Bell Hooks, a renowned African American author, feminist, and social activist stated in her book “Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black” that “We make the revolutionary history, telling the past as we have learned it mouth-to-mouth, telling the present as we see, know, and feel it in our hearts and with our words.” The study of political science is not solely one of politics, but an incorporation of other adjacent fields that provide an educated, holistic view of the modern world, the historical progression of political, economic, and social issues, and the projected outcomes of current legal decision-making. As current political decisions are made to ensure a particular future of domestic and international relations, it is only reasonable to recognize that the modern political climate has been molded by hundreds of years of legal history, including but not limited to the intentions of the founding fathers, the progression of Supreme Court decisions, systemic oppression, social movements, and the causes and effects of global conflicts. Because modern conflicts are a product of past actions and present sentiments, understanding the political-historical context of the issue is essential to making sound policy decisions. Too often, political leaders rush into domestic and international decisions with damaging, and often irreversible, effects because they do not understand, consider, nor incorporate the full context of the issue. Therefore, using and applying this knowledge of politics and history, as two equally important counterparts, would result in a more responsible decision-making body and laws that best benefit domestic and international populations.

         Discussions of political-historical context on a domestic level must begin with a base understanding of the United States Constitution, the nation’s founding document, including the reasoning behind it being created, its importance to the society it was brought into, and the groups of people it explicitly included and protected. The creation of the Constitution, as well as how it was applied historically and is in the modern day, was taught with the most detail in the courses Judicial Politics and Constitutional Law: Civil Liberties, Rights. Although new amendments have been written into the Constitution since its ratification in 1788, and the interpretations of its rather vague language have shifted, sometimes back and forth, through generations, the document’s original purpose established the future of U.S. politics and remains a determining factor of modern decisions. The U.S. Constitution was written as a response to tyranny under British rule and the failure of the first document written after gaining independence, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation failed primarily due to granting too much power to the states, which was a disastrous attempt at a functional government. Therefore, one of the Constitution’s main objectives was to establish a strong central government, one with power distributed amongst three branches, as well as checks and balances between them.

         The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, was written to protect the freedoms that Americans have gained as a result of independence from British rule. However, it is important to consider that it was white men, especially of the elite class, that were allowed to contribute to the drafting of the Constitution, and who these, as the Declaration of Independence states, “unalienable rights,” were applicable to. This minority was also the only one allowed to have elected positions, vote, and have a voice in the decisions made in the United States, creating a system that disproportionately benefited white, elite men and worked against most other groups of people such as women, African Americans, Native Americans, and the poor. Therefore, for over two-hundred years, these unincluded groups had to fight, and continue to do so, for inclusion in society, equal protections under the law, and representation in the government.

         The topic of who is making laws and whose values are reflected in those laws are still a relevant conversation today, as our representative body still fails to reflect the American population in terms of various identities. According to a study done by Pew Research, “the 118th Congress is the most racially and ethnically diverse in history,” yet there is still a discrepancy between the percentage of white members of Congress (75%) and white members of the American population (59%) (Pew Research). As for women, 28% of Congress is composed of women versus accounting for approximately half of the U.S. population (Pew Research). This gap can also be observed with Congress members that are openly a part of the LGBT community, with only 2% being openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and none being openly transgender (Pew Research).

         The Constitution, despite being made difficult to amend, has changed over time through adding new amendments to expand the rights granted. And though ratified amendments remain unchanged, how they are interpreted and applied to the modern day shifts depending on the viewpoint and analysis made by Supreme Court justices. There is a conflict between strict and loose interpretation of the Constitution, especially since there are modern issues that are not in the document simply because the founders could not have predicted them, and they were aware of this, as seen by the ninth amendment. Although the Supreme Court was intended to be an apolitical body, it is an unrealistic expectation to assume that the justices are not influenced by personal values, social observations, and experiences. Putting into consideration the historical context and current reality of the Constitution, the question becomes: how must the United States honor the Constitution and its stagnant aspects while also realizing that we live in a changing society, and that the Constitution was unjustly written for a minority, yet most privileged, of Americans who held all of the political power? It is undeniable that the United States was founded on the ideology that certain groups are superior to others, thus creating a system of oppression that various groups have had to fight against for inclusion, equality, and to be treated as human. Ignoring, or outright erasing, this past gives the impression that modern issues are exaggerations or fabricated, when in reality, they are a continuation of ongoing fight against a government that was not made to work in their favor from the start.

         An example of political history that is particularly important in the United States is the progression of rights for African Americans, and how the misunderstanding of historical context leads to uninformed decision-making and interpretation of current events. In order to understand the complexity of modern events, it is important to acknowledge that at the beginning of the United States as a nation, African Americans were excluded from the constitution and nearly all rights that the white American man possessed. Up until 1865, slavery was both legal and constitutional, thus the oppression of African Americans was institutionalized from the start. The U.S. created an economy that was driven by slave labor, and in an attempt to justify slavery, men in power pushed the narrative that African Americans were inferior to whites, and that servitude was their natural state. This ideology was further propagated by Christian religious beliefs and capitalism, an economic model that relies on a competition for superiority. Therefore, it is difficult to explain racism as purely individual, given the history of institutional subjugation of an entire race, which is at the core of the nation’s founding. Instead, it was, and continues to be, a systemic issue that fuels derogatory, racist, views of black Americans.

         As was taught in Constitutional Law, The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendment were passed in 1865, following the end of the Civil War. In short, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all born on American soil, and the Fifteenth Amendment gave black, American men the right to vote. These amendments created significant change in the nation, however, this did not signify that African Americans were equal to white Americans in the slightest. The United States government continued to find other ways to oppress African Americans and keep their involvement amongst whites in politics, public life, and the workforce minimal. The end of the Civil War ushered in the era of Jim Crow in the Southern United States, where racial segregation was legalized and practiced for nearly eighty years. By law, it was mandatory that all public facilities were segregated by race, as established by the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Supreme Court Case decision. The language of the case, “separate but equal,” concluded that the segregation of public facilities such as schools, libraries, and buses, was constitutional, as long as there were available facilities for black and white Americans. The issue here, aside from the absurd racism of this decision, is that the amenities would never be of equal quality, as the government would not adequately fund black facilities.

         In 1954, this constitutional question was revisited in Brown v. Board of Educationof Topeka, where it was decided that “separate but equal” was inherently unequal. The decision previously made by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was thus overturned, as separating public facilities by race violated the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and established a sense of inferiority of African Americans. Previously, it was discussed that change was brought by adding amendments, but this instance provides an interesting contrast because the language of the constitution was identical in both Supreme Court cases. In both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board, the Fourteenth Amendment is analyzed, but produces a different outcome. It becomes not only crucial to understand the Constitution itself because that is not enough; one must understand how the constitution was interpreted and applied through time. The same amendment was used to deny the rights of a particular group, but then half a decade later, was used as justification of why that group must be granted those rights.

         After establishing a brief summary of a few events core to American political history, its relevance to modern day society may be discussed. The Civil Rights Movement that took place in the 1950s and 1960s combatted the racist Jim Crow laws, and as a result of the activism that occurred, many of these laws were repealed. One of the most influential was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination in public facilities, including schools, and in employment. Another notable act was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed voting discrimination by eliminating the literacy exam. Legal change was crucial and a major goal of the Civil Rights Movement, because as long as racial discrimination was written into law, it would run rampant in society with little room for protections and progress. However, once these laws were repealed, sentiments of many white Americans did not change. Discrimination, violence, lynchings, police brutality, the existence of a flawed court and prison system, and various hate crimes against black Americans persisted, as did backlash against efforts at integration, even though it was allowed or required. As of the 1960s, the legal system had already been built against people of color for nearly two hundred years, and combined with many Americans holding the same hatred for black people as they did before the Civil Rights Movement, equality was still not achieved. 

         When thinking back on Jim Crow laws and the Civil Rights Movement, it must be acknowledged that Americans alive today are not far removed from that part of history. The youngest generation’s grandparents were alive in the 60s, many of which still remember those times, and were a part of the youth who protested on either side of history. Therefore, it becomes irresponsible to think that there are no lasting effects of racism in this country, and that discrimination completely ended with the Civil Rights Movement. As previously stated, the issue is systemic and engrained in our country politically, socially, and economically. This is also a critique of the American educational system, as it more often than not teaches racism as if it is a product of the past. Not understanding that these issues continue to exist, most of which are the continuation or aftermath of slavery and Jim Crow, makes it more difficult for people to humanize the experiences of African Americans and support legislation that would improve their lives. 

         When looking at the Black Lives Matter Protests that peaked in 2020 following the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, this brought the issue of police brutality into the public eye. For black Americans, police brutality is an injustice that they have always had to face, and they have always had to consider. The protests helped the cause gain more traction and support, but was also met with backlash, particularly from the right-wing. Evidently, the backlash that occurred could easily be traced back to a lack of education of black history. One common accusation was that these issues were overexaggerated, or that brutality would not occur if the person getting arrested simply complied. There was also misinformation spread that the protests were entirely violent, even when the majority were peaceful but did not receive the same level of media coverage. These assertions disregard every event that led up to the current state of addressing racism in the United States. For the most part, white Americans have had the privilege of not having to think about their own race, and can choose to disconnect themselves from even hearing about racism if they do not live in a diverse community. Now all of a sudden with the attention that Black Lives Matter has gotten, it has become impossible to not have to think about one's role in the system, which can be difficult to do and can be met with denial. But once given the context of racism in the United States, particularly the history of the police, which started out as the slave patrol and was an active perpetrator of violence during the Jim Crow era, one may begin to understand the frustration that Black Lives Matter supporters have with the government. 

         There are arguments circulating that state that addressing the flaws of this nation, specifically about racism, are anti-American. Though, wouldn’t understanding the complete history of the United States for the sake of improving the lives of Americans and shaping the country to be the best version of itself be the most pro-American act? Erasing non-white history upholds white supremacist values and is ignorant of hate crimes that still occur and harm black communities. And when studying how this country was founded and how it progressed, its current state should not be a surprise, but it should be met with dissatisfaction. And, the right-wing movement against intellectualism and against diversifying K-12 curriculums by teaching all history, particularly the inclusion of black history, should be a cause of concern. The American people expect Congressmen to make educated decisions for the nation, but if they lack political-historical knowledge, the decisions that come as a result cause more harm to black communities than they do good.

         Another detrimental example of a lack of political-historical education is seen in the legislation that is passing following the overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973) by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). Roe v. Wade was a case discussed in both Judicial Politics and Constitutional Law. It is rare that the Supreme Court overturns one of its own decisions, and this provides an interesting view on the workings of the Court. It is fascinating, but in other cases terrifying, how quickly nationwide legislation can change based on one decision. In May 2022, when the draft of the majority opinion of the Dobbs case was leaked, Americans were not being alarmist when they predicted that it is not just abortion that is at risk here, but bodily autonomy in other forms as well. Women’s rights have always been tied to the body and the lack of autonomy that they have had throughout time. Historically, the violation of bodily autonomy has not always been about abortion, and it is one of the many pressing issues of the United States today. Bodily autonomy, or what is being taken away, is also a concern for transgender individuals, which must be included in this conversation. The Feminist Theory course discussed this in great detail, and offered various pieces regarding this topic that were written by feminist activists between the 18th and 21st centuries.

         Wollstonecraft, though not having entirely inclusive feminist views, made an excellent point in explaining that the inferiority of women was declared by men on the basis of faulty, biological conclusions about women’s bodies and social roles (Wollstonecraft, 24). A false understanding of biology leads to inaccurate claims about personhood, which is not unique to her time period. Given that Wollstonecraft lived in the eighteenth century and at the height of the Enlightenment, modern readers cannot expect that much biological knowledge was accurate. However, the point still stands that it would be the women who knew the most about their own body, and that it was not a reason for men to infer inferiority. Physical strength of women being typically less than men was tied to mental capability and concluded that women were not to be equal to men in every other area of life, thus not deserving of the same liberties.

         In the modern day, this issue is still relevant, as decisions on abortion rights are made often by individuals who lack biological knowledge of the reproductive system and pregnancy, as well as Western history on bodily autonomy. There is a lack of understanding, especially amongst elected officials, about the stages of pregnancy, the risks involved, which could be life-threatening, and the healthcare necessary to assist these people. Additionally, there is a blatant disregard for research and statistics regarding abortion prevention, such as unsafe abortion being a leading cause of maternal death (World Health Organization). According to the World Health Organization, “evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions… However, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified” (WHO). Additionally, the aftermath of an unsafe abortion includes excessive stress on the mother and various health concerns at the expense of her and the healthcare system, which is preventable with safe abortions (WHO). Furthermore, laws on abortion are tied with restrictions on birth control access and adequate sex education, both great contributors to less unwanted pregnancies, thus less abortions and health complications (Guttmacher Institute). Finally, there is a lack of care for the parent and child after having given birth, as there are few safety nets relating to healthcare and income. Political-historical knowledge is crucial here, as the attack on bodily autonomy is being continued. It becomes abundantly clear that these laws are not made to protect children, but rather to assert control over individuals’ bodies. Lack of education becomes dangerous and lives are put at risk when such impactful decisions are made without facts and evidence, but with uneducated opinions and personal, often solely religious, morality that is inflicted upon others.

         Moving into feminist political theory from the nineteenth century, there was an increased cooperation between the feminist and abolitionist movements, as African American women fought for the liberation of both groups. A notable feminist of the time was Sojourner Truth, who confronted the racial discrimination within the feminist movement. Wollstonecraft and other renowned feminists of the time centered around white, middle and upper class women, but activists such as Truth helped introduce the intersectional component. The proposed “inferiority” of women was especially true to black women, as their body was not free under slavery and will still live under a patriarchal system that does not value their autonomy. As a slave, Truth has done far more manual labor than most if not all upper-class men, so by their logic, she asks why women such as herself should not have the same control over their body, as well as equal rights and opportunities. She explains that as long as women, especially women of color, are viewed as property, they will not be able to gain respect in society as long as the system stands (Truth 62-66).

In the modern day, western feminism has become far more inclusive than it was in its earlier days, but there is still progress to be made in terms of inclusivity and listening to various perspectives. Feminism in pop culture, particularly trending topics on the internet, often surround white feminism that ignores the struggles of women of color, and is borderline performative. This is not to say that white women no longer experience misogyny, but rather that people of color are often left out of the conversation. When discussing reproductive rights and healthcare, for example, women of color are disproportionately affected. There are also issues involving eugenics, where white women are encouraged to have babies, while women of color,  are misled into serialization or otherwise mistreated by medical professionals. At the U.S. border, Latin American women are forcefully sterilized and stripped of their rights to make decisions of their own bodies because the government fears that they will have children in the U.S. that will testify for their citizenship. Furthermore, Native American women go missing and are murdered at astoundingly high rates compared to their white counterparts. Bodily autonomy is at the core of many of these issues, and it is impossible to fully understand the complexity of them without acknowledging this political-historical past. 

         Another important aspect of twentieth and twenty-first century feminism is transfeminism, or feminism pertaining to transgender women in particular. Emi Koyama states in The Transfeminist Manifesto that the “liberation [of transgender women is] intrinsically linked to the liberation of all women and beyond” (Koyama 83). In her essay, Koyama describes the complexities of medical transition and the toll it takes on a woman’s body, as well as the societal pressures and discrimination they experience when finding their place in womanhood. Yet, despite the complications that may arise, the decision on how to transition must be up to the woman alone, and not a choice made by the government. According to Track Trans Legislation, 492 anti-trans bills have been proposed in the U.S. amongst 47 states, only 43 which have so far failed to pass, and it is not a coincidence that these changes are being made not even a year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, which protected the Right to Privacy (Trans Legislation Tracker). Anti-trans legislation is a violation of one’s bodily autonomy and prevents individuals from receiving healthcare that improves, and saves, lives. It becomes clear that disregarding the history of feminism and bodily autonomy leads to decisions that are detrimental to the American people, and creates a society where the comfort of individuals in positions of power is valued over the lives of a marginalized group. As there are Congressmen who are uneducated on the reproductive system making life-altering and dangerous decisions about abortion, the same may be applied to transgender rights. There is a disregard for the history of LGBT individuals, as well as statistics and research that confidently claim that gender-affirming healthcare is beneficial and necessary for transgender people, including the youth. The facts are readily available and would discredit these anti-trans propositions, but are ignored for the purpose of pushing hateful ideology, which is a concerning route for the country to take.

         As possessing and applying political-historical knowledge to domestic policy has its merits, it is also crucial to hold the same standard for international relations. Foreign affairs are never standalone events, but rather occur as a result of previous actions that must be analyzed to understand the full picture and move forward with effective and responsible policy. As discussed in American Foreign Policy, a prime example of acting on misinformation about political history and current events, and the spread of this information to the public, was the declaration of war in Iraq in 2003 by the Bush Administration. Tensions in the United States increased following the 9/11 attacks, and the fear of terrorism settled into the nation. Therefore, the administration had to decide how to respond to the attacks, and President Bush stated in his “Address to the Nation on the September 11 Attacks” that “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and [the countries] who harbor them.” The original focus was on al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, but the administration started to make ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq. The Bush administration claimed that Iraq was obtaining materials to create nuclear weapons, one of the incidents being the purchase of uranium from Niger. However, this “evidence” was not sourced from individuals going to Iraq to gather intelligence, but rather are conclusions drawn by vague satellite images. 

         War plans against Iraq began, and the proposition to do so was not met with immediate approval. It received strong backlash from not only within the government, but also the military, foreign countries, and U.S. citizens, which led to worldwide rallies that in size could only be compared to the protests against the Vietnam War a few decades prior. However, a resolution was soon passed in the Senate, which was composed of partial truths and it granted authority to the president if all diplomatic efforts with Iraq failed. President Bush continued to push the narrative that Iraq was obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and that this was the only way to combat al-Qaeda, or as he phrased it, “the war on terror.” The U.S. used this as a justification to invade Iraq, seeing it as a moral duty to stop the country from stockpiling weapons that may be used against the West, especially following the recent 9/11 attacks. There was no solid reason to invade, as the evidence used was insubstantial and the plan to “fight terrorism” was awfully broad.

         Although the war was unpopular, there was simultaneously an eagerness and unity in the United States to seek revenge against the perpetrators of 9/11. By utilizing this flawed evidence, the sense of fear and instability in the nation, and creating an us versus them mentality, the Bush Administration was able to sell their justification for invasion to the public. The American people were unanimously terrified and confused, which the Bush administration used to their advantage by reassuring the public that war was the way to combat terrorism. These messages were often coated with excessive nationalism, including U.S. symbolism, propaganda, and aggressive language towards terrorism, al-Qaeda, and the entire Middle East, which was not differentiated between. This information spread all over the media, and as the process moved quickly, there was little time for fact checking and explaining how war would effectively put an end to terrorism and protect the American people.

         In the long-run, declaring war on Iraq has been an irresponsible decision on behalf of the United States and has resulted in detrimental effects for both nations, including the American and Iraqi military and particularly Iraqi civilians, creating a humanitarian crisis. Although the removal and execution of Saddamn Hussein on charges for crimes against humanity was a positive outcome of the Iraq War, it becomes increasingly difficult as more time passes to claim that the total lives lost can justify the U.S.’s decision to invade. As of March 2023, the twentieth anniversary of the declaration of war in Iraq, Amna Nawaz reports to PBS NewsHour of the 4,400 American deaths, 300,000 Iraqi deaths, and no discovery of weapons of mass destruction (PBS). She interviews Vali Nasr, a John Hopkins University student of Advanced International Studies, who states that “we removed a brutal, dangerous dictator, but we replaced him with chaos. And Iraqis went through hell and back in the aftermath of what transpired… The issue is not that we needed Saddam for stability in the Middle east or we needed a brutal Iraqi army. The issue is that we didn’t replace these with elements of order, something that either within Iraq or within the region would serve our broader goals… [it] is a larger legacy for the United States now, because we’re still dealing with the consequences of this part of it, Iranian power in the Arab world, and still a weak Iraq that can be home to ISIS, can potentially be a source of danger again” (PBS).

         After examining numerous examples of the importance of political-historical knowledge to policy-making on a domestic and international level, it can be concluded that the most detrimental decisions have been made from a lack of understanding of context and data from the beginning of the United States as a nation to the modern day. From African-American rights to issues of bodily autonomy and the Iraq War, the American people cannot afford to bear the consequences of uneducated Congressmen and government officials. Americans expect that those elected to represent them will also represent their best interests and protect their freedoms, meaning that they will put an effort into studying the history of American politics and modern social issues to apply them into law-making. It is equally important that those who are educated do not use their knowledge to deceive the public, because education is a privilege, and it is the responsibility for elected officials to once again, serve the American people. As for the Supreme Court, it is their responsibility to interpret what the constitution means, and this becomes more complicated when personal opinions are at play. It is unreasonable to expect each justice to be entirely apolitical and completely remove themselves from their own sense of justice and morality. However, this does become frustrating when their personal agendas coming into the Court override their commitment to uphold the constitution. The United States is becoming increasingly divided, and one of the main causes of this divide is a combination of a lack of education on political history by those trusted to make decisions, and a manipulation of the average American who might not understand the complexities of politics. Blinding Americans from the truth contributes to discord and unwillingness to listen to the struggles that other groups experience. There are political, social, and economic issues occurring in the nation that affect all people, regardless of political beliefs, and creating an “us versus them” mentality against fellow Americans, stemming from a lack of political-historical understanding, hinders possible solutions and a better future for the next generations.

Works Cited

Upper-Division Political Science Courses Referenced

U.S. Government and Politics

POLS 325: Judicial Politics, Spring 2021, Dr. Gardner

POLS 303: Constitutional Law, Civil Liberties, Rights, Spring 2022, Dr. Gardner

Political Thought

POLS 341: Feminist Thought, Fall 2022, Dr. Diaz

Comparative Government/International Relations

POLS 319: American Foreign Policy, Summer 2022, Dr. Gardner

Additional Sources

“2023 Anti-Trans Bills: Trans Legislation Tracker.” 2023 Anti-Trans Bills: Trans Legislation Tracker, https://translegislation.com/.

“Abortion.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 25 Nov. 2021, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion.

Bush, George. “Address to the Nation on the September 11 Attacks.” Selected Speeches of President George Bush, 2001, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/Selected_Speeches_George_W_Bush.pdf.

Hooks, Bell. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. South End Press, 1989. 

Koyama, Emi. “The Transfeminist Manifesto.” Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, edited by Carole R. McCann et al., Routledge, London, 2021, pp. 83–90.

“Restrictions on Contraceptive Services Interfere with People's Ability to Get Care and Use Their Preferred Contraceptive Method.” Guttmacher Institute, 20 Sept. 2022, https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2022/restrictions-contraceptive-services-interfere-peoples-ability-get-care-and-use.

Schaeffer, Katherine. “The Changing Face of Congress in 8 Charts.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 28 Feb. 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/02/07/the-changing-face-of-congress/. 

Truth, Sojourner. “Two Speeches.” The Essential Feminist Reader, edited by Estelle B. Freedman, Modern Library, New York, 2007, pp. 63–66.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. “A Vindication of the Rights of Women .” The Essential Feminist Reader, edited by Estelle B. Freedman, Modern Library, New York, 2007, pp. 24–36.

            A foundational idea of feminist theory is established in the interaction between gender and the human body. This interaction may be analyzed from various lenses, including how the body is viewed, what is expected from it, and how society determines its attractiveness. When assessing the role of gender in western society, one must account for the scrutiny that women’s bodies endure, and the effect this has had on their historical subjugation. Sentiments regarding this topic have shifted and reformed since the earlier movements for women’s rights in the 18th century, but one idea remains true: women do not have complete control over their bodies. The value women feel in society and within themselves, as well as the futures they desire to work towards, are invasively interfered upon by our patriarchal system. Although this theme has been consistent for centuries of feminist theory, it is important to note that early feminism was not an inclusive movement. White middle to upper-class women controlled the movement, as they were the privileged group with access to educational resources, and they did not always create room for other voices, such as women of color. Therefore, it is important to study the theorists of the late 20th to early 21st centuries, who expand on the feminist understanding of the body, as the movement added intersectionality and diversity to the conversation. It must be stated that the patriarchy has been upheld by its control over women, particularly the woman’s body. In order to work towards a future of equality and liberation, bodily autonomy is a necessary progression. Bodily autonomy refers not only to the ability for one to make their own choices regarding their body, but also an understanding that there is no biological or social justification for the inferiority of gender identities that are not male and cisgender. And, that the experience of one’s gender is inherently linked to their relationship with their own body and the expectations placed upon their body by external societal forces.

            The primary work that will be discussed, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) by Mary Wollstonecraft, was written against the backdrop of the Enlightenment in England. According to the introduction, “enlightenment political theory replaced the divine right of kings with the individual rights of man, but these principles did not apply to women.” (Wollstonecraft, 24). To start, Wollstonecraft establishes that this is because “women…are rendered weak and wretched by a variety of concurring causes, originating from one hasty conclusion. The conduct and manners of women… evidently prove that their minds are not in a healthy start” (Wollstonecraft 25). Wollstonecraft further explains that women “are treated as a kind of subordinate beings, not as a part of the human species” (Wollstonecraft 26). During this period, the inferiority of women was declared by men on the basis of biological conclusions about their bodies and their social roles. Because women were typically not as physically strong as men, it was inferred that they did not poses the same mental capabilities. Additionally, the pastimes of women were viewed as “weak,” “luxurious,” and “frivolous,” also contributing to the entire gender being deemed as unworthy of equal rights, opportunities, and respect (Wollstonecraft 27). The core of this belief was a lack of understanding of the woman’s body, thus leading to inaccurate claims about their personhood, and lack of. Women were kept under a system where their roles were outlined for them, and there were little opportunities for them to achieve other goals.

            However, there are a few issues with Wollstonecraft’s piece and the overall movement for women’s rights in the west during the 18th century. Her piece, as well as many others from the time, only regarded wealthy white women. Additionally, Wollstonecraft states that “the most respectable women are the most oppressed,” insinuating that upper-class women struggle the most with the patriarchy, which is an inaccurate statement. Her argument is that this is because they are the most concerned with upholding beauty standards and gender roles, but this offers a very surface level analysis of the issue. She fails to address the intersectional component, as most women were viewed as inferior because of their gender, and their experience is most often also shaped by being a person of color or living in poverty.

            Moving further in time, the fight for women’s rights throughout the 19th century was supported by the abolitionist movement, as many African American women fought for the liberation of both groups. At this time, wealthy white women still dominated feminist spaces. Sojourner Truth, a black woman born into slavery, in her piece Two Speeches (1851, 1867) addressed issues pertaining to women’s rights, but also confronted the discrimination within the movement. In her first speech, Truth states “I have as much muscle as any man, and can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chipped and mowed, and can any man do more than that?” This part of her speech directly confronts the sentiments that Wollstonecraft included in her piece, that men have used their greater physical strength, and sense of body superiority, to establish that women were less capable on all fronts. Wollstonecraft argues that she may be physically weaker than a man, but that does not mean that she is inferior or less human. What Truth argues instead is that she is as strong as a man, given that she has done far more manual labor as a slave than many American men have done. Yet, she is still not viewed as an equal, even though she has met the standard that men have set about women’s bodies. She also states that “as for intellect… if a woman have a pint and a man a quart – why can’t she have her little pint full?” and “I can’t read, but I can hear” insinuating that she is intelligent and able to understand and participate in academic conversations, but women lack most of the resources to purse an education. This therefore establishes that the issue is men’s contradictory assessment of the woman’s body and its relation to physical and mental capability, and that women are less educated because of a lack of opportunities, not lack of intellect.

            In Truth’s second speech, she related the topic of body and personhood to freedom from slavery and patriarchy alike, and how it is important to fight for both liberties concurrently. She argues that “there is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about the colored women; and if colored men get their rights, and not colored women theirs, you see the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as before” (Truth 65). Truth acknowledges that the freedom from slavery is essential and must be dismantled from its roots, but also that women’s oppression is a form of slavery as well, especially as it becomes unaddressed (Truth 65). Her and her body were not free under slavery, and will not be free if she will have to live a life in which men have control over her. In both contexts, bodies are viewed as property, alienating them from treatment of being a human. Fighting to end both oppressive systems work towards the goal of women having control over their own bodies, and not be categorized as another person’s property. As long as people of color or women, particularly women of color, are viewed as property, they will not be able to achieve respect in society as long as the system stands.

            In the 20th century, feminist theory pertaining to gender and its relation to the body becomes more established and discussed amongst theorists. A piece that provides an insightful perspective to this idea is Sandra Lee Bartkey’s Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchy Power (1988). Her thesis states that she “shall examine those disciplinary practices that produce a body which in gesture and appearance is recognizably feminine. [She considers] three categories of such practices: those that aim to produce a body of a certain size and general configuration; those that bring forth from this body a specific repertoire of gestures, postures, and movements; and those that are directed toward the display of this body as an ornamented surface” (Bartkey 343). Throughout her piece, she develops multiple arguments to support her thesis, starting with the claim that “styles of the female figure vary over time and across cultures; they reflect cultural obsessions and preoccupations in ways that are still poorly understood” (Bartkey 344). The specific examples that Bartkey includes are the trends of dieting, monitoring appetite, and the “tyranny of slenderness” advertised by magazines (Bartkey 344). Trends of what a woman’s body should look like to be deemed beautiful or acceptable by society is constantly shifting, and women are expected to change along with it. Men do experience issues with eating disorders and unhealthy, excessive exercise to achieve the ideal body type, but Bartkey argues that women’s bodies are scrutinized in a way that is much stricter and controlling. This sentiment of the inferiority of a woman’s body still exists centuries later, but is controlled over to a greater extent, and women have a specific body type they must achieve to feel worthy. Bartkey also explains that “women have soft and smooth skin, skincare products, hair must be removed [via] waxing” which is “painful and expensive” (Bartkey 345). Meaning, that women have these sets of expectations, but adhering to them is very costly, which is not a standard held for men, and for most, impossible to entirely achieve.

            Bartkey’s previous arguments refer to women’s body in terms of appearance and the control that the patriarchy has over their freedom to present themselves as they choose. Furthermore, Bartkey explains the perception of women’s bodies in relation to their movement and the space they occupy in public, which she states as being “far more restricted than men” (Bartkey 344). In her piece, she builds on the ideas of the previous theorists, but also addresses the idea that women’s bodies being seen as inferior leads to them to being pressured to make themselves appear small. It is expected that “feminine movement, gesture, and posture must exhibit not only constriction, but grace and a certain eroticism restrained by modesty: all three” (Bartkey 345). The appropriate manner in which women may present themselves, both in looks and mobility, are not determined by themselves, but rather by the pressures established by the patriarchy.

            Many theorists refer to the patriarchy as being the oppressive system that controls a woman’s body, which are standards pertaining to appearance and mobility in Bartkey’s piece. However, it make be unclear as to who exactly upholds these values. Bartkey argues that “the disciplinary power that controls femininity in the female body is both everywhere and nowhere, and those in control of this disciplinary power are everyone but no one in particular” (Bartkey 348). Therefore, “power in modern society exercises a kind of social and psychological control that is far more restrictive than in the past” (Bartkey 350). These rules are not listed or upheld by a specific group of people, but are evident in the daily experience of a woman, as these expectations are constantly marketed and celebrated. Even though no one in the United States, for example, is monitoring that women adhere to these standards, they still feel the need to obey them in order to be respected, valued, or treated as another human being. These ideals are conditioned, and the pressure is felt by all women, even if the source is not a specific person. However, if there is a criticism to be made about this piece, it is that it assumes femininity or masculinity as an either/or. There are plenty of people, cisgender or transgender, that do not fit into what is traditionally binary, either in appearance or identity, which could have been further explored or elaborated on.

Entering the 21st century, the topic of women’s bodies has become more widely discussed and included in the conversations of feminist theory. Previously, the body has been given specific attention in feminism, but the understanding of this in recent decades has improved to include a more diverse set of experiences. One important piece that greatly contributes to this conversation is Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson (2002). Listening to the experiences of disabled people and the pressures placed upon them by society is a key component to helping understand the relationship that women have with their bodies. Studying feminist disability theory is important because it explores how the two theories intersect. In her piece, Garland-Thomson focuses on two themes, one being how women are inherently viewed as “disabled,” and the other how society scrutinizes women who have disabilities, both visible and invisible.

            Garland-Thomson states that “western thought has long conflated femaleness and disability, understanding both as defective departures from a valued standard,” listing examples such as women being deemed hysterical, overreactive from hormones, or being treating as less than human if they look different (Garland-Thomson 183). This observation is made from observing society and feminist thought over the centuries, even though the language and understanding of science has advanced. Women are overly scrutinized for what they can alter about their appearances, but also alienated for the parts that they cannot change. This then determines their humanity and how they will be treated by strangers, especially by men. However, what is different between the 18th and 21st centuries are the improvements in science, but because this mindset about women remains, medicine is often weaponized against women. Cosmetic surgeries are more common, and now that what is not “normal” may be altered, women are pressured to pursue these procedures. This is especially true for disabled women, who have the option to receive surgeries that will improve their lives, and this often helps these women. The problem, however, is society’s aggressive intent to fix and regulate bodies, or “cure” abnormalities. The choice to alter one’s body should be a decision made by the individual, but societal pressure takes away that choice. And, there are instances where there is no choice, such as doctors deciding how to operate on intersex newborns, assigning them a gender (Garland-Thomson 186). It is also important to consider how “the relative privileges or normative femininity are often denied to disabled women” (Garland-Thomson 186). Disabled women are excluded from conversations including sexuality and femininity, and are often not given the chance to be accepted as a woman in the same way that an able bodied woman may be (Garland-Thomson 186).

            Another important perspective to incorporate when analyzing gender and its relation to the body and the control that society continues to have over woman’s bodies are the experiences of transgender women. The introduction to the The Transfeminist Manifesto by Emi Koyama states that “the latter half of the twentieth century witnessed an unprecedented broadening of the American feminist movement as a result of the participation of diverse groups of women,” which further emphasizes the importance of intersectionality when discussing the topic of patriarchal control of the body (Koyama 83). She further goes on to explain that “transfeminism is primarily a movement by and for trans women who view their liberation to be intrinsically linked to the liberation of all women and beyond” (Koyama 83).

            Although Koyama elaborates on various topics regarding transfeminism, the two that will be discussed are the sections on body image and violence against women. The core message is that “we as feminists would like to claim that we feel comfortable, confident, and powerful with our own bodies. Unfortunately, that is not the case for many women, including trans women” (Koyama 86). Thus, because liberation for trans women is not separate from the liberation of non-trans women, trans women must have a place in the feminist movement. Trans women often endure procedures that are “costly, painful, and time-consuming and can lead to permanent loss of fertility and other serious complications” in order that they feel most comfortable in their own bodies and how they are perceived by others. Deciding which procedures a woman endures, if any, should be up to the woman alone. One of the issues that Koyama outlines is that standards of beauty affect trans women just as much as cisgender women, because there is an expected “look,” and if trans women don’t present feminine enough or medically transition to society’s liking, they may be pressured to make decisions that they are not comfortable making. Individuals should have the choice to transition however makes them most comfortable, but this control is taken away by legislation that denies transgender care and by societal expectations that tell these women what their transition should look like, despite it being quite invasive (Koyama 87). Additionally, trans women, particularly trans women of color, are victims of violence and murder at far higher rates than other groups of women. Trans women are targeted because they live as women, but the discovery of them being trans “often leads to a more violence assault, one fueled by homophobia and transphobia” (Koyama 87). Assaulters feel entitled to violence because of the identity of these women, and the harmful rhetoric being unjustly spread about trans women and their bodies has been a cause for this violence.

            Finally, when discussing the control women lack over their bodies, it is important to include the topic of bodily autonomy in relation to reproductive rights. Loretta Ross, in her piece Understanding Reproductive Justice, describes Reproductive Justice as “a positive approach that links sexuality, health, and human rights to social justice movements by placing abortion and reproductive health issues in the larger context of the well-being and health of women, families, and communities, because Reproductive Justice seamlessly integrates those individual and group human rights particularly important to marginalized communities” (Ross 77). What is important here is that Ross explains the basics of reproductive justice, but also elaborates on how this is an intersectional issue, and how this control over women’s bodies especially affects marginalized women. In current politics, there has been a struggle for people in many states to receive abortions, or any reproductive healthcare in general, since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Though, Ross goes more in depth to discuss the “Reproductive Oppression” that women of color are facing, as they are more likely to be refused support or quality services and resources (Ross 78). Reproductive Oppression is also “a means of selectively controlling the destiny of entire communities through the bodies of women and individuals, a newer and more subtle form of negative Eugenics” (Ross 78). White heterosexual women are more encouraged to have babies, while women of color are misled into sterilization or otherwise mistreated by medical professionals. A woman should have access to reproductive healthcare services, but the issue of racism, homophobia, and transphobia should be addressed in this field as well (Ross 78). Therefore, it is essential that the issue of women’s control of their bodies and how it is shaped by the patriarchy must be analyzed through this lens of intersectionality.

            When assessing feminist theorists from the 18th to the 21st century, there are themes that remain constant in the feminist movement, despite the change in historical context, language, scientific advancements, and inclusivity. Even though there are feminist issues that still need to be addressed, the topic of women’s bodies and their lack of control of their own body under the patriarchy has not only remained relevant, but is at the forefront of modern women’s issues. In recent decades, more voices have been included in this conversation, but also in the feminist movement as a whole. Intersectionality has always been an essential component to feminism, and although the movement is more diverse, there is still progress to be made in terms of becoming educated the history of marginalized groups and the struggles they continue to face.

Works Cited

Bartkey, Sandra Lee. “Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchy Power.” Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, edited by Carole R. McCann et al., Routledge, London, 2021, pp. 343–351.

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. “Integrating Disability, Transforming Feminist Theory.” Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, edited by Carole R. McCann et al., Routledge, London, 2021, pp. 181–191.

Koyama, Emi. “The Transfeminist Manifesto.” Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, edited by Carole R. McCann et al., Routledge, London, 2021, pp. 83–90.

Ross, Loretta. “Understanding Reproductive Justice.” Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, edited by Carole R. McCann et al., Routledge, London, 2021, pp. 76–82.

Truth, Sojourner. “Two Speeches.” The Essential Feminist Reader, edited by Estelle B. Freedman, Modern Library, New York, 2007, pp. 63–66.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. “A Vindication of the Rights of Women .” The Essential Feminist Reader, edited by Estelle B. Freedman, Modern Library, New York, 2007, pp. 24–36.

         In his novel 1984, George Orwell wrote that “the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their own history.” Although the novel depicts a dystopian society, this statement reflects the effects of misinformation in a society, particularly in terms of propaganda and censorship. Propaganda and censorship work to deceive the masses and create a singular nation narrative that puts one’s own nation as the protagonist on the world stage. The facts are twisted, and opposition is demonized in order to justify wrongdoings and keep the elite in power. When imagining propaganda, one will likely recall the posters circa World War II, in which the United States characterized Germans as gorillas and mad brutes, or where the Soviet Union glamorized Communism as a system that provides harvest for all who work hard. Though, when observing Russia and its relationship with the media, propaganda and censorship was not unique to World War II, the Soviet era, nor the twentieth century. As platforms of media evolved and political climates changed, an underlying theme in modern Russian history is the altercation of facts to support the government and undermine its people. Propaganda and censorship are alive today, and have transcended from written word to content online. Despite this, the internet continues to challenge the past as people use it to spread truth and have dialogue that is uncensored by the government.

         Prior to analyzing Russia’s current approach to the media and its censorship, it is important to understand the historical context of propaganda that existed within the Soviet Union. Propaganda was a trademark of the twentieth century, especially amongst authoritarian governments, such as the Soviet Union. The article “Propaganda and Censorship: Adapting to the Modern Age” by Veronica Ma elaborates on the nature of propaganda in that time period and the effect of censorship amongst the Russian population and nations under Soviet rule. Propaganda included political messages in popular media, which were either obvious or subtle, and censoring ideas that conflicted with the government. But as Russia entered the digital age, these practices were implemented into the new forms of media, most notably, the television and internet. Propaganda and censorship were forced to accommodate to these advancements if those in power would like to continue having a strong grip on media outlets.

         Aside from Russia, a practical place to observe modern-day censorship is China. While Mao Zedong was in power, he exercised an intense control of the media. The mainstream news was solely propaganda, and entertainment, such as the distribution, was state sponsored. In Mao’s China, “there was a conflation between entertainment and political propaganda because… the only entertainment they had were these movies which of course had very strong political messages. In a lot of ways, propaganda equaled entertainment.” (Ma). For example, the movie “Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy” (1970), one of the most watched movies of all time, depicts the Communist Party of the protagonist and the hero. The government put strong efforts into airing this movie, and even pressures citizens to watch it. Technology was used as a tool, and the Soviet Union observed these tactics and mirrored them in their own society. The Soviet Union mastered the combination of heavy censorship and wide-spread propaganda, and had one of the most “effective, comprehensive, and institutionalized systems of propaganda and censorship in history” (Ma). The government wanted propaganda to affect Russian culture, and viewed themselves as “engineers of the human soul… the production of souls is more important than the production of tanks” (Ma). Although the military was one of Stalin’s greatest focuses, rewiring the minds of his subjects was of utmost importance to spread his ideals and views for a Communist nation.

         As the Soviet Union disbanded in 1991 and the twenty first century became the age of instant information, the implementation of propaganda and strategies of censorship began to change. Veronica Ma’s article, courtesy of JSTOR, continues to describe what the introduction of the internet to society means for the spread of information. Ma explains that this new form of media, the internet, has allowed for “rapid and easy dissemination of information” (Ma). Through firewalls and deleted posts, it is difficult for the government to control the flow of information. Furthermore, information borders no longer coincide with state borders, making it “increasingly difficult for propogandists to make falsehoods believable and truths evadable,” (Ma). For Russia and China alike, this changes how these nations must confront information. One step taken by these governments has been to replace popular websites such as Facebook and Twitter with state-controlled social media sites with their own censorship standards that typically involve the removal of posts with anti-government viewpoints. However, these strategies tend to backfire because it is making the public more aware of the political environment, as they are able to observe what types of posts are quickly taken down. In Russia, a combination of silencing the truth and spreading misleading information is used, and it is difficult for the public to gauge what is true and what is not, if they question the media at all. The author of the article cites “a recent study by Levada Analytical Center concluded that 94 percent of Russians consider the television to be their main source of news; and that only eight percent believe that television fives a false picture of evens in the world by manipulating people’s minds. Many gladly watch Kremlin reports, even if some are hesitant to fully trust them” (Ma). Clearly, the Kremlin constructs its own narratives, as news stations report from a pro-Russia perspective, silence domestic voices, jails opposition journalists, and shut down opposition stations. Citizens use the internet to take the truth into their own hands, such as StopFake.org, to “[expose] what they deemed to be false news crafted by the Kremlin,” but the struggle to find credible sources remains (Ma).

         As previously noted, propaganda was crucial to Soviet politics. Vitaly F. Konzhukov elaborates in his article, “Post-Communist Media in Russia,” the political climate directly prior to and after the fall of the Soviet Union, and how this affected the media. Under Gorbachev, who was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1985-1990) then president (1990-1991), and his perestroika campaign, “he apparently considered a liberated media instrumental to his reforms, but was reluctant to loosen control over them, so he set certain limits on media glasnost (openness),” (Konzhukov). Gorbachev rarely denounced conservative publications, and if he did, it was those who consistently and vigorously criticized him. Media freedoms were expanding until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, which was followed by economic chaos and political instability. In 1992, Yeltsin’s economic reforms lifted government price controls, and all Russian media were on the verge of bankruptcy. Under Communism, media outlets were all not-for-profit and state-controlled propaganda financed by the Party. After the fall of the Soviet Union, journalists and editors became “privates,” and prices skyrocketed. Publications were given no choice but to appeal for government help to survive, but in turn had to give up their newly won independence. In February of 1992, Yeltsin signed an executive order “about additional measures for legal and economic defense of periodical press and state book publishing,” (Konzhukov). The executive order consisted of restoring fixed prices for medias such as newspapers, “guaranteed supplies for state book publishing, [which] must be approved by the Ministry of Press and Mass Information of the Russian Federation,” making medias “exempt from paying taxes on their hard currency revenues,” and special funds to reimburse for distribution and delivery expenses (Konzhukov). These new regulations once again, make the television and radio stations fall under government, or Yeltsin’s, control and had to adhere to the “party line,” strengthening the control of the president. To further depict the lack of freedom following the fall of the Soviet Union, the Soviet “Law on the Press and Other Mass Media,” adopted in 1990 was simply replaced by the “Russian Federation Law on the Mass Media” in 1991. The law proclaimed that proper censorship was “inadmissible,” yet all media organizations were required to register with the Ministry of Press and Information. And, registration may be denied and silenced if the media bore “criminal, administrative, disciplinary, or other responsibilities” (Konzhukov). Even amongst the approved media organizations, there was a passion for sensationalism and lack of professional standards, leading to many libel cases against those sources. There were also issues with facts and accuracy, especially historical, a lack of access to correct information, and Russia depicting itself as the hero in its own narrative. The Communist Party may have fallen, but the standards for the media follow the same blueprint of deception, where propaganda and censorship remain prominent.

         As tensions rose in Russia and political unrest continued, the government did not loosen its grip on the media. According to an article from The Economist titled, “Reading and Running Between the Lines,” in 2002, the Duma began debating amendments to the media law to restrict reporting of ‘anti-terrorist’” events or “statements of people trying to stop an anti-terrorist operation,” (The Economist). Critics thought that this would be used as an excuse to avoid coverage of the war in Chechnya, and in fear on censorship, editors banned together and petitioned President Vladimir Putin to veto the amendments, promising that they would impose self-regulation. Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky, two media magnates now in exile, aired criticisms of Putin and how he mishandled the disastrous sinking of the Kursk submarine in 2000. In response, the government took advantage of the channel’s financial problems and took over. Putin had also lashed out against NTV for not fully obeying Kremlin orders on broadcasting during the hostage crisis, where a group of hostages were rescued from Chechen rebels. Other radio stations were taken off air or threated by FSB (the internal security service) raids or tax police during the hostage crisis, as well. Versiya, a Moscow newspaper, went to press with an article questioning the official death toll after the hostage affair, but the FSB took away its computer server. This government response to criticism created concerns for the 2004 presidential election, because Putin uses the media to manipulate public opinion. The Economist article quotes Yevgeny Kiselyov, the TV (former NTV) editor-in-chief, that “it is thanks to the television channels that Putin got elected and that an unknown figure became a national leader with a sky-high rating in a matter of months” (The Economist). Putin sees the media solely as an instrument to advance his own goals and achieve his own success.

         When discussing Putin’s relationship with the internet, it is important to define the nature of the internet in Russia and its users. The internet is not universal nor the same in all parts of the globe, and the internet in Russia caters to a specific audience, as described in “The RuNet – Lost in Translation,” an article by Karina Alexanyan for the Russian Analytical Digest. Those who use the internet in Russia are typically urban and educated people, which accounts for about a third of the Russian population. And out of that third, the internet is used frequently; eighty percent of users use it at least once per week and fifty-five percent use it at least once per day. Additionally, the rate of growth of internet users is exponential, growing from five to thirty percent between 2002 and 2009. It is also observed that the higher the income and education, the higher the internet use; almost sixty-five percent of internet users have advanced degrees. The Russian Analytical Digest article further notes that internet users and non-users pay attention to different sources of information. The sources of information available in Russia are the television, internet, books, print, radio, and relatives or friends. The television is the leading source of interesting and trusted information, though the internet is catching up. Unlike the United States, where there are public and private blogs with different focuses and intended audiences, the Russian web is uniquely Russia. The article states that “Russian blogs blur the line between public and private, and between blogging and social networking programs” (Alexanyan). Therefore, the information spreading in Russia is specific, yet blurred, and different sources will reach different groups within the Russian population.

         With the continuity of censorship of the media, Russian blogs have become a place for political dialogue and spreading information that traditional media restricts. Eugene Gorney elaborates these ideas in his article titled “Understanding the Real Impact of Russian Blogs,” published by the Russian Analytical Digest. To begin, Gorney defines the blogosphere as “the totality of all blogs and their interconnections,” which “is not homogeneous but consists of distinct networks shaped by users with common or intersecting interest who interact with each other” (Gorney). The blogosphere, which is a big and growing platform, is a way to understand what people in Russia, particularly internet users, really think. The blogosphere is a self-contained platform that remains isolated from the rest of the internet and the rest of the world. The main purpose of the Russian blogosphere is for Russians to communicate with other Russians about Russian topics; dialogue with foreign bloggers is rare, and if done, are in mockery. These “Russian topics” typically involve dialogue about the government, and are extensively used for documenting corruption and social injustices, and includes uncensored discussion about current events that cannot exist on other platforms. Although this seems to be a liberating feature in terms of free speech, there is a disconnect between the internet and the political regime itself. Many discussions do not lead to organized action because much of its content is humor and resentment towards to government. Gorney’s articles cites a recent study by Fossato, Lloyd and Vekhovsky (2008) that the internet in Russia has been perceived as “antidote to state dominance… a liberator, a tool whose possession, or ability to access, allow individuals, oppositional parties and NGOs to escape the control the state can exercise over TV and radio channels, and the press” (Gorney). The power of the blogosphere is ultimately limited because there is yet to be individual and social liberation. Therefore, it is debatable as to if the blogosphere is replacement for the lacking Russian public sphere. The article defines the public sphere as “an area in social life where people can get together and freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action” (Gorney). Gorney further explains that public spheres center around the idea of “participatory democracy, and how public opinion becomes political action,” and that “legitimate governments are those that listen to the public sphere” (Gorney). Based on the set definitions of this article, it is unlikely that the author would consider Russia a legitimate government or the blogosphere an accurate replacement for the public sphere. Russia’s government is one alienated from its people, that serves its own interests over the people, that does not listen to dialogue, and that serves the elite over the public good. The blogosphere is currently the closest substitute for what democracy could look like, but cannot, for the most part, interact with the government or initiate the changes its participants would like to see.

         Another way that citizens have been combatting censorship is the creation of secret phone and messaging apps, which are gaining worldwide usership. Steve Rosenbush, in his article for the Wall Street Journal regarding the subject, writes that the main focus of these apps is a focus on privacy not only in Russia, but worldwide in a post-Snowden world. To give context, in Spring of 2013, Edward Snowden leaked documents about the extent of NSA surveillance, leading towards the production of more secure devices. One of these apps is Telegram Messenger, which encrypts the messages sent between users and is backed by Russian entrepreneur Pavel Durov, founder of Russian social network VKontakte. Durov claims that “The number one reason for me to support and help launch Telegram was to build a means of communication that can’t be accessed by the Russian security agencies,” and is so confident in its security that he offers a $200,000 bounty to anyone who can hack it (Rosenbush). These apps are in early stages of development, but are becoming a way to bypass propaganda and censorship, and a new way to spread information. It is still uncertain as to how the Russian government will respond to these advancements and how they will continue their narratives.

         The propaganda seen in the Soviet era was the blueprint for what censorship, particularly in Russia, has become today. When a new platform of media is introduced, the government seeks to find a way to use it as an instrument in continuing previous goals. It is unlikely that the any government will completely free of censorship and propaganda, and each nation will believe that it is the hero in its own narrative. As for Russia, given Putin’s records of time and time again, manipulating facts and history to fit his own agenda and achieve his own goals, it is unlikely that he will abandon his core strategies. The internet may be a space for dialogue, but in terms of action, may not have the strength to initiate change in countries with rule closer to authoritarianism than not. Just as when the Soviet Union took advantage of the television for propaganda, it may do the same with the internet. However, the internet is unique in the fact that it is not so easy for the government to have a grip on sources outside the mainstream news outlets. It is important to note that it is only a third of the Russian population that uses the internet, and even less that are considered “liberated” from Putin’s manipulation. The majority of Russia’s only source of news are the television or radio stations that only broadcast the news Putin wants to deliver and from his own point of view. With the advantages brought by the internet in terms of truth, it equally acts as a propagator of falsehood.

Works Cited

Alexanyan, Karina, and Palo Alto. “The RuNet - Lost in Translation.” Russian Analytical Digest, Russian Analytical Digest, 14 Dec. 2009, css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/RAD-69.pdf.

Orwell, George. 1984. London: Secker and Warburg, 1949.

Gorney, Eugene. “Understanding the Real Impact of Russian Blogs.” Russian Analytical Digest, Russian Analytical Digest, 14 Dec. 2009, css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/RAD-69.pdf.

Konzhukov, Vitaly F. “Post-Communist Media in Russia.” E-Political Socialization, the Press and Politics: The Media and Government in the USA, Europe and China, edited by Christ’l De Landtsheer et al., Peter Lang AG, Frankfurt Am Main, 2014, pp. 241–248. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2t4csq.15. Accessed 25 Nov. 2020.

Ma, Veronica. “Propaganda and Censorship: Adapting to the Modern Age.” Harvard International Review, vol. 37, no. 2, 2016, pp. 46–50. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26445580. Accessed 25 Nov. 2020

McMillan, Robert. “New Report Points to How Russian Misinformation May Have Adapted Since 2016 Election.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 16 June 2020, www.wsj.com/articles/russia-linked-disinformation-campaign-spread-messages-across-multiple-platforms-to-elude-detection-new-report-says-11592319829.

“Reading and Running between the Lines.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, www.economist.com/europe/2003/01/09/reading-and-running-between-the-lines.

Rosenbush, Steve. “Secret Phones and Messaging Apps Are Taking Off.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 3 Mar. 2014, blogs.wsj.com/cio/2014/03/03/secret-phones-and-messaging-apps-are-taking-off/.

“Unplugged.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, www.economist.com/europe/2003/06/26/unplugged.Description text goes here

            When a series of tomb burials were found in Vergina (ancient Aegae) in 1977 by Professor Manolis Andronicus, it was first claimed that the second tomb belonged to King Philip II, father of Alexander the Great. Since the discovery, more evidence arose supporting the original claim that this tomb did belong to Philip II. However, the question of who has been buried in Tomb II has become a controversy, as archeologists and scholars argue over who has been buried, Philip II or his son, half-brother to Alexander, Phillip III. Given the state of the remains, there has not been conclusive evidence that proves one side to be true over the other without a doubt. When assessing the provided articles, there are three aspects of research put into consideration of Tomb II: the bones themselves, the items left amongst the dead, and the type of burial. When looking at the discoveries made between these three categories, the most evidence points to the fact that the original claim stands: the tomb must belong to Philip II and not Philip III.

            The leading pieces of evidence that support that Tomb II belongs to Philip II are the injuries observed on the skeletal remains, which match with the injuries that Philip II endured as a soldier. At first glance, the possible right eye injury reflected in the skull was not enough to conclude that it undoubtedly belonged to Philip II. Antonis Bartsiokas in his article “The Eye Injury of King Philip II and the Skeletal Evidence from the Royal Tomb II at Vergina” stated that “evidence of trauma supposedly in the orbital bones of the skull has been thought to correspond to an eye injury that King Phillip II is historically known to have suffered. However, reexamination of the orbital morphology showed no evidence of such pathology. Therefore, the skeleton does not belong to Phillip II.” (Bartsiokas 511). Bartsiokas further explains that what seem to be injuries could instead be degenerative changes, and that the eye injury may have not been a blinding one, so it is not enough to confidently claim that this is Philip II.

            Building on this research, a different conclusion is made by Johnathan H. Musgrave in his article “The Skull from Tomb II at Vergina: King Philip II of Macedon.” His research supports the claim that these remains are those of Philip II, as the injuries of the body precisely match with the king. After more time studying, the remains “[demonstrate] enough asymmetries and anatomical peculiarities to allow the suggestion that the last word may not have been said,” (Musgrave 61). It is true that bones can become warped with cremation, as these have been, but there are still signs of injury as a result from trauma that is separate from the cremation and degeneration process (Musgrave 63-65). Furthermore, in A.J.N.W. Prag’s “Reconstructing King Philip II: The ‘Nice’ Version,” Prag cites the facial reconstruction of King Philip’s face at the University of Manchester and how researchers noticed similar information about the skull, which had broken into pieces and been cremated with the body (Prag 237). Therefore, scientists are trying to determine what parts were lost from cremation and what deformities resulted from injury. Not only do the injuries of Philip match to the remains, notably on the right eye, but so does evidence of the healing process. Prag’s article discusses Kritoboulos, a “prominent medial figure at the Macedonian court,” who tended to Alexander’s wounds from battle. Prag also describes Diokles’s spoon and the difficulty of removing an arrow, especially from the eye. Philip would have suffered tremendously, and the remains portray that he had undergone a medical procedure and recovered, but not without serious scarring.

            Regarding Philip’s blindness in his right eye, the only evidence against the hypothesis that Tomb II belongs to him is not well-founded. There are sources, such as Bartsiokas’s article, that claim that the injury is not clear due to degeneration, or that it may not have been enough to blind him. Or perhaps, as Alice Swift Reginos argues in her article, that we do not necessarily know fact from fiction, such as if Philip II even lost an eye. However, these arguments are conjectures, whereas the most research aligns with Philip II rather than Philip III. Even though there is not enough information to certainly rule out Philip III, Philip II has much more conclusive evidence.

            Another important consideration in deciding who was buried in Tomb II is analyzing what items were left with the dead and what historical significance they had. Where the skeletal remains fail to give context, these items may fill in those gaps and help give an accurate time frame. In Adronicus’s article “The Royal Tombs at Aigai (Vergina),” he categorizes these findings into: (1) “the weapons of a dead man,” (2) “large vessels used mainly for storing, heating, and drawing water,” (3) “silver vases, mainly for wine,” and (4) “clay pottery,” (Adronicus 218). The tomb was not left empty, and this signifies that that the people buried here were of high status. Because of the extravagance of these items, N.G.L. Hammond says in his article “The Evidence for the Identity of the Royal Tombs at Vergina” that “Tomb 2 is that of a king,” before he lists some of the items, such as “the heavy gold coffer, the gold wreath of oak-leaves and acorns, the gold-wrapped sceptre 2m long, [and] the ceremonial shield of gold…” (Hammond 116-117). Similarly, Andronicus referenced the items often left with men, such as rich jewelry, bracelets, and sometimes diadems, but also the helmets, shields, and weapons of soldiers. In reference to the weaponry, Andronicus states that “for the first time we have before us the complete panoply of a distinguished warrior.” (Andronicus 220). These belongings tell archeologists who this person was, where in society they came from, perhaps their skills and occupation, and their value to others. This information helps researchers make conclusions about who this tomb belongs to because of the context these findings give.

            To further elaborate on the items in the tomb, the findings also help archeologists pinpoint dates and other specific details. For example, as stated in Hammond’s article, the pots date back to approximately 350-320 B.C., and the shrine inside was from 350-325 B.C. (Hammond 114). Additionally, swords, armor, and a helmet of Alexander were found in the tomb, which could be seen in the mosaic as well, helping verify their origin. This armor, as Hammond puts it, was “appropriate for the time of Philip II death” (Hammond 119). There is also the issue of the diadem found and what it signifies about the time period, thus who was buried. As stated by E.A. Fredricksmeyer in “Once More the Diadem and Barrel-Vault at Vergina,” he claims that, in opposition to Lehmann’s arguments, that the diadem found in the tomb does not have to come from a time after Philip II. In fact, there is a coin with him wearing it, and other evidence to suggest that it was a headpiece that was worn by royalty in the region at that time (Fredericksmeyer 99). On another note, the Andronius article touches on the ivory heads that were found, one clearly the young Alexander, another most likely Philip II, and the third probably Olympias. Putting into consideration the number of regalia pertaining to Alexander and the ivory heads, it is more sensical for the remains to be of Philip II. This is not a random burial, but one made with intention to honor these members of the royal family, as seen by the care that went into creating their space and the later establishment of an altar. Putting the pieces of information together about the tomb, bodies aside, further proves why it must be Philip II.

            Finally, it is important to understand the type of burial seen here in Vergina. This tomb is referred to as a “barrel-vault” by E.A. Fredricksmeyer in his article “Again the So-Called Tomb of Philip II.” He counters the arguments made by Lehmann, who is on the opposing side of the debate, claiming that the Tomb II must belong to Philip III. Fredricksmeyer cites Lehmann’s statement that “a fully-developed barrel-vaulted tomb could not have been built [in Macedonia] in 336 B.C.” (Fredericksmeyer 333). However, this assertion is false. Inspiration for barrel-vaults came from Persia, and Macedonia has a history of interest in Persian architecture during Philip II’s reign (Fredericksmeyer 333-334). It is most likely that ideas were exchanged between the two regions. Additionally, the detail that metal diadems have been found in tombs at Vergina and the North Aegean as early as 1000-7000 BC suggests that burials in this area were not unknown of during the time of Philip II and Alexander the Great.

            If there was a clear answer to this question of who Tomb II belongs to, Philip II or Philip III, this would not be a controversy in the archeological community. Due to the thousands of years that have passed, archeologists, scientists, and historians do not have all the resources that had once existed about Philip II and his family. Therefore, they must take the little remaining evidence, decide what is legitimate, and piece together the narrative. It may never be clear exactly who inhabited this tomb, but as of now, the evidence gathered from the site and combined with historical knowledge, concludes that it must be Philip II.

            Historians may argue if the title of “Alexander the Great” was deserved: if Alexander was a ruler who paved the way for Macedonian success or if he was an inadequate leader who could not have done so without his father’s accomplishments and earned admiration. What primarily kept Alexander focused on his mission through Greece and further East was not his military skill nor efforts towards an orchestrated end goal, but rather his spite and the philosophy he acquired from a young age. From his early education in Macedon to his expeditions in Asia, the belief in arete, achieving the highest level of excellence, remained consistent in his efforts, carrying him through the peak of his accomplishments to his downfall and loss of popularity amongst his own men. Therefore, labeling Alexander as a philosopher king is the most accurate title he may be given, and an indisputable analysis of his character.

            First, it is important to establish the atmosphere of Alexander’s early life to understand how the philosophy of arete manifested into the personality of his later years. As a child, Alexander’s father, Philip II, was an esteemed military commander as well as king of Macedon, and was absent for the majority of his son’s life (Plutarch, Alex Ch.5). Alexander was curious about his father’s affairs, and was known to enter conversations with ambassadors (Plutarch, Alex Ch.5). Furthermore, Plutarch explains that “whenever [Alexander] heard Philip had…won any signal victory, instead of rejoicing at it altogether, he would tell his companions that his father would anticipate everything, and leave [his enemies] no opportunities of performing great and illustrious actions” (Plutarch, Alex Ch.5). This interest demonstrated that Alexander had a strong sense of what was considered great, and that his father was successful for improving the Macedonian state. He noted that the traits his father possessed were honorable and key to success as a ruler and conqueror, and perhaps he saw this as the baseline for where he must begin if he were to become his successor. He was already thinking militaristically, far earlier than his peers, and he could not help himself but analyze how his father led his men to victory, and the thought process of a commander. It is also important to consider that this mentality occurred before his education on arete and before he understood the philosophies that Aristotle was yet to teach him.

            Plutarch regards Aristotle as “the most learned and most celebrated philosopher of his time,” and thus Alexander was sent to the Gardens of Midas to receive an education from him (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 7). When assessing the education of Alexander, which included a wide range of topics, Plutarch states that he “received from [Aristotle] not only his doctrines of Morals and of Politics, but also something of those more abstruse and profound theories which these philosophers… professed to reserve for oral communication to the initiated, and did not allow many to become acquainted with” (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 7). Understanding philosophy was key to practicing politics, therefore philosophy, particularly arete, were crucial to Alexander’s education and foundation of morality. Additionally, both philosophers, such as Aristotle, and their students, like Alexander, understood that this information was only available in these lessons because of its value. It was not a simple concept, nor did they believe that it should be available for just anyone to acquire. Following arete and becoming the most accomplished in all his pursuits, currently in education and later as king, was guarded information and was taught because it was an idea that in practice, worked to achieve greatness. On one hand, military training built his army, and is practiced amongst the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that have fought for him. But only the few were educated in philosophy, and this made him feel unique and elite.

            At the age of twenty, Philip II was murdered, and Alexander had been chosen to be his successor (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 11). Alexander’s forces had come from his father, and they valued him, therefore Alexander felt the pressure to live up to the former king (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 11). As previously established, Philip set this standard for greatness, and Alexander’s actions could be interpreted as trying to honor his legacy and expand on what he had accomplished, or to outdo his father and be a greater king. Either way, philosophy and arete is at the core of his motivation.

            In 335 BCE, Alexander invaded Thebes (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 11). There were some who tried persuading Alexander to win Thebes over in gentle means, rather than by the force of arms (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 11). However, Alexander “rejected this council as weak and timorous, and looked upon it to be more prudence to secure himself by resolution and magnanimity” (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 11). The city was then brutally “taken by storm, was sacked and razed,” slaughtering the civilians inside and in the aftermath, [demanded] their obedience (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 11). This event suggested that Alexander intended not only to win, but to win big. In his view, this tactic conquered over diplomatic means. He constructed his plans to not leave room for negotiation; the other side was to submit by force. He wanted to be the best, but part of achieving this goal was to also be feared and send the message that his conquests will be on his terms.

            In 333 BCE, Darius wrote Alexander a letter “requesting him to accept as a ransom of his captives the sum of a thousand talents, and offering him in exchange for his amity and alliance all the countries on this side of the river Euphrates, together with one of his daughters in marriage,” but Alexander refused (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 28). Alexander’s choice here stems back to his prideful personality and once again, the teachings of Aristotle in arete. Alexander’s obsession with his image is growing, and he refuses to partake in any action that will make him out to be weak. He believes that if he refuses to fight Darius, his image will be tainted with cowardice. And if he intends to defeat Darius, it will be grand and victorious, and not through diplomacy. He wants all to know he is the most powerful conqueror who will not back down from battle, even if this results in unwise and costly decision making. Alexander knows that Darius’ army is larger than his by a landslide, but him declining his offer is calculated: he flips it, so Darius is the one who is weak for being the one to reach out to him.

            As Alexander and his troops conquered land in Asia, one of Alexander’s methods was to adopt the cultures he encountered along the way, with the hopes of better integrating his rule onto the lands (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 45). Due to arete, Alexander had the confidence that this would lead to a unity of all humankind, though this goal sounded more fair than it actually was in practice. Plutarch explains that when Alexander marched into Parthia, “he first put on the barbaric dress, perhaps with the view of making the work of civilizing them the easier” (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 45). This aspect of Alexander’s conquest demonstrates that as he went further east, he knew that he had to appeal to a greater range of constituents, and that this “unity” would make him the greatest leader who the masses are able to adjust to. However, this plan had flaws because not only did his Asian acquisitions go back to native control soon after his death, but he also still viewed them as primitive and in need of civilization (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 45).

            However, the Macedonian soldiers were not pleased with Alexander adopting eastern cultures, as Plutarch states that “this practice brought [them] grief” (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 45). Additionally, his personality was becoming increasingly difficult, but his goal in mind remained the same: being the greatest by expanding the Macedonian empire (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 50). Furthermore, Alexander was still concerned with his arete, and it continued to drive his decision-making during these years. Although this continued to motivate him, it had made him into a character who was much more paranoid and aggressive than ever before, and who became violent and irritated at the sound of criticism from his own men (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 50). In Asia, Alexander called for Cleitus to join him and a group of men at supper, where the two got into a disagreement (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 50). Drunkenly, Cleitus told Alexander that “it was not well done to expose the Macedonians before the barbarians and their enemies, since though it was their unhappiness to be overcome” (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 50). And when Alexander calls him a coward, Cleitus responds that he had saved his life, that Alexander wrongfully disowned his father by calling himself the son of Ammon, and that the soldiers feel that they are being punished by Alexander (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 50). So, Alexander stabs Cleitus with a spear, killing him (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 50). Because his pride and philosophy were criticized, Alexander was frequently drawn to anger, which demonstrated that arete was starting to take a negative toll on his well-being and actions. He had become too confident in his abilities, to the fact that he mistook criticism for betrayal, holding onto philosophy above even relationships and comradery. Although Alexander continued to be concentrated on being the greatest, it had become a flaw and he was losing support of his men quickly.

            Parmenio would tell Alexander, “my son, to be not quite so great would be better,” which accurately reflects where Alexander’s philosophical beliefs led him to in the end (Plutarch, Alex Ch. 48). He had always been focused on arete above all else, which inspired him through his successes, but also led him to his failure. Out of the varying lenses that historians may analyze Alexander under, the most accurate would be to view him as a philosopher. It is the trait of his that was unchanging, and has motivated him since before he ascended to the throne. Alexander, great or not, can be set apart as someone devoted to trying to become great, and carrying his philosophical lessons long after his days of being a child in Macedon and student of Aristotle.

I found Zoe Boyd’s podcast No Straight Answers before I even watched my very first hockey game.

Zoe Boyd is a defenseman for the Boston Fleet, one of the eight ice hockey teams that make up the Professional Women’s Hockey League (PWHL). The PWHL was founded in 2023, originally with six teams (Boston, Minnesota, New York, Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto) before expanding the league to Seattle and Vancouver in 2025. The Ontario native began her PWHL career playing for the Ottawa Charge before joining the Fleet for the 2025-26 season.

Zoe launched her podcast on July 14th, 2025. She describes the vibe of her podcast as the following:

“Step onto the ice with Zoe Boyd, professional women’s hockey player and queer icon for No Straight Answers – the podcast where sports, and queer culture collide with comedy and chaos.

Each episode, Zoe sits down with the biggest queer voices, from athletes to entertainers, for unfiltered conversations about everything from sports to identity, and all the hilarious moments in between.”

The podcast resonates with queer individuals because of the conversation around the serious, and often scary, reality that comes along with discovering one’s identity, but also highlights the joys, sparkled with humor, of being part of the community. What stands out about this podcast is its pure authenticity, Zoe’s personality, and it's feeling like friends catching up over coffee. Hosted by a professional hockey player, fans of the sport and fellow athletes may be the target audience, but anyone can find a piece of themselves in the stories shared by Zoe and her guests.

The discussion of the queer experience, particularly in the hockey world, gained momentum due to the global phenomenon that is Heated Rivalry. Heated Rivalry follows the slow-burn romance between Shane Hollander and Ilya Rozanov, hockey players from opposing teams. The two are given no choice but to be closeted, as the show serves as a commentary on the toxic masculinity and lack of acceptance of queer people in men’s hockey. There are currently no out athletes playing in the NHL—and there is, as the show illustrates, a reason for that. And not only is the rampant homophobia in the NHL a hardship that the characters face, but it is also the process of self-discovery and emotional vulnerability in a world where one’s identity is controversial.

In an interview with Andy Cohen on Sirius XM Radio, Heated Rivalry actor Hudson Williams voiced that various closeted athletes have come forward, messaging author Rachel Reid who relays the messages to Hudson, that the show is cathartic, as it reflects their experience. This proves that the queer experience needs to be brought to light, and that the Heated Rivalry story is the reality for many people.

This then begs the question, what about women’s hockey? The good news is, women’s hockey is much more accepting and queer-friendly. Not only are there many out hockey players, but if you go to any PWHL game, you are surrounded by queer people. I remember the first PWHL game I attended (go Torrent!), a lesbian couple got engaged on the kiss cam, and it was beautiful to see them celebrated.

An episode of No Straight Answers that I recommend starting with features PWHL goalie Carly “CJ” Jackson of the Seattle Torrent, where they share their queer coming of age story, personal growth and advice, and love for hockey with Zoe. Both being queer athletes, and CJ being the first out nonbinary hockey player in the PWHL the two touch on their experiences, including labels and gender identity, first gay dating experiences, and learning self-acceptance. A big part of self-acceptance is facing the challenge of internalized homophobia— the fear of becoming the slur that kids threw around at school and denying the gay allegations. Zoe, for example, talks about how she went from hoping she wasn’t a lesbian to saying:

“Being gay is the coolest thing about me.”

There is a difference between what you’re expected to be versus giving yourself the space to explore your identity and be curious. Be patient with yourself, and don’t be afraid to be creative and exist outside the binary. Things will work out the way they’re meant to, and although the phrase has been thrown around the internet, it’s true: “don’t chase, attract.”

Furthermore, Zoe and CJ talk about hockey and how it relates to their queerness and journey of self-acceptance. A lot of PWHL players are gay, and the two believe that this is due to the openness of women’s sports. A notable pioneer is Megan Rapinoe, a professional U.S. soccer player, who has been out since 2012 and advocating for the LGBT community. Athletes such as Rapinoe have played a part in not only bringing visibility to the LGBT community, but making women’s sports an accepting place for future players. The openness of sports can also be accredited to the community of fans, as they share their love and support for queer athletes and each other.

This support for the queer community can also be seen in the anticipation of the film Pink Light, written by Harrison Browne, the first out trans hockey player. After retiring from hockey, Harrison began his acting career, where he continues to advocate for the trans community. For this project, Harrison brought on CJ Jackson to play his younger self. IMDB describes this film as:

“Time [traveling] to [Harrison’s] pre-transition past, finding his earlier self-waiting for life to start only to discover he was already the person he’d become.”

CJ describes hockey’s role in this film, and in real life, as the bridge between the two versions of Harrison. Harrison is also a familiar face to those who have seen Heated Rivalry, as he landed the role of Connors, one of Ilya’s teammates in the series.

For fans of women’s sports, particularly hockey—I cannot recommend this podcast enough. The episodes are received well online, as seen by comments across all social media platforms. If you are looking for your sign to get into the PWHL, this is it. Even if sports aren’t your thing, the podcast can be relatable to the queer, or more broadly human, experience. Queer stories deserve to be told, and women’s sports deserve to be in the spotlight. This podcast contributes to that movement, and on a less serious note, is such a fun listen.

Works Cited

“PWHL Seattle's Carly Jackson on their RELATIONSHIP STATUS 👀, gay awakening, and pronouns.” No Straight Answers, hosted by Zoe Boyd, Episode 3, Spotify, 18 September 2025, https://open.spotify.com/episode/0Vx352DlypjW3o9CpbHFdZ?si=38fe0d0fe06848b2 .

Other sources referenced include episodes of No Straight Answers (Spotify), interviews, official PWHL announcements, and publicly available articles and media coverage that I can supply if needed.