivan, Patricia Ann., and Lynn H. Turner. “Politics, Power, and Gender.”From the Margins to the Center: Contemporary Women and Political Communication. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996. 10. Print.