It's a weird time in my life. I'm what I've been calling "in between." Everything is in transition. Nothing is particularly steadfast or certain. I have no job. I have no permanent home. (And with those things come no income, no health insurance, no financial security -- no fun things like that.) Making decisions has never been my strength and figuring out what to do with my life -- or even just the next step -- is daunting. It's easy to wish and dream. But hard to make a real life. So, some days are hard.
Yesterday PBS Digital Studios posted their very first video to YouTube. It's called "Mister Rogers Remixed | Garden of Your Mind," it was created by the very talented melodysheep (aka John Boswell), and it's brilliant. (I like melodysheep's video "We Are Stardust" too. It says, "Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. You are all stardust.")
When I was a child I, like many others, was an avid Mister Rogers watcher. I vividly remember going to the crayon factory and visiting the Neighbourhood of Make-Believe and feeling safe. Mister Rogers was a trusted friend. (And I had lace-up "sneakers" just like his.) So, it seems oddly appropriate that as an adult Mister Rogers still brings me comfort. I watch this video and feel a sense of hope and of possibility. And I'm reminded that it's okay to be me. Sure, that makes me cheesy or sentimental or both, but I'm happy to give thanks to a guy who was in my life as a child and is still in my life as an adult. What a legacy he built for an entire generation.
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 work at a school that’s atypical in a number of ways. It’s a 110 year old, co-ed, private K-12 school (housed in one building) in the heart of Chicago, and our educational philosophy is based on progressive, constructivist, democratic ideals. We are pretty intentional about things like building a safe, productive community in which everyone’s voice is welcomed, in which challenging one another and challenging previously unquestioned ideas and assumptions is encouraged, and where differences are valued as strengths, especially when our differences challenge one another to be more knowledgeable, more thoughtful people. We have a common language and shared ideals with which everyone is familiar and by which everyone strives to abide, including:
Our motto: “Everything to help and nothing to hinder.” – Francis W. Parker (our founder)
“A school should be a model home, a complete community, an embryonic democracy.” – Francis W. Parker
“If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.” – 1 Corinthians 12:26 (We are not a religious school, but this biblical quotation is a guiding adage that has been part of our expectations for one another for generations.)
There’s a lot of history, and a lot of tradition, at the school. But it’s not all about being serious and stoic. We try to be a place where the whole person is welcome – whether that whole person is a student, a family member, or a faculty or staff member. And that means that we share gifts, abilities, talents (and challenges) that are parts of our ‘real world’ lives with one another, even if those things might not be welcome in other, perhaps more traditional schools. At our school, students and teachers laugh together (and cry together), and teachers share things about their ‘real lives’ that the school culture in other settings might discourage – things like our whole identities, our political beliefs and convictions, what we did over the weekend, and when we are an awesome break dancer. (Which I am not.) And one of the things we love to share with one another is HUMOR!
A relatively new tradition at our school (ranging back to at least 2006) is the annual Mike and Duane Show – a production that essentially boils down to a comedy sketch show presented primarily by faculty and staff, with occasional student involvement. It includes comedy routines, dances, music videos, and always a princess number. It’s a pretty serious undertaking and a beloved piece of our school community.
Last year I shared with you the “Bad” video that was a part of the 2010 Mike and Duane Show. (And it’s totally worth revisiting, or visiting for the first time if you’ve never seen it. How often have YOU watched your Assistant Principal dance Michael Jackson through the halls while being backed by a gang for faculty and staff?!)
This year, I thought I’d share a little more – both present and past. This year’s show was fun. It included lots of singing and dancing, a video/live performance of an original tune, a high school science teacher showing off his aerial acrobatic skills, and a crazy music video mash-up of Michael Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal,” Katy Perry’s “Firework,” Onyx’s “Slam,” and Ok Go’s “End Love.” (The links will show you video of these acts.)
But, to give you an idea of the tone in which the show is presented, here was this year’s introduction (inspired by The Electric Company, of course):
(And in case you want to know, Duane is a counselor in our Middle School, Mike works in our afterschool program for K – 5th graders, and Casey (Hudetz – thus “Chudetz”) teaches in the Middle School computer lab.)
Every year's show features a faculty number which typically recreates some pop culture dance from the previous year – ranging from the Jai Ho to the Sound of Music flash mob in Amsterdam to this year’s Double Dream Hands, of which I was a part. See if you can spot me:
And there is typically at least one performance by faculty and staff who actually live up to the title ‘dancer.’ This year, said talented folks did a remake of Janet Jackson’s "Rhythm Nation."
There are MANY a great Mike and Duane act from years past. Here are a few of my favorites:
2007:
(The prince is played by our assistant principal, the cop is our technology facilitator, and the cab driver is one of our high school science teachers.)
2008:
2010:
For us, part of being a community means making time to laugh together and making time to share our talents – both those of the students and those of faculty and staff. And we like to have fun. Isn't that how school should be?!
I must confess. I am rather infatuated with Darren Criss. (Not in the "Yeah, we hang out and actually really like each other and frequently chat about the intricacies of our personal day-to-day lives" sorta way, but in the "I've never met you, probably never will, and yet I think you are truly delightful" kind of way.)
There are many reasons. Here are a few:
1. He's crazy talented. (I mean, have you SEEN him sing?! Go watchthisrightnow!)
4. He knows and acknowledges his own roots and he's a man comfortable enough with his own sexuality to say what needs to be said. And he does it explicitly and with kindness. True ally.
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."
In my procrastination efforts I wandered over to Wordle. (Have you been there? It's fun.) On the Wordle home page it explains that:
Wordle is a toy for generating “word clouds” from text that you provide. The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text. You can tweak your clouds with different fonts, layouts, and color schemes.
Wordle is the brain child of Jonathan Feinberg, a software engineer at IBM Research, and I can't figure out how old the site/software is. But, I've been seeing these 'word clouds' reappearing throughout different venues of my life lately -- blog signatures, school event advertisements, wedding invitations -- and I realized by accident that they were all being created here.
So, I thought I'd give it a whirl myself and see what came of it. I inserted the text from the most current four page summary of my thesis work. Then I limited the word-count to 50 (rather than the standard 150), removed all author names, and changed my colors to black and white (my research is about ideologies of race after all). And after a bit of fiddlin', voilà ! In all reality, I'm finding it helpful to have this visual tool. It's helping me see the language I am using most frequently and how those words correlate with themes and my areas of interest. I was surprised, for example, that 'social' is my most frequently used word. I would have thought it might have been 'race,' or 'white,' or 'privilege,' but it's helpful for me to see how really these are all relational terms in a social world. I could go on, but you get the point. What a helpful (and intellectually and aesthetically pleasing) software.
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...
I think Ellen DeGeneres is an amazing woman and am often grateful for her voice amidst so many others that just try to make people feel bad. She spoke at the 2009 Tulane University commencement last week. Here's what she had to say:
(And, as an added bit of fun, here's one of my favorite Ellen moments.)
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
I read a very interesting article in Nature recently that got my brain going (which, ironically, is kind of a joke once you hear what this article was about). Essentially, the authors -- a team of 7 scientists in the U.S. and U.K. -- are advocating for the rights of healthy adults to boost their brain power through the use of pills and are in support of the continued science that would support such a cultural shift.
The commentary opens with a discussion of growing trends on college campuses for students to buy and sell drugs like Adderall and Ritalin (you know, the stimulants typically prescribed to folks with ADHD), not to get high, but to get better grades -- to enhance their brain functioning in a way that gives them a leg-up in the academic rat-race. (On a side note, I also often hear stories of upper/middle-class soccer moms (and many others) becoming Ritalin junkies as they try to keep up with the pressures of day-to-day life, but the authors don't talk about these folks.)
Overall, the scientists saythat "We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function" and that doing so with pills is the moral equivalent of undertaking a healthy diet, regular exercise, or ample sleep. They say:
"The drugs just reviewed [Ritalin, Adderall, Provigil], along with the newer technologies such as brain stimulation and prosthetic brain chips, should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology -- ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself."
Brain scientist Martha Farah, one of the article's authors, said that once such brain-boosting pills are developed and marketed, "Almost everybody is going to want to use it."
Okay. Uh. I have to stop here. 'Almost everybody'?! Are you kidding me?! If that's true, you're talking to one sad girl who is losing faith in humanity by the second. For argument's sake, let me try to explain myself. First, my gut is saying that we as a culture are looking at all of this from the totally wrong perspective. If so many people are in situations in which they feel such an extreme pressure to perform -- whether the context be grades, jobs, or day-to-day duties and responsibilities -- and they are turning to brain-altering drugs to 'keep up,' why is our cultural response to 'fix' normal, human (and apparently 'slow') brain functioning rather than to 'fix' a culture that demands greater than human abilities of us? Do you see what I'm saying?! These scientists seem to go along with the assumption that the 'problem' to be solved is human inefficiency, rather than unrealistic cultural expectations. So rather than change the system, we try to change the individual, with mind and body-altering medical intervention. That does not sit well with me. At all.
Anticipating my potential disdain for their pro-cognitive-enhancing banter, the authors try to derail three common arguments against brain pills (my word, not theirs): 1) They're cheating. 2) They're unnatural. 3) They entail drug abuse.
My thoughts and responses: 1) Brain pills are cheating. I care little about this argument. I'm not a fan of cheating. I think it sucks. But in my personal interests, I care less about HOW folks are cheating than WHY they feel they have to do so and addressing those issues first, working to eliminate the desire to cheat rather than punishing those who do. Even so, these scientists argue that brain pills aren't a form of cheating at all. Rather, they suggest, that all forms of intervention modify brain function -- be it getting a good night's sleep, finding a good strategy for relieving stress, getting a private tutor, or drinking a double shot of espresso. And I agree. Yes, all the actions of my life have the potential to affect my brain function, some for the better and some not so much. My concern comes with the manipulative, 'unnatural' way in which brain pills screw with my body. Moving on to argument 2...
2) Brain pills are unnatural. The scientists confront this one directly saying that:
"the lives of almost all living humans are deeply unnatural; our homes, our clothes and our food -- to say nothing of the medical care we enjoy -- bear little relation to our species' 'natural' state."
So, if I understand correctly, humanity is no longer 'natural' so why be concerned about what is natural or unnatural behavior or what is a natural or unnatural product to put into my body? Uh, what?! Is humanity so far removed from Nature that none of the warnings of living in the natural world still apply? Because I don't live in a home built by my own hands, because I don't wear clothes I made myself (from growing the cotton to sewing the garment), because I have a guilty love of Doritos, which surely are no where close to 'natural' -- I have no right to be concerned about the way that naturalness is defined within humanity and within my own life?! Um, yeah, I don't accept that. And even if scientists tried to appease me with a brain pill full of 'natural' stuff (aka - non-synthetic, unaltered, unengineered) that doesn't mean I would accept such a product without concern either. For example, I get freaked out by those advertisements for fancy, 'all natural' vitamin packs or 'health shakes' that promise to make me a super woman. (Maybe it's the 'natural' combined with corporate marketing that I find unsettling and untrustworthy...) Similarly, gasoline is 'natural' but that doesn't make is safe for me to huff. You know what I'm saying? I guess my concern on this whole 'naturalness' conversation is a sense of arrogance I perceive on behalf of these scientists (actually Science, in general) that we (humans) are somehow superior to Nature in knowing what is 'best' for us. How many times do we have to be proven wrong before we gain a little humility? (Uh, global warming comes to mind...) Call me stupid, but I feel pretty confident in the idea that if my brain was meant to function faster than it is, then I would have been born that way or have a natural disposition for it naturally, without the intervention of drugs. Just because my brain CAN work faster or function differently does not mean it's a GOOD IDEA. Ya dig? Just because you can does not mean you should, and in this case doesn't mean it's good for you. We don't know the consequences of altering brain function long-term, and like I said, if my brain was meant to work that way, I think it would. So the "'humans aren't natural' plus 'brain pills aren't natural' equals 'humans shouldn't worry about taking brain pills'" argument doesn't work for me.
3) Using brain pills is drug abuse. The scientists argue that society already addresses drugs along a wide spectrum of social acceptability: caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana,and heroin all have their place of acceptance/outlaw along a social continuum, and the scientists argue that there is no reason to place brain pills immediately alongside drugs that have been outlawed. I can understand this argument, but I am really hung up on the idea of medicating otherwise healthy persons. When one of my personal goals is to be as careful as possible about what I put into my body and its effects, really aiming to allow my body to function as 'naturally' as possible, this flies in the face of the expectations I have set for myself. I do not believe in holding others to expectations I set for myself, so the best I can offer is a series of questions: What are the connections between brain pills and addiction? What are the long-term effects of brain pills on the body? Are the pills addressing a concern that could be dealt in a different, less brain-altering way? What motivations are leading people to the use of brain pills to begin with? At the end of the day, I'm not interested in telling anyone what to do with their bodies, so from that perspective, I wouldn't suggest outlawing brain pills or criminalizing those who use them, but I certainly have concerns about persons' health and well-being and apprehensions that pills are not the best means by which to meet those needs.
In fairness, the authors are not flippant about the use of cognition-enhancing drugs, but I am unsatisfied with their suggestions for dealing with probably ethical concerns. First, they site concerns over issues of human safety, which they say can be addressed with study. I agree; study is needed. Lots of study. Though, I would suggest that some of that study include a questioning of the larger cultural contexts surrounding brain pills, rather than just an examination of brain pills themselves.
Second, the authors site a concern for supporting individual freedom from coercion to use brain-enhancing drugs. They recognize both structural and individual sites of coercion and suggest that 'policy' (for which they provide little concrete suggestion) could prevent these problems. I think they're wrong. If we look at their own examples of the percentages of college students already taking brain-enhancing drugs, which is currently an illegal act, you can't tell me that making the drugs legal and then enacting 'policy' -- against what?! peer pressure? -- will provide individuals with truly free choice about taking the drugs. I think the 'freedom' they are talking about is a cultural fluke; that level of true freedom is not possible in the context of our culture. Even if policy says folks are free to make their own choices, cultural pressures will always take their toll. Such is life.
Additionally, the scientists suggest that not all people should be offered the choice to drug up or to refrain. They highlight professions such as those in the military and some in the field of emergency medicine as contexts in which exemptions from policies supporting freedom to refrain are valid. So, even if some people might be protected from forced pill-popping, what does it mean when people holding important, valued positions within society are required to take these drugs? How would this influence the common citizen's attitudes towards the drugs? It seems to me that such acts would support wide-spread drugging up. Is that who we as a culture want to be?
Similarly, the authors support the continued, non-consensual drugging of children -- which is a common practice today anyway, particularly among children diagnosed with ADHD and raises continued questions of children's rights and autonomy (which I'm not going to address further here and now).
And third (and I find this most interesting), the authors highlight their concern for fairness when it comes to use of the drugs. Essentially, they are discussing questions of socioeconomic access and distribution, suggesting (accurately, I believe) that these drugs have the potential to deepen social inequalities, particularly between class groups, if action isn't taken to prevent such gaps. Such inequality already exists. We see it everyday. Who is likely to get the best education? (Answer, in case you need it: white, middle/upper class folks with a history of education and sustained funds to pay for education and all its auxiliary costs.) Obviously, issues of availability and issues of cost will affect how brain pills shift social dynamics in our culture. The authors suggest that 'policy' (again, pretty vaguely addressed) could help address these concerns. For example:
“If cognitive enhancements are costly, they may become the province of the rich, adding to the educational advantages they already enjoy. One could mitigate this inequity by giving every exam-taker free access to cognitive enhancements, as some schools provide computers during exam week to all students. This would help level the playing field.”
So, to solve the problem of unequal access, institutions can give away brain pills to anyone who wants them... Awesome. I found it pleasantly surprising that these scientists considered the social contexts of introducing such drugs into society (perhaps I owe them more credit), but I'm unsatisfied with their solutions for addressing potential social concerns.
When it comes down it, I think the authors suggest -- quite accurately -- that a pivotal key to cognition-enhancing drugs' acceptance is an ongoing questioning of the definition of 'medicine.' On one hand, medicine can be viewed as a field devoted to healing -- a defensive, responsive approach to health. On the other hand, medicine can be viewed as committed to helping people live better lives (though I think the definition of 'better' is up for debate). While I am a happy proponent of preventative health care, I wouldn't place brain pills into the category 'preventative' because I am uncertain what it is preventing. It seems that I trust my own body to function in healthy, live-supporting, and enhancing ways more than these scientists do. And I think that is very scary.
I can't help but think of those "This is your brain on drugs" PSAs from the '80s. (Yes, you can laugh at the thought. I did too.) Apparently their warnings no longer apply.
What are your thoughts?If you’re interested in joining the debate, hit me up here or visit Nature’s public forum on the topic.
Hey y'all. I've been missing you, but I can't really say 'I'm back' (yet). The quarter -- which has been 'kick-my-ass-black-and-blue' hard -- is finally winding to a close and I'm looking forward to time away from school and time to think (and share) about other things going on in my life and the world. Anyway, I'm taking a quick homework break and wanted to share this vid.
(Giving credit where credit is due: will.i.am is responsible for this viral firestorm. He started work on the song on November 3rd (when I was still very much in the 'fight 'til Obama's in the Oval Office' camp, trusting nothing to optimism...), and he was at Grant Park filming the video on the 4th. They did editing on the 5th, and the song and video, called "It's a New Day," debuted last Friday, November 7, 2008. It has since been performed on The Oprah Winfrey Show and on Larry King Live. Amen, brother. It is a new day!)
Obama won this election a week ago yesterday, and I am still at a loss to describe the hope I have for a future that really strives to achieve some of the goals I most value for our nation and our world -- a clean, sustainable environment; quality education for all; corporate responsibility and accountability; a government that cares about the people not just the elite; responsible foreign policy and involvement; a revival of communal commitment to prosperity rather than individualism... Our dreams are many.
BUT, this work is not the job of President-Elect Obama. A man is not a movement. This is OUR work. And it is a serious undertaking. I'm in. Are you with me?
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
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).
