Food Inc. - "You'll never look at dinner the same way again!"

So, in the last month or so I've been bombarded with info about the film Food, Inc. Whether I'm just hooked in to all the right info feeds or what, I don't know, but I'm pretty jazzed about seeing this film, which is now showing across the country. (To find out if/when it's playing near you, check the listings here.)

The film is described (on IMDB) as "An unflattering look inside America's corporate controlled food industry." And it seems to address the food industry from a number of angles: animal conditions, worker conditions, food safety/quality, human health consequences, legislation and national food policy, and the general workings of agribusiness. A broad scope, surely, but integrally connected.

I was first introduced to the film by a message on the packaging foil that seals my yogurt tub. I'd never seen Stonyfield (or any other yogurt company) advertise for a film, and while I was a bit suspicious, I also trust Stonyfield to make conscious choices about their packaging. (Maybe I'm delusional, but at least I'm hopeful.) With a little investigation I realized that Stonyfield Farm President and CE-Yo (you know, YO as in yogurt) Gary Hirshberg is featured in the film; thus the connection and cross-promotion. But, Stonyfield's website features some great stuff about the film, including the trailer and an exclusive (and really good) interview with the film's director Robert Kenner, in which he talks about the film's intention to promote informed consumer choices. He says,

"[The film is about the] freedom to know both what's in the food, what we're eating, where it's coming from, and what we're allowed to say about this food. I realized this is a film about our rights to know as Americans."

Then, I heard a story on NPR's Morning Edition by Steve Inskeep, in which he talked with Kenner and food advocate and author Michael Pollan (who is also featured in the film) about the film. (Web-info and a link to the audio is available here.) Inskeep takes them to task to explain in detail each phrase from an single line early in the film which says, "Our food is coming from enormous assembly lines where the animals and the workers are being abused and the food has become much more dangerous in ways that are being deliberately hidden from us."

And, talk of the film is making its way around the blogosphere (for example, this) and numerous news sites, including reviews on Variety and indieWIRE and interviews Kenner did with The Washington Post and The New York Times.

And the film's website itself is a wealth of good information. These folks have built bridges -- laying out the issues point for point, creating rich resource lists for information-seekers, offering suggestions for getting involved, particularly in the area of children's nutrition, and building alliances with important advocacy organizations. They even have their own blog called Hungry for Change which looks to be regularly updated and pretty informative.

But not everyone is happy about the film's release. Monsanto is so pissed they've go their own anti-Food Inc. webpage up and running, which I find hugely interesting because most of the time big agribusiness just ignores films and books that have the potential to discredit them. Perhaps we're getting near some point of critical mass and they're nervous... (Kenner talks about the film's efforts to work with Monsanto in The Washington Post article.) (Also, I'm not a fan of Monsanto, so I won't talk about them anymore, but Deborah Koons Garcia did a nice job making them look like asses in her 2004 film The Future of Food, another great documentary worth checking out.)

All that said, I'll stop talking about the film and hopefully see it soon. If you see it before me, let me know what you think! Here's the trailer:


(photo caption & credits: Polyface Farms' Joel Salatin is an organic farmer and an agribusiness critic featured in Food, Inc. Magnolia Pictures)

UPDATE:
I watched Food, Inc. last weekend at my local indy film theater and earlier this week a friend emailed asking what I thought of it and whether it was worth seeing. An edited version of my reply is below. (It may be of value to note that my friend is a farmer living and working on a very new, organic, family-owned farm in New England, so he knows way more about food than I do and has spent considerable time really thinking about the importance of food and our food industry.)

The film was decent. I didn't learn much that I didn't know before. Very little, actually. But I think the film would be a decent introduction for folks new to thinking about the role of corporations in U.S. food culture and food industry. The film hit on a number of issues – food labeling, foodborne illness, health consequences of our current food choices, factory farming, corporate influence on family farms, animal rights, worker rights, environmental impact, law and governmental policy, and so on. And I think the filmmakers made an effort to give voice to a number of viewpoints, though they didn't pretend to be entirely ‘objective’ in their response and analysis. (And why should they?) Interestingly, they made a point NOT to villainize big business, using interviews with Greg Hirshberg, CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farms, and Wal-Mart buyers (meaning product purchasers, not public consumers) to talk about the power of public opinion and consumer demand. Long and short, I think the film has the potential to rattle mainstream folks who haven't thought about where their food comes from.

Plus, the film spends a good chunk of time talking to Joel Salatin, a mighty spunky farmer for Polyface Farm in Virginia. The farm seems to deal mostly in meats – beef, pork, poultry – but in all the ways you wish meats came to market – organic, local, free range birds, grass fed cattle, and so forth. Joel serves as a powerful voice in the film, but I wonder if the audience 'got' it, because most of his talking was done while he was doing farm work, including slaughtering chickens and preparing them for market (as compared to most of the other interviewees, who have the backdrop of their kitchen or office). With the typical consumer/film-goer so removed from the origin of our food, folks watching the film with me seemed unsettled and/or shocked to see animals slaughtered. (There were numerous audible gasps and lots of uncomfortable squirming in the theater.) While I’m glad folks had this response, I’m also really afraid that they won't think about why they felt that way, but will rather push it to the corners of their mind, ignore it, or – worse – consider Joel and farmers like him 'heartless' – which is about as far from the truth as you can get, but that is a mental jump I can understand when folks have never seen an animal slaughtered before. Mind you, the film also shows animals in factory slaughterhouses, but not at the moment of death and often as animal parts rather than whole creatures, which makes it easier, I think, for folks to distance themselves. I wished there was a bit more explanation in the film about what was going on in both of these situations, such that film-goers would have guidance to better understand what they were seeing. (For example, for folks who’ve never seen or read anything on slaughtering poultry or beef, they wouldn’t recognize or understand what the most humane, painless way to go and why. They just see slitting throats and freak.)

I also went back to reread Monsanto’s retaliatory website after watching the film. Comparing their views and those in the film is one of those "nobody's lying, still the stories don't line up" situations (Ani lyrics). The film, I think, sought to question the ethics of Monsanto and their influence – on food policy, with GMOs, with patenting, on farmers, and so on. Monsanto doesn't address these ethical concerns, instead highlighting that they are obeying the law (which they helped frame and influence) and justifying litigation between themselves and farmers featured in the film as an effort to ensure that that others are following the law as well. Personally, I’m not convinced. This is a situation where I think it’s of importance to question laws that put the well-being of corporations ahead of the well-being of people, which is what I believe these laws do. For example, I believe in the importance of seed saving (Dr. Vandana Shiva is a great resource about this issue in India if you’re interested in reading more), and knowing the workings of Mother Nature and how seed spreads from field to field, I think Monsanto's patent infringement politics are shady. Monsanto's website also went out of its way to say that the film demonizes farmers, which I think is utterly untrue. I thought the film demonstrated how many farmers are trapped in an unworkable system under the thumb of corporations like Monsanto.

But that's just my two-cents. All in all, I was glad I saw it. It’s one more piece of media to add to the repertoire. But also nothing ground shattering. As to whether or not you should go watch it, that's your decision. In the meantime, that’s enough rambling from me for one day...

-7/3/09

You're beautiful just the way you are!

Hey folks. A quick hit to remind you/me/us/we that seeing is NOT always believing, especially if it's media trying to sell anything (music, tv, beauty, lifestyle, products, whatever).

I, for one, often forget how much I'm lied to by every advertisement, commercial, billboard, etc. that I see. It's like I become inoculated to the falsity of media surrounding me. Especially when it comes to beauty. We (men and women) are supposed to be flat here, curvy there, blemish free everywhere, toned, no wrinkles, no flab, god forbid we be freckled, blah, blah, blah. It's enough to make me barf.

But I get really scared when I begin to forget that it's messages outside of myself being delivered to me that are telling me these things (even when I remind myself all the time). Instead I begin to feel as if the messages come from within me. My own voice starts to say "You're chunky. Look at that patchy skin! Ooh, look at those wrinkles!" Yadda-yadda, on and on. It's bad for me. It's bad for all of us.

BUT, every once and a while I get a nice kick in the ass to remind me that, uh, nope, I'm just fine the way I am and the world of media is what's way, way, way sick. Case in point: I ran across this website today that reps a company that provides professional photo retouching services. The real mind blower is their portfolio. If you want to be reminded of all the lies we tell each other about what 'beauty' is (aka - attack of the Photoshopper), but also what 'reality' looks like, this is the place to go (but remember that this particular version of 'reality' is supported by entire crews of hair, make-up, costuming, set, and lighting teams in addition to lifestyles likely filled with expensive skin and body 'care' routines). Anyway, go to this website, click Portfolio, select any image, and as you roll your mouse back and forth over the image, you'll see the original and retouched photos. Holy crap. I think it's fair to say that we have some fucked up ideas about beauty. Do you agree?

As a preview, check out this two samples from the site:




























Because apparently even beautiful people need to be 'fixed' and/or 'perfected.' Sad.

To see other examples of media (primarily print, but also some video) that works to make us forget what real beauty looks like, Melissa McEwan over at Shakesville has a series called Impossibly Beautiful.

In the meantime, I feel like I need to continually chant to myself, "I'm beautiful just the way I am. You're beautiful just the way you are. We're beautiful just as we are." Whew... Breath. Repeat.

UPDATE:
I just watched a recent (March 10, 2009) Op-Ed piece in The New York Times video library entitled Sex, Lies and Photoshop. It was put together by the wonderful Jesse Epstein, a Brooklyn-based documentary filmmaker. (I was first introduced to Epstein when her piece 34x25x36 was featured in The YouTube Screening Room, and then I saw her work again as a featured film in this year's LunaFest film festival -- which is still touring, if you wanna go.) Anyway, Epstein's Op-Ed argues in support of possible legislation in France that would make it illegal to promote (through any media, including advertising) negative body image and eating disorders. One central measure would force magazines to disclose the extent to which their images have been retouched or altered. Can you imagine?! Wow-wee! We should keep our eyes on France and see what happens! - 4/6/09

Cognition-enhancing drugs & why I'm not convinced they're a good idea

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 say that "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.

Two thumbs down for PETA

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").

Linsday Rajt, assistant manager of PETA's vegan campaigns, said:

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.

PETA spokeswoman Ashley Byrne added:

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.)

And PETA's comment on the situation:

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.

-2/10/09

Father's Day as only we could destroy it...

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

why Unilever isn't so squeaky clean

Hey y'all. It's been a bit. I hope the new year is bringing good things your way. As for me, I've had a bit of a bee in my bonnet as of late (honestly, when do I not?). So, back in June I shared a short digital video I really dig -- Dove's 'Evolution.' (It looks like the original link is outdated. Here's where you can check out the video.) As part of their Campaign for Real Beauty, Dove released a follow up video a little while back entitled 'Onslaught.' Here it is:

Essentially the film highlights (subliminal-speed style) the advertising industry's common portrayal of women -- a highly sexualized version of womanhood -- and they close with the message “Talk to your daughter before the beauty industry does.” Rock on, right?

In and of itself, yeah, maybe. But, here's the part that gets my goat (not that I have a goat to be gotten, but for the sake of literary flow...): Dove's parent company is Unilever who, as we'll get to, seems to have some conflicting intentions. In describing the Dove brand, Unilever say things like:

In a world of hype and stereotypes, Dove provides a refreshingly real alternative for women who recognise that beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.

and

Our ground-breaking campaign for our new Dove Firming lotion, which features women of all shapes and sizes, ... underlines our commitment to breaking down stereotypes and enabling you to celebrate your beauty.

Yay! A brand that cares about me as a REAL woman -= no supermodel, no 100 pound, flawless youth decadently pretending the world is mine because of the body I've got to master it with. A company that believes women are more than boobs and asses. Finally. Woohoo! Raise a flag, do a dance, sing a song, and for the love of all that is good, buy Dove! Right? Perhaps not...

Unilevel is parent to a large number of brands, including Slimfast, Bertolli, Pond's, Country Crock, Hellman's, Knorr, Sunsilk, Vaseline, and Axe. You know Axe, right? It's the world's most popular brand of male grooming products (sold as Lynx in the UK, Ireland and Australia). On the Axe website, they describe the 'work' of their brand as follows:

The Axe Effect is the internationally recognized name for the increased attention Axe-wearing males receive from eager, and attractive, female pursuers. Regardless of where you live (shout-outs to Cindy and Diane in Dawson City, Yukon!) you can "get you some" Axe Effect by going to a store near you and purchasing one of our fine products.

And on Unilever's Axe brand site, they say,

With its coolly seductive fragrances and packaging, the brand has established itself as the world's top male grooming brand by coming up with a constant stream of new ideas to keep guys a step ahead in the mating game.

Um, uh, what? Axe is body spray (and other products for men) to help the male members of our species get a little leg up on the "mating game." You got that "get you some" innuendo, right? Yeah. Thought so. Hard to miss. Axe is a brand that's sole purpose is to help men get into girl's pants. Awesome. I feel so clean and wholesome now. And a bit objectified. Just a bit.

And, just to stress the point, if you visit the Axe website, you get an even clearer image of their view of women. After you get through Flash loading, oh, excuse me, I mean "Your mojo is loading," you have a couple options. You can watch a video about The Axe Vice Naughty to Nice Program designed to 'rehabilitate' all those unfortunate sweet women who have fallen victim to the irresistible lure of Axe products and as a result committed crimes. (It's the 'good girl gone bad' scenario, 'cuz really, does anyone want a bad girl who's already been bad? Seems not.) You can watch The World's Dirtiest Film. (I'm sure you get it. What more do I need to explain about that?) You can play the Dirty Rolling game to see 'how much dirty fun you can get into.' Mind you, if your digital giggling self and lip-locked partner roll over women to join your rolling trout in the mud you get bonus points. If you roll over men, you lose points. We only want one guy per dirty game, apparently. Or, and this may be my 'favorite,' you can download a "Long Lasting Axe V.I.X.E.N.S." (Very Interactive Xtremely Entertaining Naughty Supermodel) for your online pleasure. Is it fair for me to say yet that I hate these people?

(Okay, and for my own satisfaction, I also have to highlight that Unilever introduces Axe saying, "In the film The Matrix, Keanu Reeves is given two choices. He can either take a blue pill and wake up in the morning as if nothing has happened or pop a red pill and enter the unpredictable 'wonderland' of the Matrix. As millions of guys around the world know, Axe has taken the red pill." Just so we all know, The Matrix was inspired in part by a book written by Jean Baudrillard called Simulacra and Simulation. Simulacra and Simulation, like Baudrillard's other works, is a critique of contemporary consumer society, suggesting that our obsession with material things and the societal meanings we ascribe them (example: body spray makes you irresistibly sexy) leads to our own apathy, nihilism, and eventual destruction. We live in a world of constructed lies -- false images obscuring the truths of our existence. Essentially, everything we come to believe is in a falsehood. In The Matrix, Neo's acceptance of the red pill doesn't take him to a 'wonderland' where deodorant makes him every woman's sex dream; it takes him to a reality stripped of the images we place upon it -- exactly the opposite of the result Axe suggests. Just needed to point that out. Yeah, I'm a nerd. And I'm cool with that.)

And, just to make it more fun, Axe has fronted this 'band' called The BomChickaWahwahs who taut themselves as "the world's naughtiest band." And who are they? Well, a group of four lingerie-clad Axe minions whose theme song (uh, only song?) includes the lyrical anthem:

Bom chicka wah wah. It’s the labido’s mantra.
Yeah it goes bom chicka wah wah. Mmm, baby come to mama.
The scent goes up through the nose and then into the brain
Attacks the common sense, whose always super lame...
It invades a woman’s mind. Her limbic region goes insane.
She’ll start aching for a man and acting so profane.
It’s a sexual turrets. Strange words break out your mouth.
We’re here to warn all you girls: there’s a monsoon headed south. ...
How to explain this sensual feeling,
Somehow my panties end up on the ceiling.
Even guys we cannot stand have us eating from their hands. ...
Bom chicka wah wah...

(There is also a music video, which I can't quite bring myself to post here, but if you want to see it, go here. It's also on the band's website.)

Have I highlighted enough examples yet to demonstrate the demeaning way women are portrayed by the Axe brand? So, then how do we (you, me, whoever cares) reconcile the reality that Unilever actively promotes Dove, a brand claiming a desire to break from the traditional messages of women as sexual objects and promote a more realistic view of women, while also pushing Axe, a brand centrally grounded in the promotion of women as sex-objects to be mastered/owned/conquered (whatever language you prefer) through the purchase of products? (This is the stuff that keeps me up at night, folks. Seriously.)

So, what do we do about it? Do we deny the value of Dove's messages? Well, no. If they impact positive growth or change, I wouldn't deny them that power, nor would I want to. But, recognizing the purpose-serving motives of advertisers is important as well. Unilever, through Dove, promotes 'real' women as a marketing ploy, just as Unilever, through Axe, promotes women as sex-objects as a marketing ploy. They create the same material they warn us to save our daughters from. Unilever's mission says

Our mission is to add Vitality to life. We meet everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene and personal care with brands that help people look good, feel good and get more out of life.

And regardless how it is framed, the company's purpose is to stay in business, to make money. And apparently it doesn't matter whether you do that by portraying me as a 'real' woman or as a sex object. Whatever sells. And it's too bad, really, because I've got this soft spot for companies that are interested in serving real people, not the almighty dollar. And my cash follows my interest.

P.S. - If you'd like to do something about Unilever's hypocrisy, one option is to join a letter writing campaign being led by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. You can encourage Unilever to consider the mixed messages they endorse in their expressions of concern for girls' and women's well-being while also positioning women as sexual objects.

the evolution of a model : a reminder about the nature of beauty

i saw this video for the first time probably 8-10 months ago, but i find that every once and a while i come back to it. not because of any "woohoo, dove!" feelings, but because it's a reminder that the world presented to us isn't always the whole truth of the matter. the media leaves important parts out. which sometime includes reality. beauty lives in a person, not just on the surface. we can -- and are -- beautiful without being a perfect face or a perfect body. without hours of work -- by appearance artists or virtual artists. the beauty on a billboard isn't what's really beautiful about life. ya feel me?

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam...

"Spam for you. Spam for me. We'll all live together in Spam harmony." But not in Hawaii...

Apparently Burger King has just added spam to their Hawaiian menu, which is pissing off the folks at McDonald's who've been offering Spam on their breakfast menu since 2002. But the folks in Hawaii eat more Spam than any other state in the Union, so I'm guessing there will be plenty of Spam eaters to satisfy product growth. I mean, these people like it enough that they've got their own flavor: Hawaii. It's not available in general release, so if you want some, you better pack your swimsuit and head to the islands. (However, a Golden Honey Grail version is avaliable in honor of Monty Python's Spamalot. AND, you can play the game online. I know you've always wanted to catapult cows at those Stinky French pigdogs, and now you can!)

But for those of you in the continental U.S. and not likely to make it to Hawaii anytime soon, you can always visit the Spam Museum in Austin (Minnesota, not Texas). Admission is free, and if you're looking for some special treatment, visit the Spam Spa. (They say it doesn't exist, but they provide pictures, so it must be true. Right?!)

With so many great things happening in the word of gelatinous pink meat products, the only thing a girl can say is, "Ahh... Spam culture!"