Video Spotlight: Murmuration

Murmuration: /merr'meuh ray"sheuhn/ n.
1. The act or instance of murmuring; a murmur.
2. The collective noun for a group of starlings: a flock.


Murmuration from Sophie Windsor Clive on Vimeo.

The video is by Sophie Windsor Clive and Liberty Smith -- a pure accident witnessed (and caught on film) as the women canoed across the River Shannon in Ireland. 

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?!

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.

Video Spotlight: Lead with Love

Lead with Love is a 35-minute documentary film created to support parents and families struggling with the news that a child is lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  It includes interviews with real families, answers to several commonly asked questions, and suggested action steps for parents working to deal with their emotions after hearing the news that their child does not identify as straight.  The film also includes interviews with psychologists, teachers, and religious clergy.

The film is not perfect, but offers a much needed resource for familes.  It is definitely worth watching, supporting, and spreading to others who may gain from its message of support.  In addition, the film is VERY new (like, it just come out this week), so spreading the word is a much needed action.

This is the 2.5 minute trailer, but you can watch the entire video for FREE here.  Go watch it!

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

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

Not Yet Rain

If you've got half an hour, watch Not Yet Rain, a short film by Lisa Russell, produced in association with Ipas. (Yes, you can watch it online.)

In their own words:

[The film] explores abortion in Ethiopia through the voices of women who have faced the challenge of finding safe care. Through their stories, we see the important role that safe abortion care plays in the overall health of women and their families.

Every year, millions of women around the world risk their lives to end unintended pregnancies. While a law enacted in 2006 marked great progress toward reproductive freedom in Ethiopia, Not Yet Rain shows that changing the law is just the first step; much more needs to be done as women continue to die from unsafe abortions. Training for health workers and increased availability of care could save the lives of women in Ethiopia and around the world.

Trouble the Water

Tonight a homework break turned into the rare opportunity to watch an important and moving film for which I'm not sure I have the words to justly represent. So, hear me out...

Tonight I went and watched an independent documentary film called Trouble the Water. You probably haven't heard of it. I hadn't either until earlier today.

The film tells the story of Hurricane Katrina through the lived experiences of those least represented but hardest hit. This film, rather than being told through the words or views of the media, politicians, 'experts,' or even aid workers, is told through the lives of Katrina survivors Kimberly Rivers Roberts and her husband Scott Michael Roberts. Born and raised in New Orleans, they lived three blocks from the levees in the 9th ward. When the storm came they had no way to leave the city and were left to fend for themselves. And, until the batteries failed, Kim's camcorder captured their story. Here's a very small piece of it:



Trouble the Water has a lot of big names attached to it. It was directed and produced by Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine producers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal. Danny Glover is one of the film's executive producers. The score was created by Robert Del Naja and Neil Davidge. (Del Naja is one half of Massive Attack.) Plus, the film introduces four tracks written and performed by Black Kold Medina (BKM), aka Kim herself. (You can also listen to an ASCAP Network Audio Portrait of BKM here.) The film is even the winner of the Grand Jury Prize at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival.

But still, very few people know about it. The film does not have a national distribution deal, and at the moment, is playing screen to screen as theatres give them a chance. (As of today, they have short term engagements on a total of 65 screens nationwide. That is NOT a lot, folks. And when I say short-term, I mean, like, they get to screen the film just a few times. Like at the Landmark Century where I saw it, the theatre contracted the film for three days. And they'll decide Monday morning is they keep it or send it out the door.)

Tonight I was lucky enough to watch the film with directors/producers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal. They stayed for a Q&A after the screening and spoke with deep emotion about their desire that word of the film would spread. Certainly, the film's success would be good news for them, but far more importantly, they stressed, and I agree, the film tells the story of Katrina in a way that's been ultimately too absent from our understanding of it. The film is about much more than an extreme weather event. It's about not only how Kim and Scott and their whole community were failed by the government during and following the events of Katrina, but how they've been failed by the government and by society their whole lives. The tragedy of Katrina began long before the levees broke and the flood waters rose. And the aftermath is still going on. The film shows some of the ways that issues of race and poverty intersect with history and culture and the hope for a different, better future, and the film does it in the voices of those best able to tell the story.

So, this is my plea to you: If you can go see this film, DO. The only way others will have a chance to see it is if you see it and tell them to see it too. You aren't going to see a commercial for it. You're unlikely to even see a review of it. But, you're reading this, and I'm extending this as your personal invitation. To see when and where the film is playing near you, visit here. (And, all my peeps in Boston, New York, Ohio -- north & south, and Chicago, it's playing near you, now or shortly. Seriously. You have no excuses. Go see it.)

Twilight

So I've been thinking a lot about sexism, patriarchy, and feminism lately... (What an opening line, right?! Gimme a break. I'm an academic in denial.) And, in a seemingly unrelated and perhaps contradictory vein (just wait), I've been reading a lot of fiction this summer, trying to ease my mind with the joyful nature of written language before the looming school year forces me back into writings' excruciatingly complex, theoretical, and brain-mushing side. On Thursday morning I finished reading Stephenie Meyer's debut novel Twilight which has been on my reading list for a little while now. I tend to find a lot of pleasure in reading young adult fiction, a genre too often highly underrated. Upon completion of my chosen light reading, I have found myself quite conflicted. Why? Sexism, patriarchy, and feminism.

First of all, I think Twilight is a brilliant story. (I'll do my best not to write any spoilers for those who haven't read the book but would like to. Read freely, eager readers, read!) Meyers has written, in Bella Swan and Edward Cullen, rich lead characters, paid exquisite attention to detail, and penned a story that literally raises your pulse and makes your heart ache with exhilaration, anxiety, longing, and general emotional conflict. She has essentially written the eternal love story -- two star-crossed individuals tempted by a forbidden love and thus living out their relationship with the heartbreaking understanding that they are destined to be one another's destruction. While Meyer doesn't focus on it, the story has a deep core of melancholy, impossible desire, and breathtaking sadness. Think along the lines of the most tragic rendition of Romeo and Juliet you've ever seen or read, add vampires and a lot of rain, and you've got Twilight. In a number of ways the story reminds me of several ancient Chinese or Japanese legends, so many of which end tragically and heartbreakingly: a lover drowning him or herself in the sea from sorrow, broken promises that destroy love and goodness, magical transformations that show the heartbreaking true nature of persons -- stories that show utter sadness and sorrow in ways often missing in Western tales. But, I felt it in Twilight.

That said, as I read Twilight, I found myself mentally reliving fantasies of "love" from early adolescence in which I would be in some horrible predicament and my beau would swoop down and rescue me in his big, strong, brave way -- saving the day and protecting me from harm. (Gag me.) Twilight exactly mirrors these depictions of love that rely on ideas of men as brave, strong protectors and women as innocent, meek, mild flowers in need of being taken care of. Stories of utter dependence and domination. (Puke.) Seriously, I've spent the past 15 years redefining my ideas of relationships, intentionally working to counter these lies we've been told about how the perfect love story is lived out. And here it is today, in print, in my hands, presented in beautifully, heartbreakingly devastating prose telling me again these falisies. I want to wilt in the sadness of that recognition.

Just as a recap, the essential story of Edward and Bella's relationship is something like this: Edward's been a vampire for a hundred years or so, but always alone. Then he meets Bella and is fascinated. (Gotta love the "I've roamed the earth for a century and never found anyone who makes me feel like you do" motif. It pulls at the heartstrings of girls and women who never learned better. Do I sound bitter?) On the flip side, in an interview with Entertainment Weekly Meyer said,

Bella is an every girl. She's not a hero, and she doesn't know the difference between Prada and whatever else is out there. She doesn't always have to be cool, or wear the coolest clothes ever. She's normal. And there aren't a lot of girls in literature that are normal.

Being 'normal' and 'everyday' is fine and wonderful (really, I mean it), but if Bella really is 'everyday' and 'normal,' I'm a little scared. While Bella is feisty, quick-witted, and intelligent, she also spends most of the book falling all over Edward, who just happens to like her back. Lucky her. Envision the most "Oh, I love him so much. I can't live without him. I don't know why he likes me. But, he's gorgeous and I would do anything for him" angsty teen image you can drag up. That's Bella. (And, true-to-God, I say that with love. Cuz Lord knows, I love these characters.)

When it comes down to it, I am really concerned about the power dynamics in this whole thing. And when I say "power" I mean a number of things. Yes, physical power. Edward could kill Bella in a second. No questions asked. He could do anything with/to Bella, with or without her consent. Physically, he's got that strength. But, emotionally and psychologically, he controls himself. And we're supposed to love him for it. (And we do.) Bella, on the other hand, what's she got? Undying love. That's about it. She's okay with Edward spying on her at school and watching her while she sleeps and asking her to tell lies to protect their relationship -- because she loves him. But, take that love away, and what do you have? A stalker. Once again, I've gotta say, I love Edward, but seriously, if Bella ever put her foot down -- which she wouldn't -- their whole situation would look so different. So, when I say "power" I'm talking about something much deeper than physical power. I'm talking about that exceedingly fine line between permission and domination. About the role of an individual's will as it interacts with someone else's. We accept Edward's behavior because Bella accepts it, sometimes even welcomes it. Does that make her, or him, wrong-minded? Not necessarily. It's just a reminder of how emotions filter our understanding of the world. Significantly.

So, what am I saying? Um, I think Bella, despite her displays of strength and perseverance, is in a supremely unbalanced relationship which seems to be tied up in the difficult grey spaces surrounding issues of will and domination. Plus, we've got that added layer of the female character as the submissive, household duty fulfilling, "I'll do anything because I love you" role, which mostly sucks cuz we as a society are still fighting, fighting, fighting to offer alternative views of womanhood. If this is the role you choose for yourself, fine, but I want to know that you think you had an option, a true choice, not that your womanhood was defined in this way because it's the only way. Do you see my distinction here? (And on a side note, I also read the whole Uglies series by Scott Westerfeld this summer. It's an excellent series critiquing the consumptive, beauty and fame dominated ideologies of society, and the main character is a strong, take-no-crap girl named Tally who embodies femininity and womanhood very differently than Bella and STILL gets the guy(s). Check it out.)

Now, to Bella's credit, at one point in the book (p. 473-474) she says

I'll be the first to admit that I have no experience with relationships, but it just seems logical... a man and a woman have to be somewhat equal... as in, one of them can't always be swooping in and saving the other one. They have to save each other equally. ... I can't always be Lois Lane. I want to be Superman, too.

So she sees this inequality, this power-differential, and identifies it as a problem for her. But I can't say I'm in love with her solution. (Uh, changing SPECIES for a guy?! Uh...)

Leonard Sax, in an article for The Mercury News in Silicon Valley, talks about the gender roles in the Twilight series this way:

The lead male characters, Edward Cullen and Jacob Black, are muscular and unwaveringly brave, while Bella and the other girls bake cookies, make supper for the men and hold all-female slumber parties. It gets worse for feminists: Bella is regularly threatened with violence in the first three books, and in every instance she is rescued by Edward or Jacob. In the third book she describes herself as "helpless and delicious." ... For more than three decades, political correctness has required that educators and parents pretend that gender doesn't really matter. The results of that policy are upon us: a growing cohort of young men who spend many hours each week playing video games and looking at pornography online, while their sisters and friends dream of gentle werewolves who are content to cuddle with them and dazzling vampires who will protect them from danger. In other words, ignoring gender differences is contributing to a growing gender divide.

So, why am I blathering on about all this? Here's the big reason: I, as a grown-up, trying-to-be-critical-of-the-world-around-me woman, can have this whole little conversation with myself (see above) about the power dynamics in this vampire-human love story. But I'm not the target audience for this book. The book is marketed as a young adult novel and has been supremely popular with the 12-17 year old girl bracket (aka - middle school, high school girls). And it worries me. (Do you wanna see what I'm talking about? Check out this short vid from Twilight's reception at Comic-Con in San Diego. Couple key quotes, in additional to all the adolescent screaming: "She skipped school [to come]..."; "We screamed! It was awesome!"; "Obsessive Cullen Disorder." Sigh...)

Do I think young people should be prevented from reading the book? Absolutely not. If they want to read it, read it. (I'm not into banning books, or restricting who reads what books. I think banning books is bad. And mean.) But, are young people talking about the power dynamics of this love story? I don't know. But I haven't been seeing signs that they are.

Plus, I think the series is about to get way more popular, possibly with a wider audience. Twilight, the movie, is coming out November 21, 2008 (taking the release slot Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince vacated when their release got moved to Summer 2009) and is likely to draw big crowds. Lots of folks say the book/movie franchise is likely to be the next Harry Potter. I don't think it's going to go that far, but it might make a stir. Think about this: The movie cast is led by Kristen Stewart (of Jumper, Into the Wild, Zathura, and Panic Room fame) playing Bella and Robert Pattinson (who's best known for playing Cedric Diggory in two Harry Potter films) playing Edward. Add Catherine Hardwicke as director (Thirteen and The Nativity Story), Melissa Rosenberg as the screenwriter (writer/producer on Dexter, The O.C., writer of Step Up, etc.), and Carter Burwell on the score (No Country for Old Men, Intolerable Cruelty, A Knight's Tale, Being John Malkovich, The Big Lebowski, Fargo, etc. etc.) and WHOA. (And, on a side note, Meyer's stipulation when she signed over rights for the movie was that the film had to be rated no higher than PG-13, which I assume it tied to her desire to support a film she feels comfortable watching as a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. To read more about how Meyer's Mormon philosophy affected her writing of the Twilight series, check out this article in TimesOnline. The book is brimming with sexual tension and implied violence, but Hardwicke is on board too, so I expect the PG-13 goal will be met.)

Just for fun, here's the film's trailer:


All that said, do I plan to read the other three books in the series? Absolutely. Do I plan to watch the movie? Probably. Does any of that abate my concerns about the messages being reinforced about the roles of men and women in relationships? No. It's just a reminder that issues of feminism, sexism, and patriarchy are crazy complicated. And just like in Meyer's story, sometimes you're tempted by the "evil" but the real question is how you deal with it.

UPDATE: So, I finished New Moon, book two in the series, and I'm disappointed. I keep seeing other people with these little decorative buttons sayings "Bella takes feminism back 100 years." Now I know why. (If you're not into spoilers, stop reading.) The first hundred pages demonstrates very clearly that Bella does not exist as a complete and individual person outside the context of her failed relationship with Edward. Then the next 150 pages describe her apathy towards life and self, her deep emotional imbalance, and her self-destructive tendencies. I can cut a girl some slack for being heartbroken, but the heartbreak Bella lives is a denial of her own worthwhile humanity, and I think it sucks, sends bad messages about women and love, and is frankly annoying. Moving on, I really like Jacob, but think Bella treats him like shit. She's a user and drops him in a second when it suites her. Regardless of her 'remorse' or 'guilt' or whatever, the ease with which she treats her self-proclaimed best friend with such lack of concern or consideration is crap. She's fickle, and once again willing to sacrifice literally EVERYTHING for the love of her man. It makes me grumpy. - 9/10/08

UPDATE: No time like the present for yet another update, eh? So, I watched Twilight the movie the weekend after Thanksgiving, finished Eclipse in early December, and wrapped up Breaking Dawn on New Year's day. (Happy 2009, y'all.) My response? (Spoilers are included, so stop reading if you don't wanna know.) Ho-hum. That's my response: ho-hum.

I guess my summary would be that in the last two books we lose some of the richness that could have been our main characters (Bella, Edward, and Jacob). While the action is rich (and highly compatible with film-making), true emotional depth and complexity gets a bit lost, I think.

Eclipse was essentially an angsty book -- Edward being his overbearing, overprotective self (which got annoying), Jacob being his heartbroken teenage self (which also got annoying), and Bella being endlessly selfish, failing to be decisive about how she deals with others' emotions, and thus hurting everyone more than necessary (also annoying). Though, I must admit, the battle at the end of the book was pretty amazing.

Breaking Dawn was LONG, at 756 pages, and became a series of plot points that really reduced our characters to predictable protagonists. Meyer's writing is compelling, so you are engrossed and keep reading, but I think she betrays her own potential (that sounds harsh in a way I don't really intend it to...) by truly transforming Bella into a Mary Sue. She becomes a vampire and is PERFECT. Lucky her. Our fallible (and thus humanly lovable) Bella is gone. In the end, the story is resolved as a happy ending, ride-off-into-the-sunset series. Worth reading. (And a quick read.) But, a bit disappointing.

The Twilight movie was okay. I took my dad for an "outsider's" perspective, and he liked it. I did too, I think. Nothing amazing, but good. I would say all the reviews (the good and bad) are pretty on par.

Also, there was a very interesting conversation over at Racialicious titled "The Politics of Wizards and Vampires" about the ideological differences between the left-leaning Harry Potter books and the right-leaning Twilight series. (The post was written by the awesome Alisa Valdes-Rodriquez, who I know best from having written the wonderful ChicaLit novel The Dirty Girls Social Club.) While I agree with most of the analysis, I think it's important to be careful not to paint one side or another as 'right' or 'wrong,' because we are talking about deep ideological differences. In the end we will all choose our stances, but it's important to think about the many sides of every story before (and after) we do so. The entry is definitely worth a read, especially for those that have read both series.

Also, Stephenie Meyer has posted an interesting response to some folks' claims that Bella is an anti-feminist heroine. I'm not really interested in discussing it in-depth, but I agree with Meyer that feminism is about choice and I agree that Bella should be free to make whatever choices she wants (to end her mortal life, to get married at 18, to abstain from a life-saving abortion). Rock on, Bella. Do your thing.

My critique is that I think feminism is something bigger. It's about creating free-will choices for everyone -- men and women -- with less social pressure to choose certain paths. Meyer says,

"I never meant for her [Bella's] fictional choices to be a model for anyone else's real life choices. She is a character in a story, nothing more or less. On top of that, this is not even realistic fiction, it's a fantasy with vampires and werewolves, so no one could ever make her exact choices. ... Also, she's in a situation that none of us has ever been in, because she lives in a fantasy world."

The argument that "this is fiction; it doesn't mean anything in real life" doesn't work for me. I believe that all artistic creation and expression is a reflection of our understanding of 'real' life and impacts the ways we live life. Thus, saying the Twilight stories have no impact on the thinking or living of readers is a fallacy.

Is Bella and the whole Twilight saga an anti-feminist set of writings? I don't know. And I don't think the answer matters. The value of the question is in the conversations that emerge around the ideas and the ways those conversations impact our understanding of ourselves, our world, and the place of feminism in it. -1/3/09

The Story of Stuff

Just being upfront with y'all: I think materialism and modern consumption practices are quite dangerous. Consumption, for me, is a broad word defining all the things -- material (food, production goods) and immaterial (ideas, ideologies, social expectations) -- that we take in -- individually, socially, and culturally. Consumption of any kind becomes dangerous when it's not done critically. Now, I find that regardless of my pet intellectual interest at any given moment, whether it be food and health politics, labor exploitation and abuses, the ideologies of material consumption, socialization for (unequal) human interaction, or any other site of focus, in my own mind they are all connected and intertwined in a vast, complex system that defines and is defined by human existence and interaction. As such, I was THRILLED to recently watch a 20-minute documentary that artfully and eloquently ties together so many pieces of the big picture, reminding me that there really is value in connecting all the dots.

The Story of Stuff is described as follows:

Annie Leonard, an activist who has spent the past 10 years traveling the globe fighting environmental threats, narrates The Story of Stuff, delivering a rapid-fire, often humorous and always engaging story about 'all our stuff—where it comes from and where it goes when we throw it away.' Leonard examines the real costs of extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal.... Leonard’s inspiration for the film began as a personal musing over the question, 'Where does all the stuff we buy come from, and where does it go when we throw it out?' She traveled the world in pursuit of the answer to this seemingly innocent question, and what she found along the way were some very guilty participants and their unfortunate victims.

I, for one, was impressed and am more than happy to help spread the video as far and wide as possible. (Yes, I'm encouraging you to consume it! Critically, of course!)

The best I can figure, The Story of Stuff came out sometime in early December 2007, and since then it has won an SXSW interactive web award for being such a valuable educational resource, has had over 3 million online views since uploaded, and has roughly 15,000 new hits every day from all over the world. (Subliminal message inserted here: You should become one today's new viewers.) A huge part of its success, I think, is its viral nature. It's free to watch, free to download, free to share with everyone you know. It's very well researched (you can even download the annotated script, which I think is the bomb-diggity), the website has a wealth of additional information and resources (including within the video interaction panel itself) showing very directly the interconnections between the environment, human health, workers' rights, globalization, and alternatives -- providing both direct information and connections to organizations and activist groups with whom you can become involved. And that's one of the great things about the video's presentation as a whole; Leonard speaks strongly to the large variety of ways to get involved. She says in the film,

The good thing about such a pervasive problem is that there are so many points of intervention. There are people working... on saving forests and... on clean production. People working on labor rights and fair trade and conscious consuming and blocking landfills and incinerators and, very importantly, on taking back our government so it really is by the people and for the people. All this work is critically important but things are really gonna start moving when we see the connections, when we see the big picture. When people... get united, we can reclaim and transform [into]... a system that doesn't waste resources or people. Because what we really need to chuck is this old-school throw-away mindset. There's a new school of thinking and it's based on sustainability and equity: green chemistry, zero waste, closed loop production, renewable energy, local living economies. It's already happening.

In an interview with Terrence McNally of Alternet, Leonard said, "[T]here's a cost to this excessive consumption. There's an environmental cost, there's a social cost -- and there's a personal happiness cost. This is what's really interesting. A lot of people think buying all this stuff is making us happier, but recent data has come out showing that it's not so. So we're trashing the planet, we're trashing communities -- and we're not even having fun. If we were at least having fun, we might want to reconsider. But it's not even fun anymore, so we need to rethink how we make, use and relate to the stuff in our lives." Can't really argue with that, eh?!

Another reason I think The Story of Stuff is so awesome is that the film was produced by Free Range Studios, the awesome folks who brought us The Meatrix and Grocery Store Wars. (If you haven't seen those, you should! They're funny, educational, and downright rockin'.)

Funding for The Story of Stuff was provided by The Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption and Tides Foundation.

And, if I haven't convinced you yet to spend just 20 minutes watching this awesome video, here's a little teaser. (The clip reminds me a little of Dr. Seuss' The Sneetches, another story about consumption's failing to 'fix' anything. The Sneetches is also a powerful story about social -isms in general. It's a two-for-one great story.)

Enjoy!

Are Oompah Loompas an incarnation of Mexican gods?

Apparently I am veering away (at least momentarily) from the generally "focused" approach I try to bring to the blog. Today I have been pondering the undeniable likeness between Deep Roy (of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - the remake - fame) and an artifact I saw at the Museo Nacional de Antropologia while in Mexico City. (I honestly cannot remember which time period or region of Mexico from which the figure came. I'll pay better attention next time. Promise.) Now, Roy was born in and has spent much of his life living in Nairobi, the capital city of Kenya, and his parents are Indian. Thus it's all the more striking, and satisfying, to me that his stone likeness would come from a third continent. Maybe he's related to the gods of Mexican mythology. Who knows. But it's worth pondering, don't you think?

my wand is packed and ready to go

an announcement was made last week that has sent soaring the hearts of some film and literature fans, while causing some critical media researchers to frantically begin ripping their hair out.

Universal Studios announced that they are constructing The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, scheduled to open sometime in late 2009/early 2010. while i am admittedly a happy Potter fan (like millions of others i own all the books (most in hardcover) and have seen all the films), on one hand i'm crazy excited about having the possibility to visit Hogsmeade and Howgarts. can you even imagine Diagon Alley?! but on the other hand, what's the pricetag? (Universal Studio's didn't set a cost yet.)

that's the thing about marketing kid's culture: it always comes with a hefty pricetag. already you can get harry potter anything, for a price. Legos: Graveyard Duel $29.99. a Harry Potter collectible doll: $159.99. an artistic print of the enchanted car: $199.99. you know. cheap stuff. maybe i'm a fuddy-duddy, but this is where i get nervous. where's the boundary between "educational, imaginative goodness" and "let's exploit kids' desire to 'connect' with their literary buddy - for a fee"? hmm...

and that's not even touching on the stir around harry potter's portrayal of gender roles. (there's actually a chapter concerning just that in the 2nd edition of Kinderculture: The Corporate Construction of Childhood. dude, i'm a dork; this is what i study.) personally, i don't really have an issue with harry being harry and not harriette. besides, hermione's a brazen vixen; wouldn't ya say?

that said, come 2010, who's going to Orlando with me?