Another year has gone by and another book list is going up. The list is more varied than last. Still tons of texts related to grad school, but also a good handful of “I need a break from this crazy pace” reads.
The list is organized into categories of fiction, non-fiction, and poetry/theatre and are listed in date order such that books I read early in the year are listed first and books I read more recently are listed later. And in the rare case in which I wrote a review over at GoodReads, I have included the link.
Wishing you a celebratory end to 2008 and a joyful beginning to 2009!
Fiction
1. The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
2. The Dirty Girls Social Club by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez
3. Uglies (Uglies #1) by Scott Westerfeld
4. My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult
5. Pretties (Uglies #2) by Scott Westerfeld
6. Specials (Uglies #3) by Scott Westerfeld
7. DoOon Mode (Mode #4) by Piers Anthony
8. Falling by Christopher Pike
9. Extras (Uglies #4) by Scott Westerfeld
10. Twilight (Twilight #1) by Stephenie Meyer
11. New Moon (Twilight #2) by Stephenie Meyer
12. Ender's Game (Ender's Saga #1) by Orson Scott Card
13. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie
14. Eclipse (Twilight #3) by Stephenie Meyer
Non-fiction
1. "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?": A Psychologist Explains the Development of Racial Identity by Beverly Daniel Tatum
2. Two or Three Things I Know for Sure by Dorothy Allison (semi-autobiographical)
3. Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches by Jerry W. Willis
4. Conceptualizing and Proposing Qualitative Research by Thomas H. Schram
5. Purchasing Power: Black Kids and American Consumer Culture by Elizabeth Chin
6. A Guide to Qualitative Field Research by Carol A. Bailey
7. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences by Irving Seidman
8. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes by Robert M. Emerson
9. Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics by bell hooks
10. Feminist Theory: The Intellectual Traditions by Josephine Donovan
11. Separate Roads to Feminism: Black, Chicana, and White Feminist Movements in America's Second Wave by Benita Roth
12. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies edited by Sandra G. Harding
13. Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer by Riki Anne Wilchins
14. Blink by Malcolm Gladwell
15. Not the Religious Type: Confessions of a Turncoat Atheist by Dave Schmelzer
Poetry & Theatre
1. The Vagina Monologues: 10th Anniversary Edition by Eve Ensler
2. The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros (poetry & vignettes)
3. Poems 4 A.M. by Susan Minot (poetry)
4. A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry
I read a very interesting article in Nature recently that got my brain going (which, ironically, is kind of a joke once you hear what this article was about). Essentially, the authors -- a team of 7 scientists in the U.S. and U.K. -- are advocating for the rights of healthy adults to boost their brain power through the use of pills and are in support of the continued science that would support such a cultural shift.
The commentary opens with a discussion of growing trends on college campuses for students to buy and sell drugs like Adderall and Ritalin (you know, the stimulants typically prescribed to folks with ADHD), not to get high, but to get better grades -- to enhance their brain functioning in a way that gives them a leg-up in the academic rat-race. (On a side note, I also often hear stories of upper/middle-class soccer moms (and many others) becoming Ritalin junkies as they try to keep up with the pressures of day-to-day life, but the authors don't talk about these folks.)
Overall, the scientists saythat "We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function" and that doing so with pills is the moral equivalent of undertaking a healthy diet, regular exercise, or ample sleep. They say:
"The drugs just reviewed [Ritalin, Adderall, Provigil], along with the newer technologies such as brain stimulation and prosthetic brain chips, should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology -- ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself."
Brain scientist Martha Farah, one of the article's authors, said that once such brain-boosting pills are developed and marketed, "Almost everybody is going to want to use it."
Okay. Uh. I have to stop here. 'Almost everybody'?! Are you kidding me?! If that's true, you're talking to one sad girl who is losing faith in humanity by the second. For argument's sake, let me try to explain myself. First, my gut is saying that we as a culture are looking at all of this from the totally wrong perspective. If so many people are in situations in which they feel such an extreme pressure to perform -- whether the context be grades, jobs, or day-to-day duties and responsibilities -- and they are turning to brain-altering drugs to 'keep up,' why is our cultural response to 'fix' normal, human (and apparently 'slow') brain functioning rather than to 'fix' a culture that demands greater than human abilities of us? Do you see what I'm saying?! These scientists seem to go along with the assumption that the 'problem' to be solved is human inefficiency, rather than unrealistic cultural expectations. So rather than change the system, we try to change the individual, with mind and body-altering medical intervention. That does not sit well with me. At all.
Anticipating my potential disdain for their pro-cognitive-enhancing banter, the authors try to derail three common arguments against brain pills (my word, not theirs): 1) They're cheating. 2) They're unnatural. 3) They entail drug abuse.
My thoughts and responses: 1) Brain pills are cheating. I care little about this argument. I'm not a fan of cheating. I think it sucks. But in my personal interests, I care less about HOW folks are cheating than WHY they feel they have to do so and addressing those issues first, working to eliminate the desire to cheat rather than punishing those who do. Even so, these scientists argue that brain pills aren't a form of cheating at all. Rather, they suggest, that all forms of intervention modify brain function -- be it getting a good night's sleep, finding a good strategy for relieving stress, getting a private tutor, or drinking a double shot of espresso. And I agree. Yes, all the actions of my life have the potential to affect my brain function, some for the better and some not so much. My concern comes with the manipulative, 'unnatural' way in which brain pills screw with my body. Moving on to argument 2...
2) Brain pills are unnatural. The scientists confront this one directly saying that:
"the lives of almost all living humans are deeply unnatural; our homes, our clothes and our food -- to say nothing of the medical care we enjoy -- bear little relation to our species' 'natural' state."
So, if I understand correctly, humanity is no longer 'natural' so why be concerned about what is natural or unnatural behavior or what is a natural or unnatural product to put into my body? Uh, what?! Is humanity so far removed from Nature that none of the warnings of living in the natural world still apply? Because I don't live in a home built by my own hands, because I don't wear clothes I made myself (from growing the cotton to sewing the garment), because I have a guilty love of Doritos, which surely are no where close to 'natural' -- I have no right to be concerned about the way that naturalness is defined within humanity and within my own life?! Um, yeah, I don't accept that. And even if scientists tried to appease me with a brain pill full of 'natural' stuff (aka - non-synthetic, unaltered, unengineered) that doesn't mean I would accept such a product without concern either. For example, I get freaked out by those advertisements for fancy, 'all natural' vitamin packs or 'health shakes' that promise to make me a super woman. (Maybe it's the 'natural' combined with corporate marketing that I find unsettling and untrustworthy...) Similarly, gasoline is 'natural' but that doesn't make is safe for me to huff. You know what I'm saying? I guess my concern on this whole 'naturalness' conversation is a sense of arrogance I perceive on behalf of these scientists (actually Science, in general) that we (humans) are somehow superior to Nature in knowing what is 'best' for us. How many times do we have to be proven wrong before we gain a little humility? (Uh, global warming comes to mind...) Call me stupid, but I feel pretty confident in the idea that if my brain was meant to function faster than it is, then I would have been born that way or have a natural disposition for it naturally, without the intervention of drugs. Just because my brain CAN work faster or function differently does not mean it's a GOOD IDEA. Ya dig? Just because you can does not mean you should, and in this case doesn't mean it's good for you. We don't know the consequences of altering brain function long-term, and like I said, if my brain was meant to work that way, I think it would. So the "'humans aren't natural' plus 'brain pills aren't natural' equals 'humans shouldn't worry about taking brain pills'" argument doesn't work for me.
3) Using brain pills is drug abuse. The scientists argue that society already addresses drugs along a wide spectrum of social acceptability: caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana,and heroin all have their place of acceptance/outlaw along a social continuum, and the scientists argue that there is no reason to place brain pills immediately alongside drugs that have been outlawed. I can understand this argument, but I am really hung up on the idea of medicating otherwise healthy persons. When one of my personal goals is to be as careful as possible about what I put into my body and its effects, really aiming to allow my body to function as 'naturally' as possible, this flies in the face of the expectations I have set for myself. I do not believe in holding others to expectations I set for myself, so the best I can offer is a series of questions: What are the connections between brain pills and addiction? What are the long-term effects of brain pills on the body? Are the pills addressing a concern that could be dealt in a different, less brain-altering way? What motivations are leading people to the use of brain pills to begin with? At the end of the day, I'm not interested in telling anyone what to do with their bodies, so from that perspective, I wouldn't suggest outlawing brain pills or criminalizing those who use them, but I certainly have concerns about persons' health and well-being and apprehensions that pills are not the best means by which to meet those needs.
In fairness, the authors are not flippant about the use of cognition-enhancing drugs, but I am unsatisfied with their suggestions for dealing with probably ethical concerns. First, they site concerns over issues of human safety, which they say can be addressed with study. I agree; study is needed. Lots of study. Though, I would suggest that some of that study include a questioning of the larger cultural contexts surrounding brain pills, rather than just an examination of brain pills themselves.
Second, the authors site a concern for supporting individual freedom from coercion to use brain-enhancing drugs. They recognize both structural and individual sites of coercion and suggest that 'policy' (for which they provide little concrete suggestion) could prevent these problems. I think they're wrong. If we look at their own examples of the percentages of college students already taking brain-enhancing drugs, which is currently an illegal act, you can't tell me that making the drugs legal and then enacting 'policy' -- against what?! peer pressure? -- will provide individuals with truly free choice about taking the drugs. I think the 'freedom' they are talking about is a cultural fluke; that level of true freedom is not possible in the context of our culture. Even if policy says folks are free to make their own choices, cultural pressures will always take their toll. Such is life.
Additionally, the scientists suggest that not all people should be offered the choice to drug up or to refrain. They highlight professions such as those in the military and some in the field of emergency medicine as contexts in which exemptions from policies supporting freedom to refrain are valid. So, even if some people might be protected from forced pill-popping, what does it mean when people holding important, valued positions within society are required to take these drugs? How would this influence the common citizen's attitudes towards the drugs? It seems to me that such acts would support wide-spread drugging up. Is that who we as a culture want to be?
Similarly, the authors support the continued, non-consensual drugging of children -- which is a common practice today anyway, particularly among children diagnosed with ADHD and raises continued questions of children's rights and autonomy (which I'm not going to address further here and now).
And third (and I find this most interesting), the authors highlight their concern for fairness when it comes to use of the drugs. Essentially, they are discussing questions of socioeconomic access and distribution, suggesting (accurately, I believe) that these drugs have the potential to deepen social inequalities, particularly between class groups, if action isn't taken to prevent such gaps. Such inequality already exists. We see it everyday. Who is likely to get the best education? (Answer, in case you need it: white, middle/upper class folks with a history of education and sustained funds to pay for education and all its auxiliary costs.) Obviously, issues of availability and issues of cost will affect how brain pills shift social dynamics in our culture. The authors suggest that 'policy' (again, pretty vaguely addressed) could help address these concerns. For example:
“If cognitive enhancements are costly, they may become the province of the rich, adding to the educational advantages they already enjoy. One could mitigate this inequity by giving every exam-taker free access to cognitive enhancements, as some schools provide computers during exam week to all students. This would help level the playing field.”
So, to solve the problem of unequal access, institutions can give away brain pills to anyone who wants them... Awesome. I found it pleasantly surprising that these scientists considered the social contexts of introducing such drugs into society (perhaps I owe them more credit), but I'm unsatisfied with their solutions for addressing potential social concerns.
When it comes down it, I think the authors suggest -- quite accurately -- that a pivotal key to cognition-enhancing drugs' acceptance is an ongoing questioning of the definition of 'medicine.' On one hand, medicine can be viewed as a field devoted to healing -- a defensive, responsive approach to health. On the other hand, medicine can be viewed as committed to helping people live better lives (though I think the definition of 'better' is up for debate). While I am a happy proponent of preventative health care, I wouldn't place brain pills into the category 'preventative' because I am uncertain what it is preventing. It seems that I trust my own body to function in healthy, live-supporting, and enhancing ways more than these scientists do. And I think that is very scary.
I can't help but think of those "This is your brain on drugs" PSAs from the '80s. (Yes, you can laugh at the thought. I did too.) Apparently their warnings no longer apply.
What are your thoughts?If you’re interested in joining the debate, hit me up here or visit Nature’s public forum on the topic.
Hey y'all. I've been missing you, but I can't really say 'I'm back' (yet). The quarter -- which has been 'kick-my-ass-black-and-blue' hard -- is finally winding to a close and I'm looking forward to time away from school and time to think (and share) about other things going on in my life and the world. Anyway, I'm taking a quick homework break and wanted to share this vid.
(Giving credit where credit is due: will.i.am is responsible for this viral firestorm. He started work on the song on November 3rd (when I was still very much in the 'fight 'til Obama's in the Oval Office' camp, trusting nothing to optimism...), and he was at Grant Park filming the video on the 4th. They did editing on the 5th, and the song and video, called "It's a New Day," debuted last Friday, November 7, 2008. It has since been performed on The Oprah Winfrey Show and on Larry King Live. Amen, brother. It is a new day!)
Obama won this election a week ago yesterday, and I am still at a loss to describe the hope I have for a future that really strives to achieve some of the goals I most value for our nation and our world -- a clean, sustainable environment; quality education for all; corporate responsibility and accountability; a government that cares about the people not just the elite; responsible foreign policy and involvement; a revival of communal commitment to prosperity rather than individualism... Our dreams are many.
BUT, this work is not the job of President-Elect Obama. A man is not a movement. This is OUR work. And it is a serious undertaking. I'm in. Are you with me?
In some states the last day to register to vote is TODAY. (If you want to know the rules where you live, find out here.) If you aren't registered, please, please, today's the day. It takes two minutes. You can do it online right now.
I think what you have to say is important. Don't you?
Tonight a homework break turned into the rare opportunity to watch an important and moving film for which I'm not sure I have the words to justly represent. So, hear me out...
Tonight I went and watched an independent documentary film called Trouble the Water. You probably haven't heard of it. I hadn't either until earlier today.
The film tells the story of Hurricane Katrina through the lived experiences of those least represented but hardest hit. This film, rather than being told through the words or views of the media, politicians, 'experts,' or even aid workers, is told through the lives of Katrina survivors Kimberly Rivers Roberts and her husband Scott Michael Roberts. Born and raised in New Orleans, they lived three blocks from the levees in the 9th ward. When the storm came they had no way to leave the city and were left to fend for themselves. And, until the batteries failed, Kim's camcorder captured their story. Here's a very small piece of it:
Trouble the Water has a lot of big names attached to it. It was directed and produced by Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine producers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal. Danny Glover is one of the film's executive producers. The score was created by Robert Del Naja and Neil Davidge. (Del Naja is one half of Massive Attack.) Plus, the film introduces four tracks written and performed by Black Kold Medina (BKM), aka Kim herself. (You can also listen to an ASCAP Network Audio Portrait of BKM here.) The film is even the winner of the Grand Jury Prize at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.
But still, very few people know about it. The film does not have a national distribution deal, and at the moment, is playing screen to screen as theatres give them a chance. (As of today, they have short term engagements on a total of 65 screens nationwide. That is NOT a lot, folks. And when I say short-term, I mean, like, they get to screen the film just a few times. Like at the Landmark Century where I saw it, the theatre contracted the film for three days. And they'll decide Monday morning is they keep it or send it out the door.)
Tonight I was lucky enough to watch the film with directors/producers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal. They stayed for a Q&A after the screening and spoke with deep emotion about their desire that word of the film would spread. Certainly, the film's success would be good news for them, but far more importantly, they stressed, and I agree, the film tells the story of Katrina in a way that's been ultimately too absent from our understanding of it. The film is about much more than an extreme weather event. It's about not only how Kim and Scott and their whole community were failed by the government during and following the events of Katrina, but how they've been failed by the government and by society their whole lives. The tragedy of Katrina began long before the levees broke and the flood waters rose. And the aftermath is still going on. The film shows some of the ways that issues of race and poverty intersect with history and culture and the hope for a different, better future, and the film does it in the voices of those best able to tell the story.
So, this is my plea to you: If you can go see this film, DO. The only way others will have a chance to see it is if you see it and tell them to see it too. You aren't going to see a commercial for it. You're unlikely to even see a review of it. But, you're reading this, and I'm extending this as your personal invitation. To see when and where the film is playing near you, visit here. (And, all my peeps in Boston, New York, Ohio -- north & south, and Chicago, it's playing near you, now or shortly. Seriously. You have no excuses. Go see it.)
While I am a (more than) happy supporter of vegetarianism and veganism, I can't get behind People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Hasn't happened yet. Can't see it happening anytime in the future. I agree with their stance that animal rights are vital issues in our contemporary society, especially when so many of our "interactions" with animals and animal products are mediated through factory farms, animal product processing centers, product testing on animals, and the clothing trade. Seeking changes that protect animals from cruelty, inhumane conditions, and abuse are issues affecting not only the animals themselves but also our human population. While I do not have a problem with people naturally eating meat because of my personal beliefs about our evolutionary position on the food chain and our natural design to be omnivores, I think we as a culture have worked really hard to pull ourselves out of the natural way of things. There is little that is natural about the production of much of our food, especially meat and meat products. As such, I fully support the many reasons people choose to become vegetarian or vegan -- be it concern for their own health due to the unnatural conditions that intercede in the production of our food (including the use of antibiotics, chemicals, synthetics, etc.); disdain for the cruelty inflicted upon animals in their journey to our grocery stores, food establishments, and stomachs; a deep respect for animals as living creatures worthy of living those lives to their full and natural ends; a contempt for the conditions endured by human laborers as they power the food industry at all levels (including fields, slaughterhouses, and the service industry); an economic unwillingness to financially support any of the harmful practices in our food industries; a simple dislike for meat or animal products; or any number of other valid and worthy reasons.
But, when it comes to PETA, the organization's utter and repeated failure to recognize the intersections of social justice issues prevents me from having any willingness to support their work. Whether intentionally or out of ignorance, their continual focus on animal rights, to the extent of perpetuating and reinforcing other social problems, serves (they think) to advance their cause while actually harming the equally vital efforts of other social movements. Allow me to give a number of examples to help clarify my frustration:
I. Most recently PETA wrote a letter to the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection
asking to buy space at each of the nine southwest border sectors [of the U.S./Mexico border fence] for our new ad. Those considering entry will then read this message: "If the border patrol doesn't get you, the chicken and burgers will. Go vegan" (or, in Spanish, "Si no te agarra la migra, te atraparan el pollo y las hamburguesas. Sé vegano").
We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. [that] they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables.
America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave; it's becoming the land of the sick and the home of the obese.
In his Houston Chronicle article, reporter James Pinkerton described the proposed ad (see the picture), saying:
PETA says its billboards would picture "fit and trim" Mexicans in their own country, where their diet is more in line with the group's mission. Another image on the sign would portray obese American children and adults "gorging on meaty, fat- and cholesterol-packed American food."
While the government is expected to reject PETA's offer because it would limit visibility through the fence (a whole other topic I'm not touching today), the fact that PETA would be so ignorant of the larger social issues at play baffles me. Do they really believe that their "target audience" (which is who exactly? folks scaling the wall?) are going to be interested in their message? Or that it would deter them from crossing? I would think folks crossing the border have other things on their mind. Plus, does PETA think Mexican and other immigrant populations never eat meat or cook with meat products (uh, lard, anyone?!), or that they have the resources to eat healthily all the time, or even that healthy eating is not possible within U.S. borders? No offense, but I tend to believe that people desire to move across borders for a reason, and I think those reasons probably outweigh the food warning on a billboard. While I appreciate PETA's apparent concern for immigrant's diet and health, I am confused by their choice of actions. Rather than addressing the exploitation and dehumanization of immigrants and people of color working in the food processing industry, or addressing economic conditions that encourage people to leave their home nations to begin with (where apparently they have a better diet), instead PETA wants to put up an advertisement. I'm honestly lost. They are volunteering to participate in racist and economically oppressive action to further their cause.
II. PETA has a history of using women's bodies as sexual symbols to grab folks' attention and sell their message. In their "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" and "Be comfortable in your own skin. Don't wear fur" print campaigns, as well as a number of public protests, they've featured attractive women -- nude or nearly nude -- selling their message. Setting aside the sexist reality that they feature only conventionally attractive women and no men in their ads or public displays, when called out on the misogynistic nature of their ads and public protests, their response seemed to echo a "we'll do whatever works" ideology.
In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk said
While cruelty to animals is a serious matter that should elicit widespread public outrage, efforts to reach the public through more serious means often fall on deaf ears in a world in which sex sells and there are both a war and an economic downturn. ... Forgive us our bikinis and our shock tactics, but our message that all beings — both human and nonhuman — deserve compassion and respect is one that we must work hard to make heard.
So, if understand correctly, what they're saying is that sex sells. Well, no shit, but that doesn't mean you should use it. Disrespecting woman to promote animal rights does not seem like a progressive, forward-moving approach to me.
(And on an equally depressing side note, did you hear about the world's first vegan strip club? Casa Diablo Gentlemen's Club in Portland. According to Fox News coverage (of course, and caution: totally raunchy website for video link), the club's motto is "Vixens not veal, sizzle not steak. We put the meat on the pole, not on the plate." Sick. As Ann at Feministing says so well, "[They're] using the 'ideal' female body type -- something men want and women want to be -- as an incentive to go vegan. This is deeply fucked up, especially because there are dozens of real, compelling reasons to switch to a vegan lifestyle -- none of them based on sexist bullshit.")
III. On July 31 of this year, Tim McLean, a passenger on a Greyhound bus en route to Winnipeg, was brutally stabbed and beheaded by a fellow bus passenger, a stranger. Apparently the assailant, Vince Weiguang Li, began eating part of McLean's body. And PETA's response was an attempt to run a newspaper ad with the following text:
"Manitoba... An innocent young victim's throat is cut... His struggles and cries are ignored... The man with the knife shows no emotion... The victim is slaughtered and his head cut of... His flesh is eaten. It still goes on!" ... "If this ad leaves a bad taste in your mouth, please give a thought to what sensitive animals think and feel when they come to the end of their frightening journey and see, hear, and smell the slaughterhouse. Try switching to a healthy vegetarian diet and save lives every day, including your own."
I don't know about you, but as much as I support a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, using such a tragedy to get people to eat more veggies doesn't sit well with me. I understand what PETA wants to say and the passion with which they're trying to say it, but I think they went about it in a pretty insensitive, disrespectful way. (That's an understatement.)
While it isn't every day that a human is violently attacked and eaten by another human, it's worth noting that it is the norm for many people not to give any thought to the fact that restaurants are serving flesh that comes from innocents who were minding their own business before someone came after them with a knife. How amazingly and conveniently compartmentalized the human mind is…
Now, to the best of my knowledge, the ad was rejected by the local paper, but even the thought that trying to run it was a good strategy just doesn't work for me.
All that said, where do we stand? In efforts to support animal rights PETA uses racism, sexism, and the exploitation of tragedy to further their cause. Ignoring the trade-off they are willing to make to further their intentions does not, and will not, convince me to support their version of "social justice."
UPDATE: These people never stop. 2 quick hits: 1. PETA recently submitted a commercial they hoped to air during the Superbowl. It got rejected by NBC for "depict[ing] a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." The commercial is part of PETA's "Veggie Love" campaign. When will they learn that there are better ways and means to promote vegetarianism than using sex(ism) and women's bodies? They really, really suck at understanding the whole intersectional exploitation thing. (To read more, Melissa over at Shakesville has laid out the argument quite clearly.)
2. PETA is using KKK imagery to protest the American Kennel Club, meaning that PETA protesters are dressing up like the KKK in both video campaigns and live protests (standing on the street outside Madison Square Gardens handing leaflets to passersby -- the ones who stop to strangers dressed like the KKK). I am not shitting you. I am trying to understand how dressing up like the most notoriously racist terrorist group in American history is okay and I just can't figure it out. As Cara over at Feministe suggested:
This is not progressive. Do you hear me? This is not progressive. And the progressive movement needs to cut off this organization entirely and let reasonable, smart animal rights organizations that fight just as hard without sacrificing the dignity of humans take over. Now.
So I've been thinking a lot about sexism, patriarchy, and feminism lately... (What an opening line, right?! Gimme a break. I'm an academic in denial.) And, in a seemingly unrelated and perhaps contradictory vein (just wait), I've been reading a lot of fiction this summer, trying to ease my mind with the joyful nature of written language before the looming school year forces me back into writings' excruciatingly complex, theoretical, and brain-mushing side. On Thursday morning I finished reading Stephenie Meyer's debut novel Twilight which has been on my reading list for a little while now. I tend to find a lot of pleasure in reading young adult fiction, a genre too often highly underrated. Upon completion of my chosen light reading, I have found myself quite conflicted. Why? Sexism, patriarchy, and feminism.
First of all, I think Twilight is a brilliant story. (I'll do my best not to write any spoilers for those who haven't read the book but would like to. Read freely, eager readers, read!) Meyers has written, in Bella Swan and Edward Cullen, rich lead characters, paid exquisite attention to detail, and penned a story that literally raises your pulse and makes your heart ache with exhilaration, anxiety, longing, and general emotional conflict. She has essentially written the eternal love story -- two star-crossed individuals tempted by a forbidden love and thus living out their relationship with the heartbreaking understanding that they are destined to be one another's destruction. While Meyer doesn't focus on it, the story has a deep core of melancholy, impossible desire, and breathtaking sadness. Think along the lines of the most tragic rendition of Romeo and Juliet you've ever seen or read, add vampires and a lot of rain, and you've got Twilight. In a number of ways the story reminds me of several ancient Chinese or Japanese legends, so many of which end tragically and heartbreakingly: a lover drowning him or herself in the sea from sorrow, broken promises that destroy love and goodness, magical transformations that show the heartbreaking true nature of persons -- stories that show utter sadness and sorrow in ways often missing in Western tales. But, I felt it in Twilight.
That said, as I read Twilight, I found myself mentally reliving fantasies of "love" from early adolescence in which I would be in some horrible predicament and my beau would swoop down and rescue me in his big, strong, brave way -- saving the day and protecting me from harm. (Gag me.) Twilight exactly mirrors these depictions of love that rely on ideas of men as brave, strong protectors and women as innocent, meek, mild flowers in need of being taken care of. Stories of utter dependence and domination. (Puke.) Seriously, I've spent the past 15 years redefining my ideas of relationships, intentionally working to counter these lies we've been told about how the perfect love story is lived out. And here it is today, in print, in my hands, presented in beautifully, heartbreakingly devastating prose telling me again these falisies. I want to wilt in the sadness of that recognition.
Just as a recap, the essential story of Edward and Bella's relationship is something like this: Edward's been a vampire for a hundred years or so, but always alone. Then he meets Bella and is fascinated. (Gotta love the "I've roamed the earth for a century and never found anyone who makes me feel like you do" motif. It pulls at the heartstrings of girls and women who never learned better. Do I sound bitter?) On the flip side, in an interview with Entertainment Weekly Meyer said,
Bella is an every girl. She's not a hero, and she doesn't know the difference between Prada and whatever else is out there. She doesn't always have to be cool, or wear the coolest clothes ever. She's normal. And there aren't a lot of girls in literature that are normal.
Being 'normal' and 'everyday' is fine and wonderful (really, I mean it), but if Bella really is 'everyday' and 'normal,' I'm a little scared. While Bella is feisty, quick-witted, and intelligent, she also spends most of the book falling all over Edward, who just happens to like her back. Lucky her. Envision the most "Oh, I love him so much. I can't live without him. I don't know why he likes me. But, he's gorgeous and I would do anything for him" angsty teen image you can drag up. That's Bella. (And, true-to-God, I say that with love. Cuz Lord knows, I love these characters.)
When it comes down to it, I am really concerned about the power dynamics in this whole thing. And when I say "power" I mean a number of things. Yes, physical power. Edward could kill Bella in a second. No questions asked. He could do anything with/to Bella, with or without her consent. Physically, he's got that strength. But, emotionally and psychologically, he controls himself. And we're supposed to love him for it. (And we do.) Bella, on the other hand, what's she got? Undying love. That's about it. She's okay with Edward spying on her at school and watching her while she sleeps and asking her to tell lies to protect their relationship -- because she loves him. But, take that love away, and what do you have? A stalker. Once again, I've gotta say, I love Edward, but seriously, if Bella ever put her foot down -- which she wouldn't -- their whole situation would look so different. So, when I say "power" I'm talking about something much deeper than physical power. I'm talking about that exceedingly fine line between permission and domination. About the role of an individual's will as it interacts with someone else's. We accept Edward's behavior because Bella accepts it, sometimes even welcomes it. Does that make her, or him, wrong-minded? Not necessarily. It's just a reminder of how emotions filter our understanding of the world. Significantly.
So, what am I saying? Um, I think Bella, despite her displays of strength and perseverance, is in a supremely unbalanced relationship which seems to be tied up in the difficult grey spaces surrounding issues of will and domination. Plus, we've got that added layer of the female character as the submissive, household duty fulfilling, "I'll do anything because I love you" role, which mostly sucks cuz we as a society are still fighting, fighting, fighting to offer alternative views of womanhood. If this is the role you choose for yourself, fine, but I want to know that you think you had an option, a true choice, not that your womanhood was defined in this way because it's the only way. Do you see my distinction here? (And on a side note, I also read the whole Uglies series by Scott Westerfeld this summer. It's an excellent series critiquing the consumptive, beauty and fame dominated ideologies of society, and the main character is a strong, take-no-crap girl named Tally who embodies femininity and womanhood very differently than Bella and STILL gets the guy(s). Check it out.)
Now, to Bella's credit, at one point in the book (p. 473-474) she says
I'll be the first to admit that I have no experience with relationships, but it just seems logical... a man and a woman have to be somewhat equal... as in, one of them can't always be swooping in and saving the other one. They have to save each other equally. ... I can't always be Lois Lane. I want to be Superman, too.
So she sees this inequality, this power-differential, and identifies it as a problem for her. But I can't say I'm in love with her solution. (Uh, changing SPECIES for a guy?! Uh...)
Leonard Sax, in an article for The Mercury News in Silicon Valley, talks about the gender roles in the Twilight series this way:
The lead male characters, Edward Cullen and Jacob Black, are muscular and unwaveringly brave, while Bella and the other girls bake cookies, make supper for the men and hold all-female slumber parties. It gets worse for feminists: Bella is regularly threatened with violence in the first three books, and in every instance she is rescued by Edward or Jacob. In the third book she describes herself as "helpless and delicious." ... For more than three decades, political correctness has required that educators and parents pretend that gender doesn't really matter. The results of that policy are upon us: a growing cohort of young men who spend many hours each week playing video games and looking at pornography online, while their sisters and friends dream of gentle werewolves who are content to cuddle with them and dazzling vampires who will protect them from danger. In other words, ignoring gender differences is contributing to a growing gender divide.
So, why am I blathering on about all this? Here's the big reason: I, as a grown-up, trying-to-be-critical-of-the-world-around-me woman, can have this whole little conversation with myself (see above) about the power dynamics in this vampire-human love story. But I'm not the target audience for this book. The book is marketed as a young adult novel and has been supremely popular with the 12-17 year old girl bracket (aka - middle school, high school girls). And it worries me. (Do you wanna see what I'm talking about? Check out this short vid from Twilight's reception at Comic-Con in San Diego. Couple key quotes, in additional to all the adolescent screaming: "She skipped school [to come]..."; "We screamed! It was awesome!"; "Obsessive Cullen Disorder." Sigh...)
Do I think young people should be prevented from reading the book? Absolutely not. If they want to read it, read it. (I'm not into banning books, or restricting who reads what books. I think banning books is bad. And mean.) But, are young people talking about the power dynamics of this love story? I don't know. But I haven't been seeing signs that they are.
Plus, I think the series is about to get way more popular, possibly with a wider audience. Twilight, the movie, is coming out November 21, 2008 (taking the release slot Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince vacated when their release got moved to Summer 2009) and is likely to draw big crowds. Lots of folks say the book/movie franchise is likely to be the next Harry Potter. I don't think it's going to go that far, but it might make a stir. Think about this: The movie cast is led by Kristen Stewart (of Jumper, Into the Wild, Zathura, and Panic Room fame) playing Bella and Robert Pattinson (who's best known for playing Cedric Diggory in two Harry Potter films) playing Edward. Add Catherine Hardwicke as director (Thirteen and The Nativity Story), Melissa Rosenberg as the screenwriter (writer/producer on Dexter, The O.C., writer of Step Up, etc.), and Carter Burwell on the score (No Country for Old Men, Intolerable Cruelty, A Knight's Tale, Being John Malkovich, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, etc. etc.) and WHOA. (And, on a side note, Meyer's stipulation when she signed over rights for the movie was that the film had to be rated no higher than PG-13, which I assume it tied to her desire to support a film she feels comfortable watching as a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. To read more about how Meyer's Mormon philosophy affected her writing of the Twilight series, check out this article in TimesOnline. The book is brimming with sexual tension and implied violence, but Hardwicke is on board too, so I expect the PG-13 goal will be met.)
Just for fun, here's the film's trailer:
All that said, do I plan to read the other three books in the series? Absolutely. Do I plan to watch the movie? Probably. Does any of that abate my concerns about the messages being reinforced about the roles of men and women in relationships? No. It's just a reminder that issues of feminism, sexism, and patriarchy are crazy complicated. And just like in Meyer's story, sometimes you're tempted by the "evil" but the real question is how you deal with it.
UPDATE: So, I finished New Moon, book two in the series, and I'm disappointed. I keep seeing other people with these little decorative buttons sayings "Bella takes feminism back 100 years." Now I know why. (If you're not into spoilers, stop reading.) The first hundred pages demonstrates very clearly that Bella does not exist as a complete and individual person outside the context of her failed relationship with Edward. Then the next 150 pages describe her apathy towards life and self, her deep emotional imbalance, and her self-destructive tendencies. I can cut a girl some slack for being heartbroken, but the heartbreak Bella lives is a denial of her own worthwhile humanity, and I think it sucks, sends bad messages about women and love, and is frankly annoying. Moving on, I really like Jacob, but think Bella treats him like shit. She's a user and drops him in a second when it suites her. Regardless of her 'remorse' or 'guilt' or whatever, the ease with which she treats her self-proclaimed best friend with such lack of concern or consideration is crap. She's fickle, and once again willing to sacrifice literally EVERYTHING for the love of her man. It makes me grumpy. - 9/10/08
UPDATE: No time like the present for yet another update, eh? So, I watched Twilight the movie the weekend after Thanksgiving, finished Eclipse in early December, and wrapped up Breaking Dawn on New Year's day. (Happy 2009, y'all.) My response? (Spoilers are included, so stop reading if you don't wanna know.) Ho-hum. That's my response: ho-hum.
I guess my summary would be that in the last two books we lose some of the richness that could have been our main characters (Bella, Edward, and Jacob). While the action is rich (and highly compatible with film-making), true emotional depth and complexity gets a bit lost, I think. Eclipse was essentially an angsty book -- Edward being his overbearing, overprotective self (which got annoying), Jacob being his heartbroken teenage self (which also got annoying), and Bella being endlessly selfish, failing to be decisive about how she deals with others' emotions, and thus hurting everyone more than necessary (also annoying). Though, I must admit, the battle at the end of the book was pretty amazing.
Breaking Dawn was LONG, at 756 pages, and became a series of plot points that really reduced our characters to predictable protagonists. Meyer's writing is compelling, so you are engrossed and keep reading, but I think she betrays her own potential (that sounds harsh in a way I don't really intend it to...) by truly transforming Bella into a Mary Sue. She becomes a vampire and is PERFECT. Lucky her. Our fallible (and thus humanly lovable) Bella is gone. In the end, the story is resolved as a happy ending, ride-off-into-the-sunset series. Worth reading. (And a quick read.) But, a bit disappointing.
The Twilight movie was okay. I took my dad for an "outsider's" perspective, and he liked it. I did too, I think. Nothing amazing, but good. I would say all the reviews (the good and bad) are pretty on par.
Also, there was a very interesting conversation over at Racialicious titled "The Politics of Wizards and Vampires" about the ideological differences between the left-leaning Harry Potter books and the right-leaning Twilight series. (The post was written by the awesome Alisa Valdes-Rodriquez, who I know best from having written the wonderful ChicaLit novel The Dirty Girls Social Club.) While I agree with most of the analysis, I think it's important to be careful not to paint one side or another as 'right' or 'wrong,' because we are talking about deep ideological differences. In the end we will all choose our stances, but it's important to think about the many sides of every story before (and after) we do so. The entry is definitely worth a read, especially for those that have read both series.
Also, Stephenie Meyer has posted an interesting response to some folks' claims that Bella is an anti-feminist heroine. I'm not really interested in discussing it in-depth, but I agree with Meyer that feminism is about choice and I agree that Bella should be free to make whatever choices she wants (to end her mortal life, to get married at 18, to abstain from a life-saving abortion). Rock on, Bella. Do your thing.
My critique is that I think feminism is something bigger. It's about creating free-will choices for everyone -- men and women -- with less social pressure to choose certain paths. Meyer says,
"I never meant for her [Bella's] fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. ... Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world."
The argument that "this is fiction; it doesn't mean anything in real life" doesn't work for me. I believe that all artistic creation and expression is a reflection of our understanding of 'real' life and impacts the ways we live life. Thus, saying the Twilight stories have no impact on the thinking or living of readers is a fallacy.
Is Bella and the whole Twilight saga an anti-feminist set of writings? I don't know. And I don't think the answer matters. The value of the question is in the conversations that emerge around the ideas and the ways those conversations impact our understanding of ourselves, our world, and the place of feminism in it. -1/3/09
Take 2,300 sticky notes, a black pen, and some serious animation/filmmaking talent and what to you get? This vid. British Columbia based artist Jeff Chiba Stearns reflects on the past nine years of his life's journey using the compounded piles of his TO DO lists to get him started. In this heartfelt short film, with music by Genevieve Vincent, Stearns touches on the joy and despair of life, the universal and the personal, the local and the global, the funny and the destructive. It's a touching reminder of the power of reflection.
Just being upfront with y'all: I think materialism and modern consumption practices are quite dangerous. Consumption, for me, is a broad word defining all the things -- material (food, production goods) and immaterial (ideas, ideologies, social expectations) -- that we take in -- individually, socially, and culturally. Consumption of any kind becomes dangerous when it's not done critically. Now, I find that regardless of my pet intellectual interest at any given moment, whether it be food and health politics, labor exploitation and abuses, the ideologies of material consumption, socialization for (unequal) human interaction, or any other site of focus, in my own mind they are all connected and intertwined in a vast, complex system that defines and is defined by human existence and interaction. As such, I was THRILLED to recently watch a 20-minute documentary that artfully and eloquently ties together so many pieces of the big picture, reminding me that there really is value in connecting all the dots.
Annie Leonard, an activist who has spent the past 10 years traveling the globe fighting environmental threats, narrates The Story of Stuff, delivering a rapid-fire, often humorous and always engaging story about 'all our stuff—where it comes from and where it goes when we throw it away.' Leonard examines the real costs of extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal.... Leonard’s inspiration for the film began as a personal musing over the question, 'Where does all the stuff we buy come from, and where does it go when we throw it out?' She traveled the world in pursuit of the answer to this seemingly innocent question, and what she found along the way were some very guilty participants and their unfortunate victims.
I, for one, was impressed and am more than happy to help spread the video as far and wide as possible. (Yes, I'm encouraging you to consume it! Critically, of course!)
The best I can figure, The Story of Stuff came out sometime in early December 2007, and since then it has won an SXSW interactive web award for being such a valuable educational resource, has had over 3 million online views since uploaded, and has roughly 15,000 new hits every day from all over the world. (Subliminal message inserted here: You should become one today's new viewers.) A huge part of its success, I think, is its viral nature. It's free to watch, free to download, free to share with everyone you know. It's very well researched (you can even download the annotated script, which I think is the bomb-diggity), the website has a wealth of additional information and resources (including within the video interaction panel itself) showing very directly the interconnections between the environment, human health, workers' rights, globalization, and alternatives -- providing both direct information and connections to organizations and activist groups with whom you can become involved. And that's one of the great things about the video's presentation as a whole; Leonard speaks strongly to the large variety of ways to get involved. She says in the film,
The good thing about such a pervasive problem is that there are so many points of intervention. There are people working... on saving forests and... on clean production. People working on labor rights and fair trade and conscious consuming and blocking landfills and incinerators and, very importantly, on taking back our government so it really is by the people and for the people. All this work is critically important but things are really gonna start moving when we see the connections, when we see the big picture. When people... get united, we can reclaim and transform [into]... a system that doesn't waste resources or people. Because what we really need to chuck is this old-school throw-away mindset. There's a new school of thinking and it's based on sustainability and equity: green chemistry, zero waste, closed loop production, renewable energy, local living economies. It's already happening.
In an interview with Terrence McNally of Alternet, Leonard said, "[T]here's a cost to this excessive consumption. There's an environmental cost, there's a social cost -- and there's a personal happiness cost. This is what's really interesting. A lot of people think buying all this stuff is making us happier, but recent data has come out showing that it's not so. So we're trashing the planet, we're trashing communities -- and we're not even having fun. If we were at least having fun, we might want to reconsider. But it's not even fun anymore, so we need to rethink how we make, use and relate to the stuff in our lives." Can't really argue with that, eh?!
Another reason I think The Story of Stuff is so awesome is that the film was produced by Free Range Studios, the awesome folks who brought us The Meatrix and Grocery Store Wars. (If you haven't seen those, you should! They're funny, educational, and downright rockin'.)
And, if I haven't convinced you yet to spend just 20 minutes watching this awesome video, here's a little teaser. (The clip reminds me a little of Dr. Seuss' The Sneetches, another story about consumption's failing to 'fix' anything. The Sneetches is also a powerful story about social -isms in general. It's a two-for-one great story.)
Yesterday was Father's Day, and sadly, I wasn't able to spend it with my father. And while I sent him a card, I feel like the card itself was a shoddy representation of the importance of fatherhood and my father's role in my life.
As I sifted through the available cards early this week I wanted to puke. If the cards are any representation of our culture's understanding and expectations for fatherhood, we're in some serious trouble. Most of the cards displayed images of 'typical' fathers: men engaged in the sports of fishing, golfing, and hunting; men working with tools in the garage or grilling in the backyard; men watching TV or having a beer with his buddies. But the unstated, common theme was this removal of the man from his family. I didn't see any representations of families together, of fathers with their children, and certainly no men HAPPY to be with their families. Most of the cards seemed to say that the reward of Father's Day was that the man could have a day of freedom, a day to do whatever made him happy, which inevitably meant doing something separate from his family, something removed from the apparent shackles of family responsibility.
Now, I am in no way saying that men shouldn't have the freedom to enjoy and support their own individuality. I'm ALL for that. I believe individuality is part of wholeness and part of being able to be a part of functioning family. What I'm afraid of is the way that all these greeting cards show men as individuals trapped in a family, restricted, living a life lacking freedom and repressing their masculinity. As if no man chooses fatherhood or enjoys it or values it. I've got to admit, that crap makes me really angry. The way we paint masculinity in our culture denies everyone -- especially men -- the potential joy and importance of living a real, rich fatherhood. We still draw this divide that deems the home the place of the woman, of family, of femininity -- a place stifling to manhood and 'true' manliness. How many times have you heard the jokes about sissy men who stay home to take care of their children or are supposedly not 'real' men because they go to their child's dance recital or join the PTA, or for heaven's sake, give up watching a football game with the boys to have an afternoon with their children. We chastise men ALL THE TIME for trying to be good fathers and dedicated members of their families. And deny them the opportunity to even see their efforts positively reflected in the media -- like those damned greeting cards. We have this unstated fear/loathing/distrust of men who live out fatherhood as a privilege, a joy, and a huge responsibility demanding of effort, compassion, and love, rather than just a societal obligation to their spawn. I'm finding it difficult to articulate, but think about it this way: Father's Day cards typically show men being 'masculine' -- playing sports, being independent, etc. etc., NOT being with their families. Mother's Day cards, on the contrary, frequently show women with their children or families, with tons of flowers, or with other girly stuff. You don't see Mother's Day cards of women getting their nails done, shopping at the mall, having coffee with a friend (more gender stereotypes...) -- aka, disconnected from her children, the thing that makes her a mother. Do you see what I'm saying? Why do so many Father's Day cards (just as one tiny example) separate fathers from their children, the definition of their fatherly identity? My problem here is the division created in our culture by divergent expectations for male and female gendered behavior and parenting.
That said, HUGE thumbs down from me to all the greeting card companies, and in domino effect, to us as a culture, for their/our failure to make Father's Day truly representative of the potential greatness of fathers. In the end, I got my dad some lame card with geometric squares all over it, and I wrote him a little polemic (similar to this, but shorter) about why I'm so grateful that he isn't the image of fatherhood represented by all these other media images. I have been blessed with a father who understands that Father's Day is about the gift of family, and I love him for that. And I am truly lucky to know that he loves me. What a wonderful reason to celebrate!
Now, if only everyone else could see the world my way maybe we could look at Father's Day as a celebration of real fatherhood, not a denial of 'real' masculinity. Am I asking too much?
UPDATE: I was just catching up on reading my beloved Boston's The Dig and read an article my friend Bridget Pelkie wrote titled "Golf, Fish, Pigeonhole: A Word Against Father's Day." I think we're on the same wavelength here! (And B, if you're reading this, nice article, girl!) - 7/19/08
As summer is finally beginning to dawn, many LGBTQ indviduals and their allies from around the country, and around the world, will come together in Pride events to publicly celebrate and honor who they are as a community and their continuing struggles in seeking justice and equality, rights often denied by a larger society that holds to heteronormativity as if persons of other identifications are fictitious and scary (they aren't, on either account). (And note: when I say "society" that means WE need to take responsibility. Society is made of individuals – aka YOU & ME – who discriminate or are willing to blindly allow discrimination. Our individual actions contribute to societal norms. Don't be passive.) As my tiny contribution to bringing awareness and a more concrete understanding to LGBTQ struggles, I wanted to share this video, produced over a year ago by the lovely folks at OurChart.com. This is the second of a five episode series narrated by Katherine Moennig exploring homelessness among gay youth. To see the rest of the web series, you can visit OurChart.com, or to read the report put out by The National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce on which much of the cited statistics are based, you can go here. Peace.
Long time, no chat! Forgive me, I've been buried up to my eyeballs in schoolwork. (Got another three weeks to go 'til summer. I'm anxious.) But, I wanted to share a happy experience with you all. (I always talk about sad and grumpy things, which -- don't worry -- I'll get back to, but I thought talking for once about something wonderful would be, well, wonderful!)
This past weekend I took a break from homeworkin' it and headed over to Navy Pier for Chicago's 2nd annual Green Festival. I went last year when it was held at McCormick Place, but it's grown in scope since then and the Pier was a good site choice (despite the fact that the CTA was a disaster -- running the Red Line on the upper tracks, leaving me to spend two hours in bus transit each way. I could have walked the 7 miles faster...).
For those of you unfamiliar, the Green Festival, which is hosted at several locations each year (this year's are Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington DC), is a uniquely amazing festival focused specifically on issues of sustainable economy, ecological balance, and social justice. It's my kind of shindig! The events, cosponsored by Global Exchange and Co-op America, are described as:
Green Festivals are a walk through a sustainable community. It starts with the personal: how people can make their lives work better. Individuals and business and community leaders also come together to discuss social and environmental issues of personal, local, national and global concern. Organizations and businesses showcase programs and products that serve the community. Neighbor-to-neighbor connections are formed, and skills are shared to empower people to create a livable community. Of course, it wouldn't be a festival without music, art, culture and delicious food -- all from locally-based organizations and businesses!
Pretty much, it's a rip-roarin' good time. Inspirational. Informative. Progressive. And generally just AWESOME. You have the opportunity to hear hundreds of speakers, check out over 350 exhibitors sharing knowledge about everything from how to green your house and conscious investing to local food options and community action, be in rich conversation with others, eat mouth-wateringly good food -- all local, mostly natural, and yes, there is an organic beer and wine garden, as well as a tea garden. There is a bookstore, a kids' area, a makeshift yoga studio, a film festival, and TONS of learning to be had. Crowded and overwhelming at times - yes. But worth it, if you ask me. (Gotta tell ya, last year they estimated the attendance was 31,000. This year they were anticipating 33,000 or more. CRAZY!)
Now, why am I telling you all this (other than the fact that it's my blog and I can do whatever I want)? Well, two reasons. One: If you live in the DC or San Fran areas, your Festival is still to come. (DC's is November 8 & 9 and San Fran's is doin' it up right with a three day fest from Nov. 14 to 16.) Two: If you cannot make it to a Festival, I understand, but there is this amazing resource available to you called the internet. If you navigate yourself to the Green Festival homepage, you you will see on the left hand side several "play" buttons. One reads "Launch Green Festival Radio" and another reads "Green Festival Videos." These are your links to free knowledge - and how you could pass that up?! The wonderful folks at the national level of Green Festival have made it possible to hear many of the speakers who have contributed their time and knowledge to Green Festival audiences since 2005. Just click a speaker of interest to you and you're good to go. (Might I suggest a few crowd favorites including Amy Goodman, Bill McKibben, Thom Hartmann, Medea Benjamin, Ralph Nadar, and Dennis Kucinich.)
That said, let me leave you (and return to my homework) with a little promo video. This should give you a decent idea of what Green Festival is all about. And 'til next time, be well!
Rives is one of my favorite spoken word poets. I think it's because he reminds me to feel good about happy things rather than just shitty about bad ones (though I reserve time and space for that cause as well). April is National Poetry Month (and National Dance Month and National Puppetry Month... I am undecided about how I might yet best honor those great occasions. If you see me dancing down the street having pulled the Old Lady and Leo the Lion from my closet, you'll know why – and everyone will think I am crazy. Sounds fun.) So, share poetry we will. And this one's to those of us lucky enough, amidst the crap life can set in our path, to have siblings that make life better than it would have been otherwise.
And because I can't leave you with just one great Rives' performance, here are two of my other favorites: Kite and Sign Language.
Let's round out the month with a shout out to spoken word with a side dish of feminism.
I think Rafael Casal is the shit. His flow is sick, and his message critical. (And there I go again cross-breeding two language sets that are too often kept in separate corners.) Rafael's a talented young voice that gives thoughtful, heart-felt attention to very real issues through the fresh eyes of a generation seeking their (our) way in a mixed up world. He just came out with a hip-hop/rap LP – "As Good As Your Word" – at the end of January. And if you want to read "Barbie & Ken 101" in its final form (the piece was only about a week old in the vid) go here.
UPDATE: I recently read a short chapter written by Rafael entitled "Teaching Poetry Workshop" in Handbook of Social Justice in Education (2008) edited by Bill Ayers, Therese Quinn, and David Stovall. Good read. -- 8/2009
Okay, so I'm supposed to be finishing my last final of the quarter. (Thank God, but I'm not done yet, so cross your fingers.) But, I need a momentary pause to go on a tirade.
It's a little after midnight and I just opened a brand new bag of my favorite, locally manufactured tortilla chips. Yummy, yummy, right? Well, I am an obsessive nutrition facts label reader. (It's sick, I know.) But, my favorite thing about these chips, besides their oh-so-yummy taste, is that they are made with only three simple ingredients: corn, lime, and corn oil. Woohoo for simplicity! So, tonight I'm munching away and habitually start to read (uh... reread) the label and to my surprise, there is a new ingredient I've never seen before: "tHBQ as an oil additive." What on earth?!?! So, I hop on the internet and do a little research, only for my dismay, disdain, and general sadness to grow in sickly measures.
tBHQ, or tertiary butylhydroquinone, is a petroleum-based food additive being used to replace partially hydrogenated this, that, and the others which are known for their contribution to high trans fat numbers (also yucky). The glorious thing about tBHQ is that numerous studies have linked it to bladder and kidney cancers and it’s been used to predictably induce tumors in test animals. And, just as an added bonus, it's a member of the same family as BHA and BHT, both of which have been banned in England, because they have been proven to be carcinogenic. I am totally lucking out here. And the FDA lets them put this shit in my food!
Plus:
According to A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives, "tBHQ is a form of butane (i.e. lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food... which is probably just as well, considering that ingesting a single gram of tBHQ can cause 'nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse.' Ingesting five grams of tBHQ can kill."
So, my delightful tortilla chips, once prized so highly for their natural ingredients, could now contribute to my getting cancer and/or tumors. So excited about that.
And thus, I must now bid farewell to my favorite tortilla chips (seriously the best I've had in my whole life), write a nasty letter to the company (El Ranchero Food Products/2547 S. Kedzie Ave./Chicago, IL 60623), and seek simpler times, when a girl could count on corn, lime, and corn oil to be all she needed. I am so disappointed...
March is Women's History Month, so as a little shout-out to my fellow sisters, I wanted to post up a video tied to a relevant women's issue (so many to choose between). (And, really, women's issues are everybody's issues. Just as a reminder.) So, I'm posting a video that just came out in January celebrating the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which was decided in January of 1973 (NOT all that long ago, really). With all the political talk intent on overturning Roe v. Wade today, it should be apparent the controversy and relevance this issue still holds. Put together by Naral Pro-Choice America this video speaks to the complexity of real women's lives. Women's decisions concerning choice are anything but simple and emotionless, and the video does a nice job of placing that complicated reality in the social, historical context of our world. As a woman, I want to know that my actions, my body, and my reproductive rights are MY choice, not the decision of lawmakers who know nothing about my life, my journey, or my needs. It is my responsibility to protect that right for myself, my friends, and my loved ones.
(And if you're interested in Faith Pennick's film, which is mentioned in the video, go here.)
Yesterday I went to the UMMA (United Muslims Moving Ahead) & IMAN (Inter-City Muslim Activist Networks)'s "CommUNITY Cafe" show in honor of Black History Month. It was off the chain. (Can a goofy white girl like me even say that and not sound stupid?) They had Amir Sulaiman (a Chi-town, 2 time Def Poet), Three Generations (with Maimounna & Nataska Youssef -- Maimounna was featured in "Don't Feel Right" on The Roots' last album), a whole crew of local Hip-Hop DJs, MCs, beat boys, and music makers, and Hypnotic Brass Ensemble, a Chi-town born and raised group of street jazz musicians who crash through boundaries of genre definitions grafting this crazy soul, funk, hip-hop, marching band, classical infused jazz music that you can't help by move to. (And they just got off tour with Mos Def. Yeah...) They're good. So, I've gotta show some Chi-town love. Check it.
And if you want a little more history/context for the group, you can watch the short vidThe New York Times did on 'em in 2006.
if you know anything about me, you know that music is a deep passion in my life. it's a part of my every day going-ons and brings a depth to my existence that is rarely paralleled by other pursuits. i am especially drawn to the music that you start to feel in your blood and your bones -- the kind that you breath in, as deeply as it can go, because to let it just fill the air isn't nearly good enough. and when you find music that truly speaks to you in that way, the inspiration of it can be truly powerful.
a friend sent me a music video today that kinda gets at me like that. it's will.i.am's Yes We Can Song -- a labor of love brought to fruition in the 48 hours of January 30th and 31st, 2008. featuring the voices and presence of many, including Common, John Legend, Scarlett Johansson, Tatyana Ali, Herbie Hancock, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Nicole Scherzinger, among many others, will.i.am grafted the words of Barack Obama's Yes We Can speak (which you can see in its entirety here) into an anthem of voices speaking up for change. under the direction of Jesse Dylan, the video speaks to the power of the American people to seek hope and to seek change.
if you would like to read the elegant, heartfelt words with which will.i.am describes the project, go here. and if you would like to see an interview with will and jesse dylan on abc news, you can go here.
and most importantly, if you live in one of the 24 states holding primaries or caucuses this tuesday, february 5th, 2008, i encourage you to get out and vote. i don't care who you vote for. i just care that you make your voice heard.
and if you're not registered to vote, take this opportunity to get registered. it only takes a few minutes and instructions and applications should be available through your local or state elections board. (most folks have all the info online, so you don't even have to leave your house.)
and, "yes we can" make a difference!
We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
your voice carries a weight that no one else can fill. use it.
i don't know what i am anymore, and i think that's just fine. i've returned to academia, taking the good with the bad. if you ask me what i do, on the bad days i'll say i'm a "slave to an instituationalized oppressive system." on the good, i'll say i'm a "student who is an adventurer in the art of learning" (P. Freire).
