New Site!

Hey everyone!! We have successfully moved our blog over to wordpress!! You can find us now at www.silenceiscomplicit.wordpress.com Read more...

Dexter: Serial Display of -isms

Last night I was watching an episode of Dexter (season 1. yes, I know I'm behind!). While I really am enjoying this show, the episode last night really bothered me. Well, there's a lot about the show that bothers me. One example at a time, right?

In the episode I just watched, the Ice Truck Killer (a serial killer that kills prostitutes by draining their blood and cutting them into pieces) is still at large. Tony Tucci, the security guard the Ice Truck Killer forced to position a body on the ice rink and then kidnapped and amputated his hand and his foot. In this scene, Tucci is in the hospital room with Deb Morgan, a cop and sister to main character Dexter Morgan. Tucci mentions how no one will love him now that's he's broken. Deb smiles and says "Don't be crazy. Someone will." Of course, this means someone other than her, despite their easy flirtation and her admission that Tucci is a great guy. Later Deb brings her friend Shanda -- who is a prostitute -- in to meet Tucci to prove that women will want him. Oh, and she's a Woman of Color, while Deb is white.

I take issue with the fact that Deb proves that Tucci is lovable by "gifting" him a prostitute. Is the intented message that Tucci will have to fulfill his desires with meaningless sex because he couldn't possibly have a real relationship now that he is 'broken'? Or is it that he can feel better about himself because there will always be a supply of nameless women to fulfill his needs? What about the fact that Deb, who is supposed to be a fully functional human being, feels that she is giving something great to Tucci by giving him this prostitute friend of hers -- effectively pimping the girl to Tucci. Deb is complicit in the objectification of Shanda. Tucci's stupid grin while Shanda takes her top off doesn't help the situation either. Apparently, he also buys into the "i'll be happy as long as I have a beautiful woman to have sex with" idea. Oh, and hey, there are no strings attached here because she's a prostitute and so clearly beneath him. Patriarchy at its best.

Further, the color lines here need to be addressed. Shanda is an acceptable woman for Tucci to get involved with while Deb is clearly not. That is never an option. Which, alright is necessary for the plot to proceed as planned for the season. But why is Shanda a Woman of Color? Is the implication here that an acceptable pairing in a Black woman and a disabled man, but not a white woman and a disable man? I think there is some kind of hierarchical logic going on here that means that white women must end up with white men and vice versa. The only exception being if that white man is 'broken.' Quite frankly I was disgusted by this implication.

The rest of Dexter is no better. While I am sadly addicted to this show now, the show is horribly sexist. For example: in all of the episodes I've watched (all of season 1), not one of the criminals has been a woman. And not only that, but it is automatically assumed to be the work of a man when someone shows up dead. Which, ok, a part of me is glad that women are not considered to be as violent because that means that maybe women are better (I didn't say this part of me was older than 6!), and a part of me realized that statistically this is good police work because more men commit crimes than women do. But it also means that on the show, the only women shown are victims of crimes, fragile girlfriends, prostitutes or hardnosed, career hungry women with no families -- all tired stereotypes of women.

Anyway, I will continue to watch the show, but thought these things deserved airing. These are things that are not exclusive to Dexter, but show up on numerous shows on TV.

Read more...

The Truth about Feminism

I attended a workshop today entitled Women's Poverty Through the Lens of Social Documentary Photographer Milton Rogovin. His photographs were beautiful, taken of women at work throughout the US, Chile, Spain and Mexico during the last 50 years. It was intended to be women at work and looking at women working throughout the years. I was excited to look closely at images of women of color working and discussing disparities. But the discussion was based on assumptions about women and femininity.

One photograph picturing two women in tight jean shorts and cut off tops was confirmed to be a photograph of two sex workers. A woman in the audience rejected this title because "they were not wearing high heels," therefore they could not possibly be sex workers. ... The sole reason why they couldn't possibly be sex workers is becuase they didn't have the stereotypical 'stripper' heels you see in movies. And the whole room agreeed... Is this where feminism is? AT the US social forum, where leftists, radicals, and people generally working to be outside teh norm and predetermined structures, this is what feminism was. Maybe feminism is only useful to movements when it is angry and in your face. Maybe we, as feminists, have failed in further education of our peers about how we talk about women and femininity.

Another comment was made about a photo of a woman working in a factory with work gloves on -- "she's doing hard work for a woman." ... For a woman. Somehow in that one phrase, he managed to degrade the possibility that the woman could do the same job as a man and expressed concern over her 'decreasing' femininity. As if by including that clause, he can recapture the type of femininity that belongs in a home.

In another set of pictures, a young Black woman was pictured working making twine in a factory setting. She was dressed in a revealing black tank top, that hugged her slender torso. The next picture was of three older Scottish women in sweaters and old button down shirts (possibly men's shirts). The first woman was received in a much different way than the three women. Comments were made about the stylishness of the first woman and how she didn't belong in the factory. Someone commented that she had clearly bought the shirt (although it would have been easy to make). All of these things were used to make the point that this woman wanted a better life, deserved a better life. The other three women were talked about as depressed, or more steady in their lifestyles.

This is a direct response to femininity. The young woman who was perceived as still looking 'good' and still in touch with her feminine side was labeled as not giving up, and not belonging among the poor. The other three were labeled as having given up because they were not displaying feminine qualities. Someone femininity has been tied to this idea of giving up. When some women get married, they talk about giving up looking 'good,' meaning that they give up doing their makeup or wearing stylish clothes, which is equated with being unfeminine. Why is femininity tied to this? Why is maintaining femininity a sign of wanting to move forward in life, and why is it femininity? Why is my performance of gender a sign of what I want out of life?

Finally, is a comment about women maintaining femininity in the workforce a way to maintain the idea that women should be paid less? If we say that women must maintain some aspect of 'femininity' in the fields, or in the factory, or in the office, then we are saying that they must maintain that they are different from men, which then creates a platform where it can be justified (however wrongly) that women can be paid differently. By maintaing this way of thinking we are only serving to strengthen our opposition.

As a final note, I am not saying that women shouldn't enjoy being feminine if they want to (key words being, if they want to. I'm not trying to force anyone to be what they are not). I personally enjoy dressing up and being 'feminine.' But femininity should not limit me, it should not define me, and it should not restrict my ability to do a job. I should not be judged based on my level of femininity.

So what is the truth about feminism? The truth is that it has been pushed aside by the social justice movement -- at least the social justice movement in attendance at the US Social Forum. Maybe we are not current enough, or not vocal enough anymore. Whatever it is, it is clear that there is still work to be done, and it can't be done soon enough.

Read more...

The Greening of Southie: Bringing to Light Issues of Environmental Justice

I recently watched two awesome documentaries relating to the environment. One was Flow, about the effects of privatization on water resources and communities around the world, was an excellent reaffirmation of how important water issues are. The other was The Greening of Southie, about the first green building to go up in South Boston. It is the latter that left me with several questions about the impacts of green building.

First, let me start by saying that the film does a great job of explaining what green building is, how one gets the LEED points necessary to be a 'green building,' and the challenges that go with creating a green building. It also brought up issues about community impact, without actually saying anything about them, that I will expand on below.

LEED is a standard of building that promotes using green materials to reduce the impact of a building, whether residential or commercial on the environment. LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. There are several different kinds of LEED, one for neighborhood design, one for renovations, and several others. While the movie was from 2007 and thus a little dated, the property managers aimed for earning enough points to earn a gold rating. Each point comes from doing something green -- using local vendors is worth one point each, using renewable resources like bamboo over hardwood is one point, etc.

All of this sounds wonderful, and there have even been updates to LEED to take into account new technologies and the transportation costs of transporting materials. However, there are some drawbacks to green building that the film did a wonderful job of pointing out.

There are definite race and class lines drawn by who can afford green building. The building in the film, the Macallen Building, was a residential luxury condo complex, ranging from $500,000 to $2 million per condo. South Boston has traditionally been a working class neighborhood, meaning that a majority of the people in South Boston would not be able to afford homes like the ones brought into the neighborhood -- not to mention the definitive racial line that exists between high income and low income families.

In addition, the new building will drive up property values and rents displacing people from the homes or forcing them to give up local businesses. With the incoming of a luxury apartment complex, there comes other amenities like shopping franchises, which threaten the life of mom and pop stores in the area.

My final point of contention with green building is that it is intended to promote the use of local materials. Yet in the film, they ordered innovative environmentally friendly materials from China, Australia, Bolivia, and from the Midwest in the United States. The one vendor that was awarded a point for being 'local' was 3 hours away in Maine. Granted, this is substantially closer than China or Bolivia, but to me it still does not signify local. How do we promote environmentally friendly design and innovation in the United States (making it local) if we are importing the technology from abroad? And how does one reconcile the fact that we are using so much oil and energy to transport materials from abroad with the fact that we are building and environmentally friendly building? Does saving energy costs outweigh reducing fossil fuel consumption? Should it?

These are some of the questions I was left with at the end of the film. I know that LEED has sought to reconcile some of these concerns since the film was released in 2007, and I know that there are more companies in the United States producing environmentally friendly materials now than when this building was being built. However, I think the questions are still justified and timely as we look at the future of green building. How do we pair green building and being environmentally conscious with social justice issues of race/class? Environmentally friendly extends beyond reducing carbon emissions and replacing light bulbs with CFLs -- it needs to be a holistic approach which includes community sustainability as well.

Why does green building have to be another thing on the list of things that are only for upperclass white people? Environmental movements are about more than just saving the environment, but about environmental justice meaning making sure that everyone has equal access to environmental solutions. Why must they make living in or creating a green building something that can be bragged about? Is that the point of being environmentally friendly? a badge of honor to say that you did something?

Within the LEED certification there are levels as well: certified, silver, gold and platinum, with each level representing the amount of environmentally friendly effort and materials that went into the building (aka the amount of money spent on making it environmentally friendly). Again, it reduces being green to being the best at being green, or having the most money to become the most green. So some people can say they are they best at being green, yet not live green lifestyles, or sustainable lifestyles, or even have buildings that do not support sustainable lifestyles or life choices.

Environmental issues should not be reduced to monetary value or an award that someone can hang on their wall. Yes, the innovations and technological advancements in green building are moving in the right direction. But, as Steve Ma (the owner of Live Green.net) said last night, it needs to be a holistic approach, and people should 'go green' because it's about people and doing what's right for people.

The most poignant moment in the film for me, was when one construction worker (who had been hesitant about this 'green stuff') looked at the camera and commented how great this building was -- he'll never see it fully finished/lived in but one day he can drive his kids past it and tell them how he was a part of it. Here is someone who was a skeptic, got turned on to the idea, and can't yet achieve it. Green building and making environmentally friendly choices for your home should be available to anyone who is on board -- if we limit who can become green by class (and thus race. even gender was not fully represented as leaders in the green building movement), we are turning people away from doing something good.

Read more...

Race and Climate Change: Double the Fear?

I had the privilege today of attending a round table discussion about messaging in a post-Copenhagen world. Most of what was brought up I had already come across, but one idea struck me as something that would interest here, and that is this: is there racism in people's unwillingness to admit climate change in happening?

I have also believe that people who say that climate change is not happening were either swayed by the media or too stuck in their own way of life to admit that that way of life is having negative effects on the environment. This has always made me incredibly sad to think that we as Americans can't wrap our collective head around climate change because we love our stuff too much. But now I think there is more to it (although this doesn't make me happier).

A women today pointed out that getting people to admit that climate change is happening means framing it a way that picks at their self-interest, or in a way that builds on their fear of terrorism. Those ways are the most proven to win over conservatives to the environmental movement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these seem like the same motivations that create colonialism: greed and fear.

Now, it was also pointed out how those can lead to racism or serve to solidify racism. So my question is, if these are the motivations that are most likely to get people to make significant changes, and these motivations can lead to racism, can objections to climate change be racist? I know that not everyone who objects to climate change is or will be racist, but is there a link between the two? One man pointed out that people are generally afraid of what they don't know, which makes them not want to change. Fear of an unknown is one of the drivers of racism (in my humble opinion).

Can the fear about admitting climate change exists and not wanting to make the necessary changes be tied to a fear about and outsider taking our place? One woman brought up China, and how we need to find a way to be both competitive with China while at the same time finding solidarity with them as they fight climate change. But doesn't that play into the idea that we would be funding our competitors, who happen to be of a different race, making the competition racially charged in some way?

These thoughts have been bouncing around in my head all day. I'm not sure if they made sense here, but I'd love to get this discussion going!

PS: I also think that gender plays a huge role in how we look at/talk about climate change. It is undeniable that women around the world are most affected by climate change. The profound gender inequalities in the developing world (and the developed world!!) make it difficult for those most affected to come forward or to have a hand in the solution. If white men were the most affected, we would have solved this problem a long time ago. The People's Summit on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth that took place in Bolivia is the perfect example of how marginalized populations like men and women of color get locked out of the debates and even when they come together in full force, the Western world won't listen.

Read more...