Tidbits from the world on gender inequality

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.
  

  The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
  Women's Health-Nazi Plan
  www.colbertnation.com
  Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

  (And if are looking for an additional reason to laugh, Colbert also offered a hysterical response to Summer’s Eve’s ridiculous (and racist) new ad campaign.) 



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.”

TN SB49 “Don’t Say Gay” and George Takei

Yesterday the Tennessee State Senate passed Republican Senator Stacey Campfield's Senate Bill 49, the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill, by a vote of 20-10. (Some are reporting the final vote as 19-11. I’m unsure of the official results. Either way, the bill passed.) The bill has received controversial attention over the past several weeks (months and years) over the appropriate place of government to limit dialogue in classrooms. The bill’s original language (pdf, one page – very short) stated that "No public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality." The bill was then amended such that it could only be adopted after a review by the state board of education of "the current curriculum standards for the teaching of sex education or for the teaching of other subjects in which the discussion of human sexuality may occur incidental to the subject" (pdf, 1 page).

On Friday an amendment (for which I cannot find the official text) was submitted, and then adopted – leading to the passing of the bill – with at least two changes from the original. First, the phrasing "sexual orientation other than heterosexuality" was stricken and replaced by limiting discussions to only "natural human reproduction science."  (This change was fine with Campfield who said, "There's more than one way to skin a cat.… I got what I wanted.… Homosexuals don't naturally reproduce.") In addition, the amendment loosened the scope of the bill such that educators could respond to student questions about homosexuality without punishment, but still cannot offer materials or engage curriculum or instruction inclusive of homosexuality.

According to the Asheville Citizen-Times, "Companion legislation in the state House of Representatives has not advanced out of committee, and supporters of the bill do not intend to bring it up again until 2012."

As a practicing teacher of Kindergarten students, my concerns and fears about this bill are stacking up. Limiting the possibility for discussion and dialogue on any subject typically has dangerous results. Even hypothesizing the consequences of this bill, the following are a few of my concerns. If I were teaching in Tennessee (which I am not):

• The bill would prohibit my inclusion of curriculum and dialogue that acknowledges the lived experiences of my current students who have gay parents or other gay family members or friends.
• The bill would prohibit my colleagues who work with older elementary and middle school students from including dialogue or curricular material that acknowledges and supports students who may be gay or questioning or who have gay family members or friends.
• The bill would limit our inclusion of curriculum in which sexual orientation or identity is relevant to understanding. For example, a discussion of race, ethnicity, and power is relevant to understanding slave narratives or narratives by native peoples (both of which are currently part of our third grade curriculum, by the way). This bill prohibits a similar discussion of sexuality and power as it relates to understanding  historical and cultural events, social structures and consequences, literature, poetry, other creative works, and so on.
• The bill severely limits and/or prohibits teachers and counselors from sharing gay-positive materials with gay and questioning students (who do exist in middle school, and sometimes even late elementary school).
• The bill severely limits and/or prohibits both offensive and defensive efforts to address bullying around issues of sexuality or perceived sexuality.

In addition, the bill seems reliant on at least two faulty assumptions. First, the bill suggests that sexuality is a non-issue before ninth grade. As anyone who knows anything about human development can confirm, sexuality has a place in the lives of all people at all points in their life, both personally and contextually. This looks very different at different ages, but has a presence nonetheless. For example, my students are four and five. Generally, they are not dealing with issues of their own sexuality, but the sexuality of their parents, older siblings, extended family members, family friends, and so on, plays an important role in shaping the cultural and social contexts in which they live. I have a responsibility to help my students understand the world they see around them – a world in which diversity has an active presence (as relates to sexual orientation and a billion other identity markers). Sexuality has consequences for our social structures and the lives of my students. As such, sexuality is a relevant issue prior to ninth grade and being able to address it in age-appropriate ways is vital for supporting healthy students, families, and communities.

Second, the bill seems to suggest the idea that NOT talking about homosexuality means it doesn't exist or will disappear. Sorry to say, that’s not true. Campfield says his bill is morally and ethically neutral, but banning the discussion of one thing while allowing continued discussion of another is not neutrality. It is blatant bias. And, looking through the examples of history, intentionally creating silence around an issue won’t silence those fighting the injustice of hatred.

And in times of blatant hatred, sometimes a little tongue-in-cheek comedy is a helpful way to take action. Thus, props to George Takei. I’m on board. "It's OK to be Takei!"


Plus, as an ironic side note, yesterday (before I knew about SB49 passing) I read And Tango Makes Three with my students. It’s a children’s book that’s been banned all over the place because it “promotes the gay agenda.” It’s a true story about two male penguins in NYC's Central Park Zoo who adopt an egg in need of care and raise the resulting chick, Tango. We read the book because it integrated perfectly into our current curriculum. We’ve been talking for months about families – what a family is, who’s in a family, and really working to acknowledge the idea that no two families are the same, that all family compositions and identities are ‘real’ families, and that we can find similarities between ourselves and others, just as we can find differences. In addition, this week we were talking about zoos – as we focused on the letter Z, continued investigations about animals, and visited the zoo one block from our school. AND, we’ve been preparing the children for their eventual transition to the next grade level. We’ve been visiting the classrooms they may be in next year and the students in those rooms have been studying bird life cycles, so have been hatching chicken, duck, and quail eggs. My kids loved hanging with the baby birds. As such, And Tango Makes Three touches on all these curricular topics – families, zoos, animals, baby birds. How could I possibly have found a better curricular match?! “Gay themes” be damned. And what did the kids want to talk about when we finished the book? How cute penguins are and how parenting penguins prepare and then care for their baby chicks. Very controversial stuff.

For other (blatantly anti-SB49) videos, you can check out Jon Stewart and the folks at FCKH8.

Fairies have superpowers too, dammit!

During snack time a few weeks back, a table of my students and I got into a discussion about superpowers (meaning superhuman abilities, not countries with international world influence). One of my students was celebrating her fifth birthday and had kindly brought pudding cups for everyone, and each chocolaty treat was accompanied by a Tinkerbell napkin.

courtesy of Disney via Easy Art

One of the boys at my table (while devouring his way through the pudding cup) said, "I hate Tinkerbell. She’s stupid. Superman's so much cooler." There were mumbles of agreement from the other boys at the table and general silence, but wide-eyed attention, from the girls. Six pairs of eyes turned to me. Waiting. I said something along the lines of, "I bet Tinkerbell and Superman know each other. I mean, they both have superpowers, and how many people do you know who can fly? I bet they hang out." (And in case the truth is in question: yes, I’m that teacher; you know, the one that says stuff like this on purpose with the intention of making kids think. Though sometimes it just makes them think I’m crazy…)

courtesy of DC Comics via Comic Book Collectors

For a short moment everything stopped. Everyone was quiet. But, you could see the kids’ minds kick into high gear, imaginations at work, processing and weighing the possibilities. It was as if each was asking him- or herself the question, "Is that possible? Could Superman and Tinkerbell actually know one another?! How would that work?!"

Then one boy (the one who had already declared his fairy-hate) said rather defiantly, "No way! They aren't even in the same show!" (Ah, media culture...)

I pushed my real point – "But they have the same superpower." There was a mumbling of discordant commentary. Finally I said, "Well, Tinkerbell flies, right? I mean flying is a superpower, right? So she has superpowers. The same superpower as Superman." My words were followed by a few seconds of tense, thoughtful silence. Then one of the girls responded, using the ‘sometimes we have to remind silly adults things that everybody knows’ voice. She said, "Fairies have 'special talents.'" She didn’t overtly add “And ‘special talents’ are NOT the same as superpowers” but that was the clear message. There were nods of agreement around the table. Another boy said, “And she doesn’t even have a real cape. Superman has a real cape. She doesn’t.” I replied, “She doesn’t have a cape at all. She has wings. And she flies.”

One of my students recently attached this image of herself
as a superhero to her Valentine to the class.  Yippee!

The intention of this back and forth conversation wasn’t (necessarily) about who was going to ‘win,’ but rather about trying to push the kids to think about language in a different way. I wanted them to notice the words that they take for granted, and – without overly naming it with fancy jargon – moving them to see the gendered connotations of the words they use and the consequences of those connotations. All of the children could agree that Superman and Tinkerbell can both fly. In this situation, being able to fly is gender neutral; the kids accept examples of both males and females who can absolutely, without question, fly (at least in their imaginations and in stories). But, because of the gender socialization they have received and continue to be taught, when I say that Tinkerbell has ‘superpowers’ (a word socially marked as strongly masculine), the children have a feeling of disjuncture that they seek to alleviate – which they do by pushing back – by denying Tinkerbell’s possession of ‘superpowers’ and/or renaming her abilities as ‘special talents,’ words socially marked with a feminine connotation.

On the surface, this may seem like an innocuous, passing conversation, but to dismiss its implications so casually would be a mistake. Let me offer two similarly ‘innocent’ examples from the past few weeks:

First, a student and I were reading a children’s book about visiting other countries. The characters in the story travel by plane. We had a conversation that went like this:

Me: Would you ever like to be an airplane pilot, to fly a plane?
Her: No. [A perfectly acceptable answer.]
Me: Why?
Her: Girls can’t fly airplanes.
Me: Why not?
Her: Only boys can fly planes.

Through further conversation, it became clear that there was nothing I could say to convince her that women can, and do, indeed fly planes.  She was firm in her belief that this was not an option open to her.  (In the moment, I was so frustrated that I didn’t have a photograph or illustration showing a female pilot, but you never have those things when you need them.)

And second, on one of the recent days it was too cold to go outside to play, my student were watching a video adaption of the book Antarctic Antics: A Book of Penguin Poems by Judy Sierra and illustrated by Jose Aruego and Ariane Dewey. In one of the first poems a baby emperor penguin hatches and says, "I'm really hatched./ At last I'm free./ Hey, Dad, it's me!" My students immediately said, “That’s not the baby’s dad. That’s it’s mom,” to which I explained that male emperor penguins sit on the eggs to keep them warm 'til they hatch, so the ‘Dad’ would be the first parent a baby would see, not the ‘Mom.’ The kids were confused and somewhat resistant. As the video continued the children started seeing each penguin and shouting out, “That’s a boy. That’s a girl” – trying to identify the gender of each bird, even though the illustrations depict all of the birds as nearly identical. My students would say things like, “It’s a girl. Hear the voice?” To them it was like a playful game. To me they seemed almost frenetic in their determination to assign gender to the characters on the screen before them. It seemed intolerable and unacceptable to just not know someone's gender identity.

In all three of these examples – Superman vs. Tinkerbell, the gender of airplane pilots, and penguin genders – my students, who are four and five, have very clear ideas about acceptable gender categories and strategies for categorizing people and animals into those divisions based on appearance, other physical markers (like voice), and/or behavior. But even more so, they have concrete concepts of power attached to those gender divisions. On the whole, my students believe that Tinkerbell can’t have superpowers because she’s a girl. Only men can be airplane pilots. And it is important to be able to ‘read’ what gender category any given person or character falls into (and to my students there are only two viable categories – boy or girl). The implications of this are frightening to me. In addition to telling girls that they can only look and behave certain ways and only take on certain interests or work, the boys are being given equally clear messages, which seem to have quite a lot to do with aggression, domination, superiority, and entitlement. At the end of the day, everyone is screwed. And no one is truly free.

When I ask parents what they want or hope for their child(ren), they typically say (especially if they’re white and generally middle class or above) that they want their children to be happy and that they want their children to believe that they can be anyone or anything that they want to be. There is nothing wrong with those hopes. But, when everything about our culture – from media to books and from our schools to the socialization that takes place in our own homes – teaches kids from birth (and often before) that they can be whoever or whatever they want but only as long as they abide by very specific gender-based rules and norms, how does that make the world a more equitable place for children of all genders? How does that foster an environment where girls truly can be anything or anyone and an atmosphere where boys don’t have to be super-masculine to get their gender 'right'?

This figurine is in our classroom's
collection of pirate/castle gear.  I adore
the unshaven, pink polka-dot look!

I don’t have my own children – which is probably a good thing because I think I would be the insane parent who no other parents would want to be around and no child would want to claim.  I would likely go on tirades against pretty, pink princesses, I’d tell boys its okay to cry, and I’d be totally intolerable about all the research that talks about the ways we do our kids major disservices. But even without kids of my own, I do spend a lot of time with other peoples’ children. (Often, more time than they do.)  And it’s fairly certain that I can’t singlehandedly change the course of how those kids think about (or don’t think about) gender and power issues related to gender. But I am in the position to push buttons, to instigate dialogue, and to challenge preconceived ideas. I’m able to ask my students, “Why do girls have 'talents' and boys have 'superpowers'?” And with adults I can offer a similar challenge: “Why are extraordinary abilities for female characters considered magical and used for things like making dewdrops and flowers and flitting daintily from blossom to blossom and being careful to stay out of the path of frightening humans? And why are extra-human capabilities for male characters considered outside the realm of magic (and more often contained in the realm of science) and such characters are fierce adventurers (as well as generally violent and destructive) who engage in battle, seek revenge, and expect admiration from the poor, weak populace? No, really, help a girl out. Why is it this way? I don't understand.  And is this what we want our kids to learn about gender?”

At the end of the day, I want the world to look different. I want my students to believe that they can be airplane pilots, even the girls. And I want my students to believe that fathers are fully qualified and capable of being nurturing primary caregivers. I want me students to believe that gender is complicated and putting people in boxes can be limiting to everyone. If we feel free to be merely who we are, that’s more than enough.

And I want my students to know that fairies have superpowers.

Queering pop culture

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!)

Peace.

Video Spotlight: Rachel Maddow’s take on women candidates versus women’s rights

It’s feeling about time that I get back to my “Video Spotlight” roots, as it were.  Usually I post up short three or four minute videos.  Not today.  Today I’m asking you to take 13 minutes to listen to this BRILLIANT segment from this past Thursday’s The Rachel Maddow Show.  Rachel discusses the rise of women candidates in the GOP and the logical analysis that women candidates can have an influence on women’s votes.  She also explains that women (brace yourself) might not vote based on chromosomes, but rather on issues.  Shocking, right?!  Just as the number of women candidates in the GOP rises, so too rises that number of right-wingers, including women, who take the previously extreme view that abortion should be banned for ALL people, including victims of rape and incest.  So, will women citizens vote for women candidates who propose greater and greater limits to women and girls’ reproductive rights?  Hard to say.  I hope not.  They surely won’t have my vote.

In addition, the segment features a discussion with the wonderful Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University, who shares this gem:

"There is no place in the world and no time in history where restricting women's reproductive rights makes a people or a nation more free or more equal.  These extreme positions on abortion are without any question a war on American girls and women, and the fact that there are women who are both complicit and participatory in it is really neither surprising nor unprecedented.  It has always been true and it is incredibly important that we recognize that, despite the fact that we can be very proud of these women as women and as politicians, that the question is: how do women as citizens fair on the other side of them either being elected or not elected?"

Check it out:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And, if you need a little laugh/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you humor/sorrow in your life, you can give this little “Rachel Maddow is a lesbian vampire” segment from yesterday’s show a watch too.  Wow.

Responding to Focus on the Family's "back-to-school tools to... push back against the gay agenda"

Earlier this month, CitizenLink (a Focus on the Family affiliate) did a report that offered "back-to-school tools that'll help you identify and push back against the gay agenda in the classroom." (Note: Typically in my posts I link to organizations and groups I reference, but I’m not particularly fond of Focus on the Family and their affiliates, so if you’d like to see their sites directly, I encourage you to do so, but you will need to seek them out directly. They will come right up when you search for them by name.)

As a classroom teacher and an active LGBTQ advocate and ally, the CitizenLink broadcast makes me disheartened, sorrowful, angry, and hurt. Originally I sat down to write a satirical, comedic blog post on this topic, but I think I need to offer a sincere response. (Even so, comedy can be a great tool when confronting homophobia and bigotry. Bryan Safi over at Current TV has a great comedic response to Focus on the Family’s broadcast on his regular segment That’s Gay, which I enjoy thoroughly. You can watch his response here.)

Two things in particular about the CitizenLink report concern me:

First, CitizenLink’s Education Analyst (and I cringe at that title because it sounds so impartial and unbiased, but no one is truly objective and I’m trying to be respectful, so…) Candi Cushman makes a suggestion that concerned parents should check their child’s school library catalogue and search for key terms such as ‘homosexuality,’ ‘gay,’ and ‘lesbian.’ She says that if lots of items come up in the search then the school probably supports ‘the gay agenda.’ She argues that school libraries reflect school philosophies and if a library has a lot of ‘gay books’ then kids can check them out and teachers can use them as classroom resources. My thought is that libraries are meant to be the storehouse of available knowledge, which suggests that all ideas and opinions should be represented. If the ‘gay books’ are absent or restricted, then the library has failed to do its duty as a holder of knowledge and, at its worst, is participating in censorship. To blame a school for having books and resources is to deny trust or respect to its users – teachers, staff, students, and families – to be self-selective and judicious about material use. It also suggests that ‘gay books’ make people gay which, shockingly, is not true.

So, first, I’m concerned that Focus on the Family is suggesting a censorship of books and resources.

Second, CitizenLink’s anchor (or whatever) Stuart Shepard talks, along with Cushman, about ways to “identify and push back against the gay agenda in the classroom.” He says,

“Teachers send a lot of things home in the backpacks. It's important to read what's in there and kinda look for language that might be suggestive [of the gay agenda]. Often bullying is one of the ways that it's disguised. It talks about a Safe Schools Week or a Bullying Seminar."

In my experience, bullying takes many forms and attacks many people for many different reasons. Sexual orientation and gender identity, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of your friends or family, are only some of those reasons. At some point EVERYONE is the victim of bullying. I promise. To suggest that schools’ efforts to confront bullying supports ‘the gay agenda’ (whether you agree with that statement or not) denies the reality that ALL students can benefit from having less bullying in their lives – as protagonists and as victims. Cushman goes on to talk about ways to confront ‘real’ bullying, but as a professional educator I am shocked that ‘safe schools’ and ‘bullying’ are apparently buzz words synonymous with ‘gay activists’ and ‘gay supporters.’ I can pledge, proudly, that I will continue to actively fight bullying in my school and community and that INCLUDES fighting to protect LGBTQ folks and their friends and families. Mark me down as a ‘gay activist’ and ‘gay supporter.’ I welcome the label. And apparently families should now fear me. Though I’m still confused as to why. Bullying, in all its forms, hurts everyone, and we should do everything in our power to actively confront it.

Cushman goes on to talk about ways that “cute little pictures of furry animals” are used to “sneak… homosexuality lessons into things with innocent sounding titles.” She references the children’s book And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson and illustrated by Henry Cole, which tells the true story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins at New York City’s Central Park Zoo, who adopt an egg in need of nurturing and hatch and raise their daughter Tango. I’ve read the book. It’s lovely. And for the children in my classroom who have same-sex parents, it made them feel a little more recognized and understood in the world, and for my students who came from families put together in other ways (and there are many ways to build a family), the book gave them one more way to understand what it means to be a family.

At the end of the day, it sounds like Focus on the Family thinks bullying is okay and books/furry animals encourage being gay. All of this is simply a crock of shit. And as I teacher I will proudly, adamantly, and unapologetically stand against bullying and utilize any and all books and resources (though not as likely cute fuzzy animals) to help my students understand the complex reality of the world around them. My intention is not to make Christians or others who don’t condone homosexuality or gender variance to feel unwelcome, but it is my responsibility to create an environment where all people feel welcome, valued, seen, and heard – including folks who identify as LGBTQ. Rather than censoring access to knowledge or promoting one idea of the world, my job is to help students and their families develop critical thinking skills that allow them to make their own life choices while honoring the freedom of others to do the same.

If you’d like to see the full video of the CitizenLink broadcast, it’s here (9min30sec).
(Image from here.)

I *heart* Jon Stewart. Plus, I'm not gonna drop-kick Muslims just because you do.

I caught Jon Stewart's opening monologue last night and I think he totally nailed it.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Wish You Weren't Here
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

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."

Indeed.

Growing violence in Ciudad Juárez

I was reading the New York Times yesterday evening and ran across an article by Dan Barry titled "This Land: Border Towns Across Rio, Worlds Apart in Drug War." The article brought me to tears. As I've mentioned before, I spent some time in the border region of El Paso and Juárez back in 2002, so as I read of the escalating violence, increase poverty, and growing fear of those bound to life on the 'wrong' side of the river, in my mind I couldn’t help but see the faces of the children and families I met while I was there.

I wonder if Christina is still running the children’s library and organizing HIV/AIDs efforts in her impoverished community. I wonder if Alma – whose house burned to the ground while we watched – is safe somewhere. And I wonder about the children I met -- Carlos, Junior, Melissa, Armando, Esperanza, Elian, Jonathan, and the others. Most of them would be in their early teens now. Are their families still together? Are they split across borders, hundreds of miles apart? Are they involved in the cartels? Are they safe? Did those who wanted U.S. citizenship receive it? Those seeking asylum? Are they in school? I know that I will never have the answers to these questions. So, when I read the Times article, I can’t help but wonder if the slain children, the families trying to figure out how to survive, the communities torn by violence, drugs, and poverty have the faces of people who shared their meals with me, told me their stories, and offered me their kindness.

The article talks of walking across the border. I’ve made that walk. It names streets and describes markets on both sides of the river that I’ve frequented. It describes communities that, for a brief time, welcomed me into their membership.

I read this article, and I don’t know what to do about it. I feel very far away. And very small. In the article, they mention the work of Annunciation House, which is the organization that hosted me while I was in the region. They are continuing to serve as a voice for the voiceless, a hand of aid to the helpless, and a source of comfort and solidarity for the downtrodden. So, as I struggle to make sense of the continuing terror overtaking Juárez, I direct our eyes to their work. Perhaps we can support them as they support others.

Further Readings/Resources:
NYT 2/13/10 "Border Towns Across Rio, Worlds Apart in Drug War"
10/8/09 "A Place at the Table" - a video documentary about the work of Annunciation House
NYT 4/16/09 (video) "Juárez: Children in the Crossfire"
NYT 1/23/09 "Two Sides of a Border: One Violent, One Peaceful"
AP 2008 "Drug Violence: Mexico hit by rising wave of drug-fueled violence"
TIME.com 2001 "The New Frontier/La Nueva Frontera"
The El Paso Times' continuing look at escalating violence in Juárez.

(Image courtesy of Annunciation House)

Reconsidering Columbus Day

I had today off from work. While it's the first time I've been in a job in 10 years where I get holidays other than Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day off, I can't say I'm particularly happy to spend the my first holiday 'celebrating' Christopher Columbus. (I actually spent the day working on my thesis, but...)

Nu Heightz Cinema put out an important PSA earlier this week trying to open and extend conversation about the serious problems surrounding Columbus Day.


To learn more, visit Reconsider Columbus Day or any of the partner organizations:
United Confederation of Taino People
International Indian Treaty Council
Rethinking Schools

And for educators, Rethinking Schools put out a book called Rethinking Columbus back in 1991 that compiles essays, poems, interviews, historical vignettes, and lesson plans to help readers reevaluate the myth of Columbus and issues of indigenous rights. Definitely worth checking out.

If you'd like to take action, consider signing the petition for a National Holiday for Native Americans.

Call to ACTION in Illinois! Stop the budget cuts!

We're in a sad, sick state of affairs in Illinois, and this is one of those situations where we CANNOT just sit on our hands and expect things to turn out well in the end. This is battle that needs champions fighting for our beliefs and our rights. Folks like you and me.

Here's the skinny:
On May 31, 2009 the Illinois General Assembly passed a partial year budget for FY 2010 that created a $9.2 billion funding gap, which is forcing drastic cuts in community- and state-provided fundamental social services ($5 billion in cuts for community-provided services and $4.2 billion in cuts for state-provided services, says Governor Quinn). (This issue is the "Current Focus" on the www.illinois.gov website.) We're looking at severe cuts in mental health services, addiction prevention and treatment programs, violence prevention programs, family planning services, child care and youth services, and education programs. The budget is set to go into effect July 1 (next Wednesday) and will be devastating to the people of Illinois unless we demand that our legislators return to Springfield and work out a budget for the full fiscal year that includes new revenue to support these critical programs in our communities (which can be achieved by a 2% tax increase).

When considering the breadth of the budget cuts, here are just a few of the numbers (and their sources) to give you an idea of how this budget vote could affect the every day lives of Illinois citizens. The budget cuts would result in:

• the lose of $271 million in child care assistance, thus eliminating care for over 142,000 children (who are members of over 80,000 low-income working families) (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services; Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the elimination of preschool for 100,000 children (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the elimination of $251 million (a cut of 40% in rates) for providers who serve children and adults with developmental disabilities (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• a $108 million reduction in funding for community mental health programs (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• the closing of 6 of the 9 state-operated psychiatric hospitals (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• a 50% cut to the stipend received by foster parents, meaning that many parents may no longer be able to afford to care for their foster children. Approximately 20,000 children could lose their foster families. (Planned Parenthood of Illinois; Governor's Office - Department of Children and Family Services)
• the tripling of DCFS staff workers' foster care caseloads from 15 children to 50 children and the doubling of active investigative caseloads from 11 to 20 cases per investigator (Governor's Office - Department of Children and Family Services)
• a 75% cut in community health programs (including teen, family, and domestic violence programs) (Governor's Office - Department of Human Services)
• the elimination of all community care program services for 20,000 lower-income seniors not eligible for Medicaid and reducing benefits for 55% of the remaining 35,000 Medicaid eligible community-care clients (Governor's Office - Department on Aging)
• the elimination of the Communities of Color Prostrate Cancer Initiative and Communities of Color HIV/AIDS Initiative, together providing services to over 375,000 people (Governor's Office - Illinois Department of Public Health)
• the cutting of $247 million in MAP undergraduate grants and college book stipends for 147,500 low-income students (Governor's Office - Illinois Student Assistance Commission)
• a 75% cut in state family planning funding, resulting in nearly 6,500 women not receiving their annual medical exam, pap smear, or supply of oral contraceptives. (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• a lose of $9 million in funding to the YWCA, which would lead to the closure of 1/3 of their facilities (Planned Parenthood of Illinois)
• the forced layoffs of more than 10,000 state workers (Governor's Office)
• the estimated lose of $2 billion in federal matching funds to the state of Illinois (Governor's Office)
  
• the endangerment of up to $3 billion in federal stimulus funds over the next two years (Governor's Office)
  

Brutal. And the potential to be utterly devastating. And, it can't go without noting the ways in which these budget cuts unproportionately affect folks already dealing with issues of systemic inequality: the poor and working-class, people of color, women, children, the elderly, and those will mental or physical disabilities. The budget would pile additional hardship and discrimination on those who already carry its heaviest weights.

And to make it a bit more real, if you need even more concrete evidence of the budget's destructive potential, every week for the past two and a half years I've hung out with three and four year olds at the St. Vincent DePaul Center, which provides (in addition to other things) NAEYC-accredited child care and early childhood education. We have 25 classrooms, serving infants through kids in full-day kindergarten, plus before- and after-school care for school age children. The proposed budget cuts would entirely eliminate the child care and youth programs, affecting more than 800 Chicago children and families at this one site alone. Plus, all of our education staff will be cut, contributing to the statewide increase in forced layoffs. Many families the Center serves will literally be forced into the position of choosing between buying food for their family, paying rent and utilities, or paying for child care.

The proposed budget cuts would destroy our Center, spit in the face of our 94 year history, and devastate the lives of families with whom we partner.

But such tragedy is not the only option. With the passing of an as small as 2% tax increase, the citizens of Illinois can save the programs that support our communities. A 2% tax increase would raise our taxes from 3% to 5%, which for the average Illinois family is roughly $14 a week. While $14 a week, and thus $56 a month, adds up, it is a worthy sacrifice to maintain the programs that support the health and well-being of all Illinois citizens. This budget cut stands to hurt all of us and together we must be willing to tell our elected officials that we won't stand for it, that we believe alternatives to the budget cut are possible, and that we rely on their leadership and ability to represent our views by funding education, health care, and human services across the state.

To take action, you have numerous choices. You can:

Call your state representatives and voice your opposition to the “General Assembly’s 50 Percent Budget Cut.”

To locate your state representative, visit here. (It's easiest, I think, to provide your zip+4.) You can also call the Illinois State Board of Elections Chicago Office at 312-814-6440. Let the operator know that you need contact information for your state representative. You will need to provide your home address.

Before calling your representative, consider visiting Illinois Action for Children for suggestions on what to say to your state representatives. You may also want to see how your representatives voted in the original budget vote, which you can do by looking at the "House Roll Call on the Tax Increase" (pdf). IMAN has also provided a nice telephone call protocol you could use. Here's their suggestion:

Call your representative and senator along with the governor and say:

"Hi, my name is ______ and I live in ______. I would like to speak to Representative ______/Senator ______/Governor Quinn."

You will probably be told that he/she is not available. If so, ask to leave a message:

"I am calling to ask Representative ______/Senator ______/Governor Quinn to work with others in Springfield to resolve the current budget crisis. I support an income tax increase from 3% to 5% and an expansion of the sales tax base in order to fund education, health care, and human services across the state. I am counting on your leadership in this important effort! Thank you for your consideration."

Please call your state representative (Illinois House) first and then call Gov. Quinn (217-782-0244) and your state senator all this week. Ask five other people to do the same.

You can also utilize a number of online email formats to voice your concern. Planned Parenthood of Illinois has an editable form letter that focuses on the budget cuts' consequences for women and children.

And the National Association of Social Workers Illinois chapter is sponsoring a more general but still editable email in which they use your address (or zip+4) to pull up all your elected officials' contact information. Then they allow you to choose to whom you would like to send your email. They also give you the option of sending a copy of your email to a large number of media organizations. It's a quick and easy way to go.

Please take action. Immediately. You can do it. It's important that you do it. It's makes a huge difference for the future of our communities.

(photo credits: These are some of my kids from the Center. These are the kids who stand to lose childcare if the budgets is implemented next week. The consequences to their families may be dire.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

-7/3/09

the economics of poverty

DeNeen L. Brown over at The Washington Post wrote a really valuable article about the high cost of poverty. It is absolutely worth reading. Here's an excerpt:

You have to be rich to be poor.

That's what some people who have never lived below the poverty line don't understand.

Put it another way: The poorer you are, the more things cost. More in money, time, hassle, exhaustion, menace. This is a fact of life that reality television and magazines don't often explain.

So we'll explain it here. Consider this a primer on the economics of poverty.

And the above image was photographed by Lois Raimondo for The Washington Post. The caption read "Harrison Blakeney pays his phone bill through a check-cashing operation that charges 10 percent extra to send the payment. 'That's how they make their money,' he says."

Green Festival 2009

Chicago's 2009 Green Festival was this weekend. This is the third year a Green Festival has been held in Chicago and the third year I've gone. I dig 'em (as you can see from my post about it last year). Organized as a collaborative project between Green America and Global Exchange,

Green Festival [is] a walk through a sustainable community. It begins with finding solutions to help make our lives healthier—socially, economically and environmentally. Individuals along with business and community leaders come together to discuss critical issues that impact us at home and abroad. Organizations and businesses showcase programs and products that restore the planet and all that inhabit it. Neighbor-to-neighbor connections are formed, and skills are shared to empower people to create positive change in the world.

I wanted to share a couple of my highlights from this year's festival with you. (And this is in addition to my joy at being able to eat a delicious organic, vegan lunch from Soul Vegetarian, a restaurant on 75th to which I was introduced a few years back in celebration of a friend's birthday. They make soul food like you wouldn't believe. Yummy!)

First, I had the privilege of hearing damali ayo speak. She's probably best known for her website/art piece Rent-A-Negro.com and the related book How to Rent a Negro. She's a multi-talented woman who uses art, comedy, and a "stand up/smack down" style (her words) to fight racism. Her talk was titled "Are you ready to fix racism? (Or are you too busy pretending it doesn't exist?)" and was based on her "I Can Fix It!" guide to improving race relations in the U.S. (Download the guidebook in PDF from the website to get the full presentation.) She's a bad-ass chick on the path to recruit any and everyone to the rebellion. I'm in.

Second, I went to a talk by Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a organization

Seeking economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Through research, advocacy, and economic development our goal is to empower farmers - partnered with consumers - in support of ecologically produced local, organic and authentic food.

They are doing amazing work on a number of fronts, but I was especially impressed with their efforts to make sure products marked as certified organic live up to the label. Their Organic Dairy Brand Ratings Scorecard is based on a

national survey of organic products in the dairy case [and serves to] showcase ethical family farm producers and expose factory farm producers and brands that threaten to take over organic dairying. With this Web-based rating tool, you can see which brands and dairy products found in your region are produced using the best organic farming practices and ethics. Based on a year’s research into the organic dairy business, the scorecard rates 68 different organic dairy brands and private-label products.

The benefit of such an effort is to inform consumers of organic providers who fail to honor the faith put in them by consumers. (For example, Aurora Farms, the brand that produces 'O' Organics for Safeway and Dominick's has been charged by the USDA with willful violation of 14 tenants of organic certification, which essentially means that products we purchase labeled "organic" might not be.) The Report helped me to see how some of the "organic" brands I've purchased in the recent past (including Horizons (Dean's), 'O' Organics (Safeway), Wild Harvest (Albertson's), and Trader Joe's) are not maintaining the organic standards I expect, while other available brands (including Organic Valley (CROPP), Stonyfield Farms, and Whole Foods Market - 365 Organics) do much, much better. Good to know. And, apparently, the Institute is launching a brand new scorecard on Monday rating soy products -- everything from edamame and tempeh to tofu and soy milk. Exciting stuff. I'll add a link as soon as the new report goes up.

Third, I went to a panel discussion that was supposed to feature Alice Waters, founder of The Edible Schoolyard, but, sadly, she was ill and unable to attend. However, I was able to hear a number of folks speak about the importance of edible education policy and practice. Filmmaker Chris Taylor screened portions of his film Food Fight: A Story of Culinary Revolt which features Alice, as well as Michael Pollan (who I'm hearing speak tomorrow at the Chicago Public Library!), Wolfgang Puck, and the amazing, amazing, amazing Will Allen and Erika Allen of Growing Power, an AMAZING organization committed to urban agriculture, environmental stewardship, and edible education grounded primarily in Milwaukee and Chicago. The whole point is how food practices are foundations for social activism! Here's the trailer (and for more clips, visit the film's YouTube channel):


On the whole, the Festival was a pleasure, as always. Each year I walk away having learned new things and with a renewed energy to continue diligently down a path of sustainability and justice -- both social and environmental. If you can't get to an upcoming Green Festival, you can always check out Green Festival TV and radio (make sure to check the archives too) for recorded talks, presentations, and podcasts.

UPDATE: The Organic Soy Report and Scorecard is posted over at Cornucopia Institute for your perusal. Also, very sadly, I wasn't able to hear Michael Pollan tonight because the venue sold out. It was a first come, first serve gig, and while I got there early, the poor woman trying to manage the masses said some folks started lining up at noon (for a 6pm talk). What's with those folks? And why didn't they save me a seat?! Maybe next time... Eat happy, y'all. - 5/18/09