Video Spotlight: How to be alone

The video "How to Be Alone" has been out for more than a year, but I like it and now just seems a good time to be reminded of the potential power and value of spending quality time with one's self. The holidays can often be a hectic time and a time with high expectations to see everyone and be "other minded." I value balancing that focus on others with making time for one's self.

Also, I just really enjoy spending time alone.



The poem, music, and performance are by Tanya Davis, and the film's animation, photography, and editing were done by Andrea Dorman.

I wish you pleasant time alone.

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.”

The Mike & Duane Show – not your typical school assembly

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?!

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.

Me and Gus

I was wandering the internet this afternoon, as I am often wont to do when I am avoiding something else on the agenda.  (Today’s avoidance was my taxes, which are now complete and filed.)  In my YouTube perusing, I wandered into a clip from Me and Gus, the “interactive educational music video for children ages 0-6” I did back in 2006.  Here’s the clip (and yes, it cuts off in the middle of a verse):

There are over 10,300 hits for this video, which is crazy (especially being that I had no idea the video was posted on YouTube).  We also have a website (where you can see a bunch more clips) and a Facebook page (which I also didn’t know existed until today – where have I been?!).

Gus (looking like a shark in this shot) was played
by the talented Lee Tosca who is used to being
an art director, not a puppeteer.

For me, participating in this project was one of those, “What am I doing?!  Is this really real?!  Is this my life, or perhaps it’s just a crazy dream?!” experiences.  At the time I was working at Boston Children’s Museum running their Music Department (which sounds super fancy, but really I was a one-woman department responsible for making sure my programs, staffing, calendar, and marketing didn’t collapse into a big ball of chaos around each and every corner).  One of my favorite, and longest running, programs was a weekly group called “Sing-a-Story.”  It was a literacy-based music and movement program for zero to three year olds and their families.  We used our voices and bodies, puppets, books, and all sorts of other props (or none at all) to sing stories.  (I mean, at the end of the day, what is music anyway, other than a form of storytelling?)  One particular day, after a regular Sing-a-Story program, a woman approached me saying she was working on developing a children’s video that centered on learning through music and movement, and she wondered if I was interested in participating.  I must admit I was skeptical; it was an odd request – both unexpected and surreal.  But how sketchy could this woman, Kim, really be if she’s come to find me (with her kids in tow) while I was singing with a bunch of toddlers?

Long and short, I eventually signed on to do the pilot episode of Me and Gus.  Kim had been looking for videos for her children that were educational and entertaining for kids, not annoying-as-all-holy-hell for adults, and sought to connect with children in a low-tech, simple kind of way.  And she wasn’t finding any.  So she decided to create her own.  She called up her friend Fitz, who’s been doing awesome stuff in television and film for several decades, and they got to work.

By the time I came on board, the show was well under way.  The script had been through a bajillion revisions and the songs were on their way to their finished form.  I was able to offer my input from the position of a professional educator who regularly uses music to connect with kids, and I worked really hard to learn my lines and the songs.  That said, I have to admit, I am a horrible actor.  Always have been.  So I was experiencing a growing concern that I wasn’t going to be able to pull this off.  Performing music has always been easy.  I can sing myself into tears or laughter, no problem.  But delivering dialogue and having it sound natural and spontaneous is a skill I have never mastered.  And I suck at memorizing anything.  I can remember the plot points and story arch without issue and can make up dialogue that gets us where we need to be (I do it everyday in the classroom), but delivering word-for-word dialogue is a real challenge.  Thus, the title of actor is not one I apply to myself.  So, being asked to ‘act’ on film was a scary, scary, yet desirably challenging concept.

We were swimming. 
Aren't my shoes cool?

As rehearsals and finally filming day came, I became increasingly anxious.  I felt like the stakes were really high.  And I wanted to meet the expectations being set for me.  Plus, I was in a whole new world – a fast-paced world filled with very few familiar things to latch onto for support.  I was “the talent” who had my own hair and make-up person, who could ask for anything I wanted and it would happen, who had someone drive me to and from set – all this crazy stuff.  I was wired for sound (meaning I had to remember to turn off my mic pack when I went to the bathroom), I had to remember not to put my hair behind my shoulders because it would throw off consistency between shots, and I had to pretend that the sweat dripping down my back and soaking into my jeans wasn’t feeling like an extra ten pounds of water weight.  It was crazy.  And exciting.  And hard.  But I did the very best I possibly could – pushing to give everything I had to offer and to be successful at something I found intimidating. 

I still have no idea if I lived up to the expectations of the creators, producers, and director.  I hope so.  I certainly learned a lot.  And I think that if I ever had the opportunity to do something like it again I would be able to approach it with less anxiety, more grace, and a faster learning curve. 

In the meantime, this was an opportunity to try on a different kind of life for a brief time.  And an opportunity to really see and appreciate the immense talent, patience, and hard work that is part of working in the film industry day in and day out.  They are amazing.  And awe-inspiring.  And for a short time I was able to witness their intense drive, determination, and passion.  How lucky am I?!

Once the video was edited and put into circulation for the world to accept or throw off as it saw fit, I think I only watched the whole thing through once from beginning to end.  (It’s hard to watch yourself on film.)  But, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to a few families here and there who own the video and hear the ways it has been a valuable resource for their families.  A few years ago I was in Michigan visiting a dear friend of mine.  He had given the video as a gift to his niece and nephew the Christmas before, and when I got there the kids kind of hung back a bit.  Eventually the older, who was maybe four at the time, said, “Are you Kelly?  From my video?  Do you really know Gus?”  I said yes and we spent the rest of the weekend playing and singing and laughing together.  I was honored and truly humbled that this small project I had participated in meant something special and valuable to these young children and their family.  Seriously, how cool is that?!

Note:  The photos in this post were taken by the talented (and busy) Debra A. Schneider who was one of the producers for Me and Gus.

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.

Maps as provocateurs of social discourse (aka - Maps are AWESOME!)

It’s been buzzing around the internet the last little while, but have you seen the work of Bill Rankin?  He’s a historian and cartographer, and the curator/developer/mastermind behind Radical Cartography.

He does all sorts of map-making that intentionally pushes the boundaries of how folks think about maps as information organizers, transmitters, and social tools.  For example, his 2005 map called "Suicide" shows the difference in rates of suicide by white men and white women geographically in the U.S. (you might be surprised), and his 2006 map "U.S. Economic Empire" shows the percent of nations' GDP that was exported to the U.S. in 2003.

But what seems to have gained the most attention recently are his 2009 "Chicago Boundaries" maps, one which maps race/ethnicity in the city limits and the other which maps income in the same area.  Here's what he says:

“Any city-dweller knows that most neighborhoods don't have stark boundaries. Yet on maps, neighborhoods are almost always drawn as perfectly bounded areas, miniature territorial states of ethnicity or class. This is especially true for Chicago, where the delimitation of Chicago's official “community areas” in the 1920s was one of the hallmarks of the famous Chicago School of urban sociology. And maps showing perfectly homogeneous neighborhoods are still published today, in both popular and academic contexts alike.

My alternative is to use dot mapping to show three kinds of urban transitions. First, there are indeed areas where changes take place at very precise boundaries — such as between Lawndale and the Little Village, or Austin and Oak Park — and Chicago has more of these stark borders than most cities in the world. But transitions also take place through gradients and gaps as well, especially in the northwest and southeast. Using graphic conventions which allow these other possibilities to appear takes much more data, and requires more nuance in the way we talk about urban geography, but a cartography without boundaries can also make simplistic policy or urban design more difficult — in a good way.”

Long and short, he used city-block level data from the 2000 U.S. Census (rather than 'neighborhood' data) to map race/ethnicity (using the categories stipulated in the Census).  Every color-coded dot represents 25 people.  A pink dot represents 25 White people.  A blue dot reps 25 Black people.  Asians are shown in green, Hispanics (again, the language of the Census) are in orange, and "Others" are in gray.  The result:  whatever people might suggest to the contrary, segregation very much continues to exist in Chicago my friends.  (In case you had any doubt.) 

But the visual is stunning – both for showing levels of racial integration (or its lack) and population density.

Running with Rankin's idea, Eric Fischer used the same technique to map over 100 U.S. cities.  (And he just posted up the results less than a month ago.)  The results are amazing to look at, in addition to being amazingly informative.  Plus, being on Flickr, the images have numerous tags to help readers identify neighborhoods, landmarks, and so forth.  And, as readers look through, some are also commenting on the many ways history impacts population divisions -- such as the effects of redlining in Detroit and the geographic boundary of the Pima Maricopa Indian Reservation just east of Phoenix.

Go check it out.  It’ll give you something to think about.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love maps?!

UPDATE (November 2010):  It recently came to my attention that Bill Rankin is the downstairs housemate of my good friend and old roomie Sarita.  Imagine that.  Small world, eh?! - November 2010

UPDATE (July 29, 2011):  Bill Rankin recently posted a short (5 minute) video explaining his map of Chicago.  It's super interesting and totally worth watching.  Here it is:

Supporting food safety

There are days when I wonder if anything is safe to eat.  (Like yesterday when the prepackaged garden salad I got from the school cafeteria looked as if it hadn’t even been washed.  The lettuce had weird dusty black ick all over it.  And it wasn’t dirt.  And it didn’t stick like mold.  I don’t know what it was, but it was disgusting.  And dirty.  And don’t mock me; you wouldn’t have eaten it either.) 

On an increasingly common basis I think about ways I can become more closely connected to the source of my food.  I want to KNOW the conditions in which it was grown; how it was altered chemically, genetically, or environmentally; and frankly whether it’s safe for me to eat.  In many ways, it’s a hard balance.  Living in a very urban space on a below-the-poverty-line income, I have limited options.  (BUT, I do have options, AND I have the cultural capital to know about those options and how to access them, so really I’m not in the same bad situation as many, many others.)  But, in the process of feeling safe about the source of my food, I have rarely felt that the government had my best interests (aka – my health and well-being) at heart. 

Slow Food USA has created a video and a petition they hope will help change that.  They're asking Congress to better regulate the food industry and thus help ensure the health of all Americans.  So we're talking about making corporations accountable for actions (or the lack of actions) that produce/protect a healthy food supply; demanding that the USDA and FDA communicate better with one another; and supporting legislation that simplifies food safety regulation.

Sounds good to me.  Here's the video:


And, if you're interested, you can look at and/or sign the petition.

Lump o' coal, you say? I hear you!

I have a warm-and-fuzzy place in my heart for Jay Smooth. (If you didn't already know that about me, where have you been?! If I haven't shared my crush with you before, shame on me. Jay Smooth is the tops.)

Anywho, here's a shout out to all those for whom the holidays aren't so merry and bright. Jay says it so much better than I could:


Sending you love, joy, and wishes for a peace-filled, satisfying new year!

Too Big for My Skin

Just wanted to bring a little attention to this spoken-word piece by Minneapolis based artist Desdamona. The beauty of women is deep and more than can be fit in any little box.


Desdamona says "Too Big for My Skin is not just a poem. It's a mind state. ... It's about positive body image, acceptance and strength. It's about finding your voice and speaking."

Meatless Monday!

I was just reading about the Meatless Monday Campaign, a non-profit organization working in association with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and with the support of 28 other public health schools and all sorts of knowledgeable folk (including Michael Pollan).

Meatless Monday is a national public health campaign to help prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer -- four of the leading causes of death in America. A simple way to prevent these diseases is to eat a diet lower in saturated fat, found mainly in meat and high-fat dairy products. If Americans cut out meat and high-fat dairy just one day a week, they would meet the government's dietary guidelines.

Our goal -- consistent with recommendations made by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, the US Dept. of Agriculture, and the American Heart Association -- is to help Americans reduce consumption of saturated fat 15% by 2010. That works out to eliminating saturated fat one day a week.

The intent of Meatless Monday is not to turn folks vegetarian (though that's not necessarily a bad choice either), but to support Americans' efforts to live and eat healthier. The website offers all sorts of health research, vegetarian recipes (as suggestions for yummy, no-meat meals), info on CSAs and organic foods, and a weekly digest of news snippets about health and food issues.

Here's their newest offering, a video called "Meatless Monday - Inspiring a Movement":

Yes We Can!

if you know anything about me, you know that music is a deep passion in my life. it's a part of my every day going-ons and brings a depth to my existence that is rarely paralleled by other pursuits. i am especially drawn to the music that you start to feel in your blood and your bones -- the kind that you breath in, as deeply as it can go, because to let it just fill the air isn't nearly good enough. and when you find music that truly speaks to you in that way, the inspiration of it can be truly powerful.

a friend sent me a music video today that kinda gets at me like that. it's will.i.am's Yes We Can Song -- a labor of love brought to fruition in the 48 hours of January 30th and 31st, 2008. featuring the voices and presence of many, including Common, John Legend, Scarlett Johansson, Tatyana Ali, Herbie Hancock, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Nicole Scherzinger, among many others, will.i.am grafted the words of Barack Obama's Yes We Can speak (which you can see in its entirety here) into an anthem of voices speaking up for change. under the direction of Jesse Dylan, the video speaks to the power of the American people to seek hope and to seek change.



if you would like to read the elegant, heartfelt words with which will.i.am describes the project, go here. and if you would like to see an interview with will and jesse dylan on abc news, you can go here.

and most importantly, if you live in one of the 24 states holding primaries or caucuses this tuesday, february 5th, 2008, i encourage you to get out and vote. i don't care who you vote for. i just care that you make your voice heard.

and if you're not registered to vote, take this opportunity to get registered. it only takes a few minutes and instructions and applications should be available through your local or state elections board. (most folks have all the info online, so you don't even have to leave your house.)

and, "yes we can" make a difference!

We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

your voice carries a weight that no one else can fill. use it.

why Unilever isn't so squeaky clean

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some girl-on-girl action...

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but...

In the last few weeks an interesting trend seems to have developed on the pop music airwaves. I'm not actually sure it can be called a trend, in that this "trend" consists of two songs (that I know of). But the fact that both songs are out now and have a pretty consistent and generally uncommon theme interests me. The two songs (drumroll, please):

1. Ray Lavendar - My Girl Gotta Girlfriend
2. Pittsburgh Slim - Girls Kiss Girls

See the theme forming?

And here's what gets me most about these songs: I think they're hilarious. Not so much in their objectification of women (I'm setting that one aside for just a moment, though I think it still holds undeniably true), but more so in their founding on some utterly unlikely, Little Boy Blue pipedream.

Let's look at some lyrics, just for fun:

Ray L. says

My girl got a girlfriend
I just found out, but its aight, long as I can be with her too
My girl got a girlfriend
It really is not a problem cause imma make it do what it do
Cause havin' 2 chicks is better than no chicks, I'd rather the join in,
Keep my girl and keep the other one too
My girl got a girlfriend...
But i'm so cool wit it, both of y'all in my bed watch what I do to it

And Pittsburgh Slim...

Ya’ll know what's hot to me?
When she tongue tied - can’t talk to me
Not with a man, not with the band,
with the best girlfriend and the shit ain’t planned
so unscripted, unpredicted who would of thought
they’d both be with it...
i like when girls kiss girls
late at night
i like when girls kiss girls
aint that right...
not to brag
but i'll knock your socks off
i'll be glad to make the three way pop off...
let's bring fantasies to life

In case you didn't catch it, both of these men have this perhaps faulty understanding that the women of their affection, while interested in other women, will somehow maintain an interest in them, because, really, all queer women (even if they're bi) deep down still want a man. Right? Sure they do. (Hear my dripping sarcasm?)

But maybe even more important is that I don't really think these songs are about queer woman. I think they're about dudes who want to have more than one woman serving them at the same time. So in reality, the sexuality of the women isn't even part of the picture. It's not considered relevant or valuable information. (And yes, I use the language 'serving' intentionally, 'cuz this is really an issue of dominance and subjugation.)

Similarly, it's interesting that in Ray L.'s music video the women never actually lock lips. Mind you, they don't kiss Ray either. Lots of suggestion and innuendo throughout the video, but no actual lip to lip contact. I'm curious about the artistic decisions made on this front. Did the label (Geffen) not want "that kind of relationship" on film? Does not showing the women kissing maintain the illusion that they'd want to get with Ray too? Was someone not comfortable with putting kissing women on TV? Or afraid the video wouldn't get aired? Was it simply a decision of creative license (though you've got to have a reason for all your artistic choices)? Or something else? It could be ANY number of things anywhere in the production process. I don't watch a ton of music videos (hardly any), but I wonder if an authentic queer relationship of any kind has been the positive feature of a mainstream video, ever. I couldn't tell ya. I don't know.

In the Pittsburgh Slim video (Def Jam), on the other hand, the women do kiss. In fact there's a whole strip tease thing going on. With Krista Ayne of Penthouse fame (it says so in the credits). It's kind of like soft porn, really. But, Slim's video scenario is different than Ray's. The dude (Slim, I presume?) is webcamming with a girl three time zones away. So there's screen separation. No threesome happenin' today. But, it's on his mind. And is the girl-on-girl action considered video "kosher" cuz the girl is doing it at the guy's request (and because she's a sexy Penthouse model)? Couldn't tell ya.

At the end of the day, all I can tell you is that NONE of this would fly if it were two men and a chic singer. Never in a million years. And THAT should set off some alarms about the not-so-helpful things being promoted by these videos. And I'm NOT talking about queer relationships. I'm talking about the objectification of women. (I couldn't hold back any longer.)

Anyway, that's all I've got to say about that. These songs (and videos) are laughable in their absurdity. Why not write songs about real relationships (of whatever variety), with real run of the mill people doing what real run of the mill people do? Oh yeah, that kind of song doesn't sell...

UPDATE: So, this little rant has been rolling around in my brain for a few months now and I figured it was time to put it down for digital posterity. In the last while singer Katy Perry has gained some pretty quick fame, most notably for her queer curious "I Kissed a Girl" which flew up the Billboard Hot 100 tracks to hit #1 on June 25, 2008. Some people love it. Some people hate it. I for one am somewhat undecided. On the one hand I appreciate that Katy openly writes about her own sexual curiosities. (She says in an interview with The New Gay, "I love my men. I’m not a lesbian, but I can appreciate the beauty of women. That’s what the song is about: me opening up a magazine and seeing Scarlet Johansen and saying “if she wanted to to kiss me I wouldn’t say no. ... Yeah, [the song] it’s fantasy, it’s a song about curiosity.") (By the way, just to jump on the gossip wagon, Katy's currently dating cutey Travis McCoy of Gym Class Heroes.) On the other hand, I felt pretty strongly even the first time that I heard the song that it's very much about garnering attention (from whoever - men, women, audiences worldwide...), not really about meaningful relationships (but then again, how much of pop-culture is?), and in the song and the video she always returns to the safety of her hetero- relationship. While I'm cool with anyone who says, "Yeah, it's true, I'm hetero," (not like anyone really has to say this; it's generally assumed unless a person's sexuality is called into question for some reason -- just a reminder about where our society's biases lie...), I do worry a bit when the message says something like (and I'm quoting the song lyrics directly here): "I kissed a girl and I liked it./ ...It felt so wrong. It felt so right./ ... It's not what good girls do. Not how they should behave." This merely reinforces that being gay is a misfunction, a failure, a misbehavior -- none of which is true. Now, we know Katy grew up with two pastor parents, her first album (Katy Hudson) was released as a Christian gospel album, and she's said, "I came from a very strict household, where any of that taboo stuff was wrong. I don’t say I hate where I came from, I love my parents and was happy to... have that opportunity to grow, but I came from a strict, suppressed household where that was wrong. Now I’ve been in LA for seven years and realizing there’s nothing wrong, there’s nothing wrong with anybody. If you love someone and you’re a good person that's what counts." Hurrah for growing and building new understandings of the world, and if I accept "I Kissed a Girl" as a process piece in that journey, then I can just shut my mouth and let it go. But, not without mentioning Katy's first single "Ur So Gay," a send-off to an ex-boyfriend. Now, getting your emotions out about your ex is probably a good thing. Saying "I hope you hang yourself with your H&M scarf/ While jacking off listening to Mozart./ ... You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys." -- that, yeah that might be going too far. But reviews are mixed. Slant Magazine writer Sal Cinquemani says, "Perry's casually derogatory use of the word 'gay' is emblematic of how the word has been optioned by straight youth. And what does it say that Perry has gotten famous doing it—and thanks, in part, to the reigning queen of the gay community?" (Madonna endorsed Katy and the song on the radio back in April, and again in May.) On Out.com one reader says, "Using the term 'gay' as a put-down in any way is just plain offensive, and while Katy might do this amongst her clique, re-enforcing this phrase for the masses only makes it OK for people to continue to associate being gay with something negative, or at the very least, to be laughed at. " On the flip side, another reader says, "Katy has this thing called.. A sense of humor. Having the ability to laugh at yourself?? She is absolutely not meaning any offense to the LGBT community and is in no way trying to contribute to the discrimination that said community faces everyday. I honestly think that her debut will work to desensitize the masses to such 'taboo' words/topics/communities. This girl is here to stay!" While I tend to believe that the song, while catchy, doesn't say anything positively supporting the gay community, it's hard to say how the song will affect the wider listener community. Hmm. Thoughts? - 7/19/08

Hugs anyone?

A lot of days the world feels like a pretty melancholy, sad, sick place, full of undeserved hardship and sorrow. On those days, it's hard to feel okay about much at all. Recently I was introduced to the work of Juan Mann, a gentleman from Australia who took his sad day and did something really, really good about it; he started the Free Hugs Campaign.

His story is as follows:

I'd been living in London when my world turned upside down and I'd had to come home. By the time my plane landed back in Sydney, all I had left was a carry on bag full of clothes and a world of troubles. No one to welcome me back, no place to call home. I was a tourist in my hometown.


Standing there in the arrivals terminal, watching other passengers meeting their waiting friends and family, with open arms and smiling faces, hugging and laughing together, I wanted someone out there to be waiting for me. To be happy to see me. To smile at me. To hug me.


So I got some cardboard and a marker and made a sign. I found the busiest pedestrian intersection in the city and held that sign aloft, with the words "Free Hugs" on both sides.


And for 15 minutes, people just stared right through me. The first person who stopped, tapped me on the shoulder and told me how her dog had just died that morning. How that morning had been the one year anniversary of her only daughter dying in a car accident. How what she needed now, when she felt most alone in the world, was a hug. I got down on one knee, we put our arms around each other and when we parted, she was smiling.


Everyone has problems and for sure mine haven't compared. But to see someone who was once frowning, smile even for a moment, is worth it every time.

And you can see his work in action in this video, with music by Sick Puppies.


Since its beginning, the Campaign has spread -- all over the world. Abrazos gratis. احضان مجانية. Câlins gratuits. フリーハグズ. But the Campaign has not been without tribulation. In some cities it has even been banned (though non-violent resistance in the form of petitions and such have allowed some hugathons to be reinstated). I guess in our day and age it can be hard to believe that someone would be willing to give a hug with the request of nothing in return. Nothing at all. But I think it's pretty wonderful.

If you're interested, check and see if there's a Free Hugs chapter in your city; there's one in mine. And if not, you can still show support. Visit the Free Hugs Campaign website, or friend them on MySpace or Facebook.

If you'd like to see more about the spread of the Free Hugs Campaign and additional things you can do, check out this video.

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

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