Sometimes being a woman sucks. And I’m not talking about biology. I’m talking about sociology.
I’m talking about having to include in my thinking about what clothes to wear my willingness to endure catcalling and street harassment because of someone else’s decision to “comment” on my appearance. I’m talking about grown-ass people telling me that they feel sorry for me because I’m 30 and single, even when I don’t feel sorry for myself (and while simultaneously congratulating my 30 and single male friends for successfully remaining “unchained”). I’m talking about my sister having to file for disability leave when her “disability” is having become a mother.
Like I said, sometimes being a woman sucks. In that vein, I’ve run across a whole bunch of engaging, informative, depressing, and refreshing gender-related stuff as of late that I thought I’d share. Check it:
The female body
The female body is constantly under attack. We’re supposed to be young and skinny (aka scrawny) but also perky and curvaceous. It’s exhausting (whether you’re trying to abide or trying to resist). But, there are some folks trying to fight back.
The folks over at My Body Gallery have created a user generated space where women can send in images of what real women – themselves – look like. The site is not without problematic elements, however. (I, for example, see little reason to categorize my body shape as an apple, pear, banana, or hourglass or to list my height, weight, and clothing sizes. Plus, they unfortunately have an advertising problem. All the ads I've seen are for things like Victoria's Secret and shapewear. Boo!) But I appreciate the site owners’ intention. It will be interesting to see how the site grows or is used over time.
A friend recently created the website Evolve the Aesthetic (ETA) with the intention of engaging women in the reclamation of their own beauty and encouraging the capacity of women to define for themselves the concept of beauty. The project's objective is to shift cultural ideals of beauty increasingly towards how women really look in their amazingly diverse manifestations of beauty. I expect that exciting, innovative stuff will be coming out of ETA, so keep your eyes on it.
Ovens, an illustrator (who authors the webcomic Effort Comics) offered this gem of a tutorial on how to draw boobs and ladybits in general. Based on the representations of women we see everywhere – be it comics, advertising, video games, etc. – a whole world of folks could benefit from her instruction.
I watched this hard-hitting documentary last week called "America the Beautiful." It originally came out in 2007, but does a really heart-wrenching job at asking the question “Is America obsessed with beauty?” And it begs a response to “Who benefits when young girls and women feel ugly?” You can watch the movie in its entirety on Hulu (with an account), through this Love Isn’t Enough blog post (where you just have to enter your birth date), or right here.
Health care
Women’s health care has been all over the news as of late. Here’s a few things to ponder:
Did you see Stephen Colbert's response to the Department of Health and Human Services's new policy that insurance companies must cover women’s birth control and preventative health care services (HPV vaccines, STI testing, etc.) without a co-pay? The Colbert Nation-provided tag reads: “Free birth control will wipe out the American race and instantly turn daughters into wanton harlots with insatiable sexual appetites.” I laughed. A lot.
Click to embiggen.
(Yes, I know that is not a
real word, but I like it.)
There has also been word that women's health care costs are expensive. (Shocking, right?!) Looking at just the services that would be provided under the new legislation, here’s what we’ve got. This fabulous info graph is courtesy of the folks at Good. What gets me about all this political arguing is that men’s health care (to the best of my knowledge) is covered by insurance companies by default while women’s health care has always been an “add on,” considered non-essential. 51% of the population has non-essential health needs. Awesome.
Economics and educational attainment
Some utterly depressed pay gap statistics were recently reported by the Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce in their report “The College Payoff: Education, Opportunity, Lifetime Earnings” (pdf). Here’s one of the key charts of findings.
Click to embiggen.
And in case you’re worried that you misread the notes in red (or they're just too small to read), here’s what they say: “Women have to have a Ph.D. to make as much as men with a B.A.” and “Men with some college but no degree earn about the same as women with a Bachelor’s degree.” That makes me feel GREAT as I work to finish my Master’s. But, as you can guess, women aren’t the only one’s losing out. People of color, too, aren’t earning as much as their white peers. The study introduction summarizes things pretty well, saying: “The findings are stark: Women earn less at all degree levels, even when they work as much as men. On average, women who work full-time, full-year earn 25 percent less than men, even at similar education levels. At all levels of educational attainment, African Americans and Latinos earn less than Whites.”
I like Glee. It’s my guilty pleasure and the only TV show I watch faithfully.
And this week’s episode struck a chord with me. To catch you up, in case you aren’t a regular watcher, Kurt Hummel is the only openly out gay student at McKinley High. And he faces relentless bullying, overt and subtle – gay jokes and taunts, getting thrown in the dumpster, being slammed into lockers, the whole gamut. This week’s episode in particular really highlighted the overwhelmingly oppressive darkness that results from being treated with less than your full humanity, and how sometimes even the most well-meaning friends, teachers, and family-members can’t quite get past the “Sorry you’re having a hard time, but if you’re gay, things are gonna be rough” into a place where they reject the norm of intolerance, declare it unacceptable, and live that resistance in word and deed.
This week, in the midst of feeling utterly alone, Kurt met a new ally in Blaine, an openly out student at another high school, who offers Kurt courage, hope, and assurance that change is possible and life gets better. Plus, Blaine can SING. (And DANG, can he sing! We know how I have a ridiculously intense sweet spot for men’s a cappella, and the Dalton Academy Warblers bring it, singing a cover of Katy Perry’s “Teenage Dream.” I’m fairly certain this pushes my previous Glee favorite song – Lea Michele and Idina Menzel’s rendition of Lady Gaga’s "Poker Face" to number two!)
As you may have noticed, I titled this post “Queering pop culture.” In the realm of feminist theory and resistance, to ‘queer’ something means to change the way it’s seen, to shake the assumptions that hold social constructions in place, to deviate from what is socially understood as normal, and sometimes to even try to redefine what normal is. For me, to queer something can be a very positive thing – it can jolt folks out of their ‘normal’ experience long enough to (sometimes, we hope) be critical about why we do what we do, who it benefits, and who it limits. When we queer our understanding of the world, it can free up space for all people to freely be more wholly who they are.
What I like about this episode of Glee (and several others – several with Kurt’s dad come to mind), is that it (intentionally or unintentionally) has the potential to queer viewers’ ways of understanding the world (which, I believe, is a good thing). Merely because of its willingness to place marginalized experiences, like Kurt’s battle with bullying, at the center of the public’s view, those stories can be told through the eyes of those living them rather than through the eyes of those who fit into the social norm. (For feminist theory folks, we’re talking margin-to-center stuff here, and pushing into the power of standpoint theory.) Listening to marginalized voices tell their own stories tends to show the deep complexities of oppression, power struggles, and lived experiences in ways that are often erased when dominant voices frame the story. (This is the same concept often talked about in the context of history. “The victor writes the history books.” How is Columbus’s arrival in the Americas told differently through the eyes of native peoples? How would understanding change if racism were talked about as not merely individual, but also historical, structural, and institutional? You get the idea.)
So, I am grateful that this piece of Kurt’s story, as told through his eyes and his experiences, (alongside and in conjunction with other stories in other places) has the potential to complicate general understanding of the human experience. While Kurt’s story is not necessarily unique, nor the first time that such material has been on television, its presence on a popular, prime time, network television show is noteworthy and worthy of recognition.
Plus, they sing and dance!
Even so, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out a few of the frustrations I felt in watching how Kurt’s story played out on Tuesday’s episode and how those things relate to larger concerns in society. In the show, after Kurt sees the Warblers sing, he has a short conversation with Blaine and two other Warblers over coffee.
First, one of the students explains that at Dalton everyone is treated the same because they have a zero tolerance harassment policy. While I understand the impulse to suggest ‘easy’ fixes to issues of bullying, harassment, and abuse, adopting a zero tolerance policy is not enough. To create a safe environment for all students requires the changing of minds, the disruption of prejudices and biases, and a communal commitment to holding one another accountable to treating all people with their full humanity. And those efforts require continual work to learn how to think and act differently (because it does NOT come naturally in a society like ours built upon prejudice and inequality). So, adopting a zero tolerance policy is not a cure-all. It is surely a beginning step, but does not and will not create safe spaces for all students without intense, committed, and continuous work.
Second, when explaining how the school’s zero tolerance policy works, one of the students said, “Everybody gets treated the same, no matter what they are. It's pretty simple.” In the ideal world, it would be simple. In the real world, it’s not. Even in his statement, the student uses language that can feel dehumanizing. My hope would have been that he said, “Everybody gets treated the same, no matter WHO they are.” While this could be chalked up to a simple grammatical slip-up, it is important to be thoughtful about language use. We want to always aim to use language that honors individuals’ full humanity, rather than reduce people to objects (WHO you are vs. WHAT you are).
Third, Blaine offers Kurt some advice. He says, “You can refuse to be the victim. Prejudice is just ignorance, Kurt. And you have a chance right now to teach him.” I agree; prejudice is ignorance. But, prejudice is often backed by power. In our society, individuals, groups, institutions, etc. get away with homophobia, racism, sexism, and so many others, because our social systems support them. Society is not inherently neutral. Lines were drawn long before we showed up on the scene, and while we didn’t pick the setup, it’s been laid out for us. Battling ignorance IS about education and about sharing information that changes the ways the world is understood, but we’re already starting on biased ground. The battle truly is an uphill climb. Plus, the battle is bigger than changing individuals. It involves changing individuals and seeking to change the larger culture that places limits and restrictions on those who don’t conform to a socially built idea of ‘normal.’ So, while perhaps Blaine’s advice is accurate and appropriate for Kurt, for Glee, and for the audience, I feel the need to acknowledge some of the complexities in accomplishing what Blaine suggests.
Okay, enough of my being down on the details.
As Emma Pillsbury would say, “Yay, Glee!” Plus, I must offer a shout out to actors Chris Colfer (who plays Kurt Hummel) and Max Adler (who plays Dave Karofsky). You gentlemen are amazing in your attention to detail. You knock my socks off!
Also, if you’re interested in other pretty mainstream examples of queering pop culture, a good example is the video below. The men of the University of Rochester's YellowJackets filmed a parody of the video to Taylor Swift’s “You Belong with Me.” Much like Glee’s version of “Teenage Dream” could be interpreted as a musical conversation between two same-sex participants (Blaine and Kurt), the YellowJackets reimagine a song originally written about a hetero- couple in a queer context. (The video below has Swift’s voice as audio. If you want to hear the YellowJackets sing it, go here.)
From my perspective, the more we queer pop culture, the more space exists for everyone to feel safe and comfortable being exactly who they are. There has been a lot of news coverage in the past few months about young people who have taken their own lives as a result of bullying focused on the victim’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Information from The Trevor Project tells us that suicide rates have not gone up, only the level of media attention they are receiving. Young people all over the country, and all over the world, are feeling hopeless, voiceless, and alone. Queering pop culture is one (of many) ways to help people feel less alone. Seeing media representations of characters and experiences to whom and with which they can relate matters.
If you’re unfamiliar with The Trevor Project, check them out here. Also, the It Gets Better Project, founded by writer and media pundit Dan Savage, is a space designed to give voice to experiences often pushed to the margins. Their tag says, “Many LGBT youth can't picture what their lives might be like as openly gay adults. They can't imagine a future for themselves. So let's show them what our lives are like, let's show them what the future may hold in store for them.” There are many great videos in their archives. If you haven’t seen the video by Fort Worth, Texas City Councilman Joel Burns, it is especially worth watching.
And, on a final, final note, if you feel the need to hear more delicious a cappella, give this a try. It’s the Leading Tones from The Ohio University (Ohio represent!) singing Ben Folds' "Brick." (Did you know Ben Folds pulled together a WHOLE album of collegiate groups singing vocal arrangements of his songs?! It's called Ben Folds Presents: University a Cappella! Hell to the yeah!)
I wish folks would take the time to really learn a bit more about Islam (and from the source, not second-hand from idiots like FOX News) and spend some time thinking about the many ways Christianity is privileged in our "separation of church and state" society. I'm not saying anyone needs to 'turn Muslim' but a little open-minded willingness to ask sincere questions, listen honestly, and reflect humbly could do us all a world of good.
And, getting off my soap box, one of my favorite lines from Stewart's monologue was this:
FOX Newscaster: "There are a number of people asking, 'Why are these mosques being built in my community?'" Jon Stewart: "Oh! Oh! Oh! I, I think I know the answer to this one! There are Muslims in your community. And they can't find a prayer rug room in the church or synagogue."
I have a warm-and-fuzzy place in my heart for Jay Smooth. (If you didn't already know that about me, where have you been?! If I haven't shared my crush with you before, shame on me. Jay Smooth is the tops.)
Anywho, here's a shout out to all those for whom the holidays aren't so merry and bright. Jay says it so much better than I could:
Sending you love, joy, and wishes for a peace-filled, satisfying new year!
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 directorRobert 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 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...
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
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
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
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).
