Formal Works
The Power of Choice
The power of choice has long stood as a cornerstone of American democratic ideals. For women, this power, expressed through decisions about their bodies, careers, families, and futures, is both a symbol of progress and a site of continued struggle. Although legal and social advances have broadened the rights available to women, the reality of choice remains complex. Access, context, and constraint all play a role in determining whether choice is genuinely empowering or merely symbolic.
Contemporary narratives of empowerment frequently emphasize individual agency—the right to pursue ambition, to prioritize family, or to redefine both. Yet these choices do not exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by economic conditions, cultural expectations, institutional barriers, and evolving political landscapes. The ability to choose freely depends not only on personal will, but also on the social and structural conditions that support or suppress autonomy.
Reproductive autonomy serves as a central example. The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade once affirmed a constitutional right to abortion, granting women greater control over their bodies and futures. The 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reversed that precedent and shifted the legal terrain entirely. Today, a woman’s ability to make decisions about her reproductive health is determined by her state of residence, financial resources, and proximity to care. For millions, reproductive freedom now functions more as an aspiration than a reality.
Economic and professional choices are similarly fraught. A woman may decide to pause her career to raise children, but that decision is often influenced by inadequate childcare infrastructure, the absence of paid family leave, and workplace cultures that undervalue caregiving. Women who choose to prioritize professional advancement may encounter judgment for defying traditional gender roles. Although these paths are framed as personal choices, they are often the result of navigating an unequal system that limits the range of viable options.
The prevailing discourse around empowerment often assumes equal access to opportunity. In practice, the ability to choose is deeply uneven. Race, income, immigration status, and geographic location continue to shape what women can reasonably expect from their futures. Women of color, particularly Black, Latina, and Indigenous women, face higher rates of maternal mortality, greater economic precarity, and more limited access to healthcare and education. For many, choice is constrained by systemic inequities that have yet to be fully addressed.
Despite these barriers, women continue to act with determination and creativity. Across communities and industries, women are building networks, advancing policy, and claiming leadership positions. Their actions reflect not only personal ambition, but also a commitment to expanding opportunity for others. Still, the individual exercise of choice cannot resolve structural inequalities on its own. For choice to be meaningful, it must be matched by collective investment in justice, care, and equity.
True freedom is not defined solely by the absence of coercion. It depends on the presence of real alternatives and the societal infrastructure that makes those alternatives sustainable. As long as women must choose between compromise and sacrifice, the promise of equality remains incomplete. The future of gender equity in the United States will be determined not only by what women are allowed to choose, but by what they are genuinely empowered to imagine and achieve.
The fetishization of Black men in America is a complex issue with deep historical roots and ongoing social ramifications
Intro:
The ever-evolving relationship between race and power is a persistent force throughout global history. In the United States, this dynamic is especially entangled with the legacies of racism, settler colonialism, and capitalism. Though the country was built by immigrants, it has continuously upheld systems of racial stratification that marginalize people of color. To dismantle these enduring structures, we must examine not only overt acts of racial violence but also subtler, insidious forms of harm, such as the stereotyping and fetishization of Black men. This piece argues that fetishization, while often masked as admiration or desire, is a dehumanizing tool that upholds racial hierarchies by reducing Black men to objects of consumption. By tracing both its historical roots and modern expressions, we can better understand how this dynamic sustains inequality under the guise of attraction.
What is Fetishization?
Fetishization refers to the act of reducing a person to a singular aspect of their identity—often their race—and making that trait the object of sexual desire. For Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC), racial fetishization is not a recent phenomenon but a long-standing global issue rooted in colonial and imperialist histories. Unlike genuine attraction, fetishization relies on stereotypes and generalizations that strip individuals of their complexity and humanity. It can manifest in a variety of ways, from exoticizing language to harmful assumptions about sexual prowess or reproductive value. In the United States, Black individuals bear the brunt of this behavior, facing heightened levels of sexual objectification that echo the nation’s historical patterns of control, commodification, and exploitation.
Historical Roots:
The origins of fetishization can be traced back to colonial practices in which BIPOC were displayed as “curiosities” or treated as exotic trophies. In the context of American slavery, the hypersexualization of Black men was especially intense: their bodies were commodified, viewed as tools of labor and lust, and stripped of individuality and humanity. Phillip Samuels, in his piece “Making Mandingo: Racial Archetypes, Pornography, and Black Male Subjectivity,” explores this legacy through the myth of the “Mandingo”—a racialized archetype that casts Black men as hypersexual and animalistic, often in contrast to white purity. He draws on Celine Parreñas Shimizu’s work “Master-Slave Sex Acts: Mandingo and the Race/Sex Paradox,” in which Shimizu argues, “The moment of the sex act is not only a site of domination, but of self and subject formation as well” (Shimizu, 1999, p. 44). In this dynamic, only the master possesses subjectivity and the capacity for pleasure, while the enslaved is reduced to a vessel. This framework illustrates how sexual domination has historically functioned as a tool of racial hierarchy and dehumanization.
Manifestations in Modern Society:
Modern expressions of fetishization continue to harm Black men in both overt and subtle ways. Phrases like “I want mixed babies,” “I only find Black guys attractive,” and “Lightskins are always players” reveal how attraction can be shaped by racialized assumptions. Media portrayals in films, music, and advertising frequently reinforce harmful archetypes—casting Black men as hypermasculine, criminal, athletic, or sexually dominant.
These stereotypes affect real-world relationships. Black men are often sought out because of assumptions that they are inherently more “masculine” or “dominant,” yet simultaneously face suspicion or fear for these same traits. From being fetishized for their skin color to being labeled “aggressive” because of Afrocentric features, Black men are continually dehumanized through a gaze that reduces them to objects of fantasy and fear. This phenomenon, far from harmless, perpetuates a racial hierarchy masked as personal preference.