My Crain's Magazine Edits

I walked into Red Frog Events on Ohio St. happy that I had changed out of my school jeans and into a skirt and dress shoes for the event, “Celebrating Women in Innovation.” Men and women, unquestionably old enough to be carrying red wine in their palm but young enough to make me want their outfits, gathered to celebrate women in innovation. Alone, not a woman in innovation (or “in” anything, for that matter), and not old enough to be nonchalantly consuming, I felt out of place. But I then realized that even if I’m still not old enough to drink, I really wasn’t alone, and I am innovative young woman.

The event was produced by Chicago Innovation Awards in collaboration with Attract, Retain and Advance (ARA). Chicago Innovation Awards was co-founded by Tom Kuczmarski and Dan Miller in 2002. Since, it has grown from a single awards ceremony to a year-long series of events which celebrate innovation in the Chicagoland area, educate people about innovation, and forge relationships that grow the economy. ARA specifically aims to attract, retain and advance women in technology by “cultivating relationship via mentorship, events and programs. We nurture strong female leaders who bridge the talent gap as they support, influence and advance the IT community,” as they are described in the event’s program.

The program included six women: Joyce Winnecke, Jennifer Bentz, Phyllis Lockett, Linda Mallers, Kristi Ross, Andrea Zopp; President of the Tribune Content Agency, Senior Vice President of Insights & Innovation for Tyson Foods, CEO of LEAP Innovations, Founder and CEO of FarmLogix, co-CEO and President of dough, Inc., and President and CEO of the Chicago Urban League, respectively. To introduce the panelist speakers, Kuczmarski shared an observation with the audience: it was strange being in a room of two thirds women. But what I find enlightening about his observation is that should be even stranger that the room was only one third men. Even more important than women support other women in innovation is men supporting women in innovation...and everything else!

The panelists, inspiring and proud, spoke often about mentorship. However, I was most captivated by the context that surrounded the program.  In fields such as business and innovation, exclusivity and competitiveness are often favored over inclusivity and collaboration, according to Kuczmarski. The later are vital for effective leadership, and it is with these principles in mind that the panelists lead. Kuczmarski also made brief mention of an article entitled, “Five Actual Things We're Doing Right Now to Fix Tech's 'Women Problem.'” Written by two women, Amanda Lannert and Suzanne Muchin, for the business magazine “Crain’s,” the article outlines five steps which the two women will take to address gender inequity and unequal representation in technology and business. Here they are:

1. “We’ll show up.”

Show up at events to make the female presence and impact known — “lady-up the room, as much as two ladies can,” they wrote.

      2. “We won't participate in or attend events that promote nonmixed-gender panels.”

Only support and attend events who are committed to amplify leadership from both genders. Furthermore, panels that only represent women “tend to shift more toward work-life balance...” which is really a human issue. So this is our approach: no all-men, no all-women, and make sure the mic gets passed,” they wrote.

      3. “We'll watch our mouths.”

Many individuals have a habit of using language that associate “bravery and boldness with being male and meekness, uptightness and emotional instability with being female.” Phrases like “man up” or “grow a pair” reinforce negative stereotypes. So for the benefit of both genders, these terms need be eradicated.

       4. “We'll put our money where our (better-spoken) mouths are.”

A man makes $1 for every 78 cents a woman makes. Corporations must employ individuals irrespective of gender, race or age; they must also play an active role in advocating and negotiating on behalf of all employees, according to Lannert and Muchin. Individuals must also support causes and start-ups which work towards honorable ends.

5. “We'll take the meetings.”

Capitalize on the value of networking and connections. Offer wisdom to female entrepreneurs who reach out for help and agree to a 15-minute meeting to listen, offer advice, and suggest connections. “Incidentally,” they wrote, “if only 50 people reading this post decide to do the same, that would be 2,500 mentoring sessions for the current and next generation of women leaders in business. Very cool.”

Here’s my version:

1. “We’ll show up.”

Show up, men. Make events like “Celebrating Women in Innovation” two thirds men and one third women.

    2. “We won't participate in or attend events that promote nonmixed-gender panels.”

With power comes responsibility. Men, never plan, participate in, nor attend events that do not represent both genders.

    3. “We'll watch our mouths.”

As the ones who benefit from sexism, devalue the meaning of phrases such as “grow a pair” by erasing them from your vocabulary, as well as working to erase it from others’. Intervene when others use language that is inherently, yet subtle, detrimental.

    4.  “We'll put our money where our (better-spoken) mouths are.”

Seeing that men make $1 for every 78 cents a woman makes, use that money to support businesses and organizations that work to establish equity, men.

    5. “We'll take the meetings.”

Connect the women you know with opportunities. Open doors for them. Take the time to meet with them yourself, then find someone who you’ve connected with who may be better suited to support their pursuits and aspirations.

Elise Cowen: An Archetype for Sexism's Intended Short-Term Memory

I entered the Evanston Public Library and was greeted by, most likely, the second youngest individual there, after me. He asked, “Can I help you?” “I’m looking for an event about the poet E...” I said. “Elise Cowen! Over here,” he replied. Projected on the screen that seemed unusually distant for such an intimate setting was a black and white photo of Elise Cowen, a whose absence in literature’s history is less mysterious than her character itself. Tony Trigilio, the director of the Creative Writing/Poetry program at Columbia College, the co-editor of the poetry magazine “Court Green,” as well as a published author, took his place in front of the distant screen. His long, wavy, grey hair placed him right alongside Cowen. His devout interest in her as a literary scholar presents itself as an emotional investment of his that grew whilst editing the book “Elise Cowen: Poems and Fragments,” and, perhaps, is in part due to his 1960’s and 70’s presence in present day.

Elise Cowen was born in 1933 in Long Island, NY to a middle class Jewish family. She attended Barnard College and graduated in 1951. Apart of the Beat Generation of poets, Cowen participated in a literary community and generation that far surpassed writing style: it was a lifestyle. Cowen’s parents were in denial of her thoughts, behavior, and direction, which included drug-use and sexual activity with both men and women. Thus, upon her death — a suicide in which she jumped out of a closed window — her parents burned her writing notebooks as a “favor” to her.

At Barnard, a professor of hers introduced her to Allen Ginsberg, a fellow Beat poet who is well known and celebrated, which Trigilio would argue is not given to Cowen because of her identity as a woman. Ginsberg visited a psychoanalyst whom he confided in, stating he was gay, and the psychoanalyst encouraged him to to date women in an effort to “cure” his homosexuality. Thus, Ginsberg dated Cowen as a heterosexual experimentation, and while they loved each other, Ginsberg eventually ended the relationship, maintaining that he was homosexual and wanted a platonic relationship with Cowen. Cowen’s relationship with Ginsberg has been written in history as the archetypal “unrequited love” narrative that is tainted with sexism. Cowen is portrayed as the “mad girlfriend,” a play into the association of mental illness with women. According to Trigilio, this type of narrative is a cultural projection of our fear of the female artist and her creativity.

Upon her suicide on February 27, 1962, many news sources and magazines romanticized her death, furthering the public’s misunderstanding of Cowen’s literary contributions and historical significance. One such news source said that by jumping through a closed window she was “reaching for a microphone,” as if the community were unaware of her depression. However, it is true that, as a woman, her poetry and frankness about the psyche were often repressed. A different source, a magazine, did a feature on female writers who committed suicide, including Cowen. In the feature, they described the dress/clothing the women were wearing upon their deaths with a store attributed to the attire for readers to buy similar articles. This disgusting minimization of women reminded me of the campaign that took place surrounding the Oscars: #AskHerMore. The campaign sought to prompt interviewers/paparazzi to ask the women more than just who designed their dress.

Women are often forgotten in our history. Creative, daring women are almost always forgotten. Cowen’s legacy, and Trujillo's dedication to restoring it in the public’s mind, serves as a reminder of the need to eradicate the stigmas surrounding female audacity and impact.

Since 1911

On Friday, March 6, about 40 individuals — 4 of which were men — gathered in Francis W. Parker School’s Harris Center for a celebration of International Women’s Day, March 8. The event was produced by a Parker club, Gender Matters, which comprises 10 students, with French teacher Lauren Pritikin as its sponsor.  “IWD is a day when women are recognized for their achievements without regard to nationality, ethnicity or cultural and political differences,” an advertisement for the event read. “It is a day for looking back on past struggles and accomplishments and looking ahead to the opportunities that await future generations of women.” This year, the event’s focus was on women in the arts.

The first International Women’s Day was held in 1911, according to the International Women’s Day’s website. In 1908, the oppression of women was brutal and prevalent, inspiring many to become more vocal in campaigning for change. 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay, and voting rights. Then, in 1909, in accordance with a declaration by the Socialist Party of America, the first National Women’s Day was observed, primarily by women, across the U.S. on February 28. It was celebrated on the last Sunday of February until 1913. In 1910, a second International COnference of WOrking Women was held in Copenhagen, Germany. Clara Zetkin, the leader of the Women’s Office for the Social Democratic Party in Germany, suggested the observance of an International Women’s Day, which was greeted with unanimous approval by the other 100 women at the conference. Less than a week after the first celebration of International Women’s Day, March 8, 1911, on March 25, the ‘Triangle Fire’ in New York City took place in which 140 working women, mostly Italian and Jewish immigrants, were killed. The event drew attention to the dangerous working conditions in which women were expected to work, and labor legislation reform became a focus of subsequent International Women’s Day events. Today, International Women’s Day accounts for the betterment of many elements of female and male life.

While the audience in the Harris Center munched on falafel and pita, Pritikin introduced the event with a few videos. One video highlighted Eldzier Cortor, a black artist whose work is being displayed at the Art Institute of Chicago. Much of his work, as the video enumerated, “uses black women as an archetype for all people.” I was already thinking about my identity as a woman, but this video helped me to consider what always fascinates me — identity intersectionality. Throughout the rest of the event, I was not only concentrated on the presenters’ female identity, but also the other pieces of their identity which I could see or they included in their presentations.

Pritikin also showed a commercial produced by the women’s hygiene brand Always that was aired during the Superbowl. I “watched” the Superbowl. I “watched” rather than watched for reasons I have mentioned in previous blogposts: as a feminist, I can’t support the false definitions of manhood that the NFL expects of its players and viewers. But I watched, not “watched,” Always’ commercial — #likeagirl. Masculinity has become everything femininity is not, and thus, doing something “like a girl” is an insult.

The first two women to speak were Judy Hoffman and Winifred Haun. Hoffman, a filmmaker and director, introduced herself promptly as “67 years old, so I am second wave feminism.” As a student, she was forbidden from playing sports and required to wear skirts to school. She was given messages to “shut up, behave properly, get married, and be a school teacher.” Hoffman refused to be confined by conservative expectations, proving so by participating in protests against the Vietnam War and working indirectly with the Black Panther movement. Furthermore, Hoffman engaged with the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union, which held that women’s liberation wasn’t just for women — a modern concept of gender equity that I have mentioned in previous blogposts. The Union included a film union, to which Hoffman belonged as the first woman camera assistant in Chicago. Hoffman’s humble presence suggested a lot about her love for film and making connections. She encouraged the women in the audience to use their passion to dispel traditional myths and underestimations.

Haun’s artistic medium is dance. “A sculptor needs marble like a choreographer needs a dance company,” she said. Haun discussed the challenges of pursuing a career whilst being a present mother. Women are no longer expected to make motherhood their career, however, when they do, it is minimized, and when they don’t, it is considered distant and unloving. For Haun, it was finding just the right balance so as to please and fulfill herself, both of which required mothering and choreographing. “As a woman, just know you’re going to have it harder,” Haun said to close. The “knowing” is that which makes it harder to accept.

Hollaback!

On February 8, I attended a lecture at Chicago Filmmakers in Andersonville, Chicago, given by Debjani Roy, the Deputy Director of the organization Hollaback!. Hollaback!’s mission states, “Hollaback is a movement to end street harassment powered by a network of local activists around the world.  We work together to better understand street harassment, to ignite public conversations, and to develop innovative strategies to ensure equal access to public spaces.” To fulfill this mission, they have developed forums for victims of sexual harassment to share their stories. Grassroot efforts by leaders in over 80 countries allows such victims to make their narratives known, which inspires and empowers their agency. The explanation of their model includes this description: “Hollaback! breaks the silence that has perpetuated sexual violence internationally, asserts that any and all gender-based violence is unacceptable, and creates a world where we have an option—and, more importantly—a response.”

Hollaback! was started in 2005 by seven young people, three men and four woman. Its conception was inspired by a night on a New York City balcony. Women told stories of harassment, and the men became concerned. One in particular, Samuel Carter, who is now Hollaback!’s board chair, said, “you live in a different city than we do.” The passion that the young individuals developed to address this disparity was further supported by Thao Nguyen, a brave young woman who stood up to her harasser — a man who masturbated across from her on the subway — by taking a photo of him and posting it to flickr, which eventually made its way to the front page of the New York Daily News and initiated conversation to change the conditions within which street harassment takes place.

Before joining Hollaback! Joy was the Program and Development Manager at Manavi, the first South Asian women’s rights organization in the United States. In her presentation, she explained the organization’s model of decentralized leadership. In each of their 85 locations, leaders are trained through five webinars on subjects such as harassment 101, leveraging social media, on the ground organizing, and technology such as how to run their own Wordpress website. They believe that local knowledge “rules the day,” and help their site leaders to support a network of communications. The organization also aims to reframe incidences of sexual harassment, which 70 to 99% of women experience throughout their life according to Hollaback!’s website and a CDC 2011 study, as part of a larger injustice. Their process of empowering street harassed individuals to turn the focus around by taking a picture of their harasser and posting it alongside the story achieves “awareness,” “validation,” and “healing and courage.”

While Hollaback! hopes to one day see a world where street harassment, or sexual harassment, is eradicated, they are realistic about the change that would need to occur to create an alternate reality as such. Thus, Hollaback! provides community-members, bystanders and witnesses, with action steps. These steps are known as the “4 D’s”: Direct Intervention, Distraction, Delegating - talking to an authority, and Delaying- check in with the person after they are harassed. The situation may be discouraging, especially when I find myself posting to the Hollaback! app frequently, but Roy made it clear that in in order to create the change we desire, we must be our “badass self” as Hollaback!’s website encourages. I just “Hollabacked” two days ago, and that app remains on my home screen.

"The Mask You Live In"

On February 9, I attend a documentary screening sponsored by Family Action Network (FAN) entitled, “The Mask You Live In.” While sex is a biological, gender is a social construction — and a dangerous one too. Gender has become a binary, and on each pole lie associative qualities and expectations. To be a woman is to be weak, emotional, vulnerable, and most of all, lesser. “Be a man” now means, “be everything and anything a woman is not.” Masculinity is a reactive construction: it is the rejection of everything feminine. As definitions of masculinity and manhood become less and less fulfillable — “don’t cry!”, “fight back!”, “be a womanizer!” — sexism and gender inequity escalates. Perhaps, if men did not feel the pressure of being “masculine,” as society defines it, then men would have no means for oppressing women. If the very qualities that men reject are instead embraced, gender inequity would become less prevalent. Activists, such as Jackson Katz, have been saying sexism is a men’s issue for years, and this documentary exhibited just that.

Because of many men’s rejection of “feminine” qualities, they begin to distance themselves from others. Relationships require too much empathy, emotion, vulnerability, and self-sacrifice, so their relationships struggle. There is a proven connection between friendships and mental health, as presented in the documentary, and when young men begin saying, “I feel close to him, no homo,” it is no surprise that by age 12, we see 34% of boys having begun binge drinking and taking drugs as a way to escape the expectations of building an emotionless character.

The combination of factors that lead to false definitions of manhood are dangerous for both men and women. Men, in one way or another, are told that in order to be “manly” they must have emotionless relationships, improve athletic ability, achieve the most economic success, and see sexual relations as never-ending conquests. Eventually, these unattainable expectations can lead many men to use destructive and violent behavior as an outlet.

However, this behavior, which was originally an escape, has become incorporated into the definition of masculinity because it’s just seen as boys “acting out” rather than an indicator of an internal battle. In an article entitled “The Price Women Pay for Boys Being Boys”  first published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on May 13, 2001, Jackson Katz wrote, “One recent survey showed that 25 percent of teens know someone in their school who has been in an abusive relationship. Most gender violence is perpetrated by men who are not athletes. But when male athletes in high school, college or the pros are caught treating women in stereotypically sexist, physically abusive or sexually assaultive ways, because of their status and prominence in male culture they reinforce the idea that being disrespectful to women is part of the very definition of being a man.” And thus, as violence becomes apart of manhood, so too does violence against women.

It is the quintessentially human elements of our characters that have been deemed “feminine” and thus, inferior, which is proving to be a detriment to the humanity of men and women alike. If manhood continues to be defined as “everything a woman is not,” it is likely that men’s mental health will continue to suffer, women will continue to be oppressed, and the relationship between the two genders will be perpetually debilitating. Easier said than done, but, if men were to incorporate empathy and humanness into the definition of masculinity and reclaim the responsibility for passing that definition on to other men, both men and women would see a shift in their immediate realities.

Katz, Jackson. "The Price Women Pay for Boys Being Boys." Jackson Katz. Seattle

Post-Intelligencer, 13 May 2001. Web. 23 Feb. 2015. <http://www.jacksonkatz.com/pub_price.html>.

Choosing an Inquiry Strand

As per usual, I decisively elected to pursue an inquiry strand related to feminism. Throughout high school, I have been actively engaged in and conscious of the ways in which my growing female identity impacts my, and other women’s, experiences. Like any minority, women navigate through the world with a set of burdens and challenges that are so integrally ingrained into the country and world’s foundation. Inequity persists for women, and as I carry my womanhood into a new stage, I feel an invigorated responsibility to redistribute power appropriately. This semester, I hope to expand my knowledge and exposure to a variety of related subtopics within my inquiry strand. It is my goal that this knowledge translate directly into an educated agency now and in future action.

Thus far, I hope to attend a film screening of “The Mask you Live In” — a film about the messages men receive about being men in our country. I am intrigued and invested in the responsibility men have to advocate on behalf of women, and find that one of the most effect ways to combat gender inequity is for men to accept the responsibility of being allies, as well as amplify the calls for gender equity on behalf of both men and women. I also would like to attend an events entitled, “Putting your Passion Into Action: A Conversation on Promoting Civic Engagement and Political Leadership Among Women Hosted by the Young Women’s Giving Council” and “Why the Middle East Needs a Sexual Revolution.”

A Constellation of Song: Francis W. Parker's Holiday Vespers Concert

On December 18, 2014 in the Heller Auditorium, Francis W. Parker’s Holiday Vesper Concert paired music with community — two intangibles that are so often found together. It began and ended with all the performing ensembles. However, in between, the ensembles were interspersed with one another. The sixth grade followed the opening and Grape Jam followed them. The concert’s form was most telling of its communal significance: it placed the emphasis on creating music and interconnectivity, rather than making the 6th graders feel as though they were less talented or impressive than Special Chorus.

It began with all the choruses singing “Bonse Aba” by Victor C. Johnson, and continued with the 6th grade singing “Lanterns by Birds of Tokyo” and “Gaudeamus Hodie,” Grape Jam singing “What If I Never Speed” by John Dowland and “Circle of Life” by Elton John and Lebo M, 7th grade singing “Sing Ding-a, Ding-a, Dong!” by Lynn Bailey and “Sir Duke” written by Stevie Wonder and arranged by Audrey Snyder, 8th grade singing “Come to the Music” by Joseph Martin and “21 Guns” by Bowie, Philips, Armstrong, and Pritchard and arranged by Roger Emerson, New Chorale singing “Somewhere Out There” by Horner, Mann, and Weil and arranged by Ed Lojeski, Special Chorus singing the seven movements of “Ceremony of Carols” by Benjamin Britten, and, finally, all the choruses sang “Let the River Run” by Carly Simon and arranged by Craig H. Johnson as a finale.

Starting with the 6th grade and continuing through the finale, each grade represented more than one culture, religion, or genre with their set. During the seventh grade’s performance of Sir Duke, there was a young boy standing amidst the sea of seventh graders. While all the performers seemed to be enjoying, this boy embodied the purpose of music most obviously. He danced. He smiled. But most honorably was that he did so without caring what his peers may have thought. It was clear that no other force besides music could disable the insecurities that so often prevent us from living in the present. Vulnerability and the willingness to experience emotion so greatly is part what makes a powerful individual a valuable community member.

Combined, the concert’s ability to place value on all contributing member, as well as its ability to free the performers and audience members from the disengaged nature of our generation, sent a powerful message that I have witnessed and embraced infinitely. That is, music is unlike any other tool to which we have access: it brings together Greenday and Britten just as it brings together 6th graders and seniors.