Prison reform and abolition

I have been thinking about doing a post on prison reform and abolition for over 6 months now, but it has always seemed like such an insurmountable task that I kept putting it off. In particular, I wanted to do a series of posts documenting not only the rationale and logic behind it, but giving the extensive evidence proof of claims such as, "the prison-industrial complex/penal system is racist." However, that is a very overwhelming task. In this post I shall focus on the bare-bones logic of it with only a little explanation, but I may do follow-up posts once I have the framework up.

The first contention: our current prison/"justice" system is not currently working properly. (Reasons for prison reform)
Evidence:
1. The system is racist at all levels--people of color are not only more likely to be pulled over, questioned, or otherwise harassed by the police, but they are also more likely to be convicted of their charges (even in the face of exonerating evidence), receive longer prison prison sentences for the same crimes, and be denied parole. I could go on about this, but won't. Might provide some links.
2. The system is also classist. Low-income communities, poor/working-class areas are over-policed. People from working-class background face many challenges in the court system, some of which are similar to those faced by people of color, some of which are related to the difficulty of getting your own lawyer (public defenders are terribly overworked, and sometimes meet their clients a mere 5 minutes before trial...), or other issues. Once again, because of discrimination against poor people, juries tend to be harsher on people who are obviously from working class backgrounds (anyone seen 12 Angry Men??).
3. The very definition of a crime is messed up. "Loitering" and "trespassing" in public parks is often a crime, and many other laws target working class people or the homeless--you can be arrested for unpaid parking tickets, yet few of the rich people who routinely evade taxes are even investigated. Once you get a ticket for a crime like loitering, if you are homeless you may not be able to pay, which lands you in jail, which makes it harder.... Not to mention that stealing cars usually comes with more consequences than stealing millions of dollars from thousands of people (back to class: blue-collar vs. white-collar crime). Many forms of rape aren't even legally considered rape.
4. Political prisoners are also treated terribly. There are a surprising number of them languishing still in US jails. Their crimes range from Communism to working in liberation or the anti-war movements in the 1960's and 70's to (and this actually happened) giving a speech about how you can cost corporations money by sending them completely black faxes. Demonstrating outside of the Republican National Convention. WTO, anyone? Many of these crimes also have very inflated sentences, and people have been arrested for doing no more than exercising their first amendment rights. While arguably not as bad as in the 1960's and 70's, when the FBI was openly killing activists without even covering up the evidence (Fred Hampton--left the bloody sheets and bullet holes proving he never could have fired), the level of surveillance and repression of activists of all types of downright scary. Most of these activists their watching are struggling for things like social justice and trying to do good.
5. Did I mention selective enforcement? Think back to all the celebrities who usually get off scot-free or with very low sentences for drug, alcohol, or sex-related crimes. Many people who normally have no problem with the punitive aspect of the criminal justice system cried that it would be unfair for Roman Polanski to serve time for his crime of providing alcohol and drugs to a 13-year old, then raping her multiple times in multiple ways while she continued to say no. After all, that was many years ago, he has a wife and kids, etc, etc. More on sexual violence later, but suffice it to say that if it's unfair to him, it's unfair to everyone. We shouldn't let everyone off the hook, just think of a better system. After all...

The second contention: Prisons don't prevent crime. (Reasons for prison abolition)
The only way they could ever do this is if we locked up each and every person who ever broke any law (probably most of us, right?) for life. Even then, crime within prison--which is rampant in certain forms, and which guard often condone or even engage in--would continue. However, incarcerating people has not been shown to reduce the amount of crimes people commit. In fact, prisons and jails are considered revolving doors by many because of the high rates of recidivism (re-offense). This is for lots of reasons, but here are a few.
1. Prison, by definition, is designed to punish, not to rehabilitate. What skills are prisoners learning in prison? Usually not job skills, although that happens sometimes. More often, it's easier to forge criminal connections with fellow inmates. Prisons sometimes get people more involved in crime than before. In addition, the punishment prisoners receive in prison can be very intense--and according to the UN and Amnesty International, sometimes inhumane and in violation of many treaties to which the US is a signatory, as well as our own laws. This takes a mental and emotional toll on many prisoners that hampers their recovery once outside.
2. Once out of prison, job opportunities are limited. For many jobs, even a marijuana possession conviction (and let's be real, think about what percentage of people in Seattle have had some point in their life smoked pot or at least had it in their possession) makes you ineligible or drastically reduces your chances of being hired. Once again, you often don't gain knowledge or skills relevant to the legal workforce, and you usually don't gain experience in a field either.
3. In addition, you probably don't have a place of your own anymore (certainly for working-class prisoners this is usually the case). However, staying with family or friends, if they are on certain types of government aid, may jeopardize their ability to stay on that aid. If you are lucky to have family or friends in the area who are willing to take you in, you still may not be able to take them up on it if you were convicted of a gang-related charge. For many of these charges, ex-prisoners are banned from going into certain areas or else they violate their parole and go back into prison. For example, the entire Central District. Given that the CD is the historically Black area in Seattle, if you are black and grew up there, many people you know probably still live there....
4. Parole is also very easy to violate at times. I used to volunteer in juvie, and a kid got locked back up for violating parole because he was "associating" with a felon. His older brother. This kid was only 14--was he supposed to just move out, cut off his family, and support himself? There are many other examples.
5. Rehabilitative, community justice, and other alternative models have been shown to be more effective at reducing crime than prisons. Re-entry and drug rehab programs that take place at alternate facilities and avoid incarcerating people tend to have much lower rates of re-offense.
6. Speaking of drugs... prisons don't usually deal with drug addictions. There are waiting lists of over a year at many rehab centers--and some drugs are dangerous to go off on your own because you can die--but while you're waiting you can still be imprisoned for years for possession. Even though you were trying to get help.
7. Prisons also have a terrible record of dealing with mental health issues, and the system usually ignores when crimes are committed by the mentally ill, unless you can get them classified as "insane," in which case people are generally institutionalized in mental health institutions rather than prisons.
8!!! Prevention is best/solve sources of crime. All prisons can do is react to crimes already committed. They don't deal with things that cause crime: poverty, inequality, a culture of impunity (around certain crimes), drug addictions, mental health issues, cycles of violence, lack of [insert basic need], institutional oppression, etc. We deal to deal with these issues or else crime will just continue to happen.
9!!! Doing a bad thing does not make you a bad person automatically.. We all make mistakes. Some crimes, like rape, are fairly socially acceptable in that we live in a rape culture that blames victims and creates excuses for perpetrators. See www.thecurvature.com for good discussions on rape culture and "unrapeability." We need to change the way we perceive the world around us and educate youth. Not lock people up.

Third contention: prison is very expensive
Prison is expensive to run. In fact, many of the rehabilitative programs that take place in alternate centers both have better results and are cheaper to run! Why aren't we running to start more of these programs? The cultural impulse to "make people pay" for what they've done, even when it's counter-productive. People don't care how much prison costs, but they do care when jails start paying for cable. Because prisoners don't deserve anything other than a cold hard jail cell and three pieces of bread a day.

Rebuttal: Murders and rapists
Usually when I talk to people about my views, they always want to know about the murderers and the rapists. First of all, murderers, rapists, and ALL other violent offenders account for about 20% of all prisoners (Human Rights Coalition). Letting all the non-violent offenders out of jail would get rid of most prisons. Moreover, murderers, rapists, and pedophiles combined make up less than 1% of the prison population (Critical Resistance). 1%!!!! Even if we kept these folks in, we'd practically be at prison abolition already.
Plus, many murderers, rapists, and pedophiles aren't in jail anyway. Think about all the police who murder innocent civilians but are acquitted of wrong-doing because it was "an accident." That's what the crime of manslaughter is there for, folks. Think about all the priests who were never jailed. And the vast majority of rapists are never even accused of a crime. Even the government estimates that only about 40% of rapes are reported, my guess is that the figure is much higher. That's not even looking at the number of unreported prison rapes because, I'm sorry, stealing a gold necklace doesn't mean other prisoners and guards should be able to rape you. Raping someone doesn't mean someone else should be able to rape you. Rape is rape and rape is unacceptable. End of story. Continuing on... only about 4-6% of *reported* rapes end in conviction. That leaves us with the conservative estimate that about 1.6-2.4% of rapes end in conviction. Even with repeat offenders, 90-95% probably never serve jail time. When you think about the fact that various government agencies estimate that between 1 out of 4 and 1 out of 6 women are sexually assaulted at least once, that means that, even accounting for repeat offenders, a significant percentage of the male population has probably committed sexual assault.*** Many will even admit to it in surveys.... as long as you don't use the words rape or assault. Scary??? It should be, since the current prison-industrial complex isn't protecting you from the vast majority anyway... (Will post more on the specifics of this issue later.)


There are many others who have written on this subject. Prison reform/abolition organizations include Critical Resistance, Human Rights Coalition, and Prison Activist Resource Center. Check out works by Angela Davis, Betty Pettit, and Loic Wacquant, among many others.

Bloggers include Renee at Womanist Musings (check out http://www.womanist-musings.com/2010/10/we-create-recidivism.html), Karnythia at www.theangryblackwoman.com, Cara at www.thecurvature.com (focus on violence against women and sexual violence), and many more! I'm much indebted to these bloggers and the blogosphere in generally for helping to shape my thinking around this and many other issues.




***Female-on-female, male-on-male, and female-on-male sexual assault does occur, but the vast majority are male-on-female, thus my focus. However, men are even less likely to report rape, so the figures we have on that are even less reliable and I'm sure rates are higher than we'd like to believe.

One White Girl PondersStrange Behavior, by Marilyn Buck

It is strange to me
that so many white folks
were upset and enraged
by the federal carnage
at the fundamentalist farmhouse
at Waco

These same "folks"
were not distraught or outraged
by the Philadelphia firestorm
where Black people
were massacred
and Black folk's homes
became ashes

It is strange to me
that the po - lice and FBI
are not running around
kicking in white folks' doors
or stopping all blond or brown-haired men
wearing Levis or Brooks Brothers suits
or Stetsons or John Deere caps
You know:
a search, brutalize, blow-away mission
like those in South Central LA
Washington DC
Harlem or el barrio

After all, wasn't it
all-American white males
who blew up the federal building
in Oklahoma City?

It is strange to me
how civilized government agents can be
when it is their friends
they are looking for

It is strange to me
how much fear
the "white" world carries
in its under-siege shoulders
bullet-proofed chests
and M-16s
to ward off the shadows
of half a millenium of
massacres and killing fields
slavery, lynch mobs
and death penalties

Not only is it strange
it’s time
for radical behavior
modification

My translation

Ser and estar

Oh marine
oh boy
one of your problems is that you don't know
how to distinguish ser from estar
for you everything is to be

so let us try to clear things up

for example
a woman es buena
when she sings the psalms out of tune
and gets a new refrigerator every two years
and sends her dog to an analyst every month
and only deals with sex on saturday nights

on the other hand, a woman está buena
when you look at her and your puzzled eyes go blank
and you dream of her dream of her dream of her
and think that a martini will give you the courage
but not even then

for example
a man es listo
when he earns millions over the phone
and evades taxes and his conscience
and buys into a good retirement plan
to cash in when he turns seventy
and it's time to fly to capri and paris
where he manages to rape the gioconda right in the louvre
with his speedy polaroid

on the other hand, a man está listo
when you boys
oh marine
oh boy
appear on the horizon
to inject him with democracy.


There are many options for the title. I like "Ser and estar," but there are other options, such as "To be and to be" or "Ser and estar, or to be and to be." It depends on what you want to emphasize, how close you would like to remain to Benedetti's version, and how much knowledge your intended audience would be expected to have of Spanish. I don't think "Being and Seeming" is an appropriate title for several reasons. First off, the point of the poem is the confusion between the two different forms of "To be," to which the Spanish title gives a clue but which this title does not reference at all. Secondly, 'being' and 'seeming' are not accurate translations of 'ser' and estar,' particularly with how Benedetti uses them in his poem.

For the bulk of the poem, I used Hatfield's translation as a guide, since I do think that he is generally a good translator. I think that for this poem, however, he translated too much of it. Since the issue in question is a (political) language lesson about ser and estar, it makes most sense to me to leave all the uses of these words in. This is especially the case because their replacement with 'being' and 'seeming' is actually inaccurate in some of the examples Benedetti uses. For example, a man does not seem done for when the Marines come in--he is done for. The difference between es listo and está listo is that the former means "he is smart" and the second means "he is done/ready." In this case, Benedetti implies that "he is done" in the sense of "done for" because the Marines have arrived to "inject him with democracy": kill him. It does not matter that the average reader may not actually know the difference between the phrases--the poem does indeed explain. In addition, footnotes are easily and not infrequently added to poems for just such explanations. That was my main issue with the translation, but there were a few other places where I translated more directly than he did.

More on translation--a poem by Mario Benedetti

Here is a poem by Mario Benedetti that demonstrates some of the difficulties with translating. I will give the Spanish version first, followed by the English translation in the book I have, and then the way I would translate and why.

Ser y estar

Oh marine
oh boy
una de tus dificultades consiste en que no sabes
distinguir el ser del estar
para ti todo es to be

así que probemos a aclarar las cosas

por ejemplo
una mujer es buena
cuando entona desafinadamente los salmos
y envía mensualmente su perro al analista
y sólo enfrente el sexo los sábados de noche

en cambio una mujer está buena
cuando la miras y pones los perplejos ojos en blanco
y la imaginas y la imaginas y la imaginas
y hasta crees que tomando un martini te vendría el coraje
pero ni así

por ejemplo
un hombre es listo
cuando obtiene millones por teléfono
y evade la conciencia y los impuestos
y abre una buena póliza de seguros
a cobrar cuando llegue a sus setenta
y sea el momento de viajar en excursióna capri y a parís
y consiga violar a la gioconda en pleno louvre
con la vertiginosa polaroid

en cambio un hombre está listo
cuando ustedes
oh marine
oh boy
aparecen en el horizonte
para inyectarle democracia.


Being and Seeming (trans. by Charles Dean Hatfield)

Oh marine
oh boy
part of your problem is that you don't know
the difference between "being" and "seeming"
to you everything just "is"

now let me explain

for example
a woman "is" good
when she sings the psalms out of tune
and gets a new refrigerator every two years
and sends her dog to an analyst every month
and only deals with sex on saturday nights

on the other hand, a woman "seems" good (at least to me)
when you gaze at her and your puzzled eyes go blank
and you dream of her dream of her dream of her
and think that a martini will give you the courage
when not even that'll do it

for example
a man "is" done
when he earns millions over the phone
and evades taxes and his conscience
and buys into a good retirement plan
to cash in when he turns seventy
and it's time to fly to capri and paris
where he gets to rape the gioconda right in the louvre
with his speedy polaroid.

on the other hand,
a man "seems" done (done-for, that is)
when you boys
oh marine
oh boy
appear on the horizon
to give him a dose of democracy.

---
My translation and rationale follow in the next post.

A note on translation with helpful (?) illustrations

Translation is hard. It is always hard trying to capture precisely what someone is saying without using their exact words, and it is rare that you can translate what they are saying with an exact equivalent. It is always hard, but especially hard in language based art or work--lyrics, fiction, essays, philosophy, poetry. Even when there are two "equivalents" that mean the same thing denotatively/according to the dictionary (e.g., English "red" and Spanish "rojo"), their connotations will always be slightly different because of the different cultural contexts.* When there are not exact equivalents, that makes it much more difficult. Some words are even considered "untranslatable" in that the true sense of a word cannot be adequately translated, certainly not without using multiple words and/or engaging in explanation.

For example, the Finnish word/cultural concept "sisu." Often translated into English as "strength," "courage," or "perseverance," sisu is similar to an amalgam of all of these. However, according to my sister (who studied Finnish and studied abroad in Finland) and some Finnish-American sources, sisu is more than that. Sisu is continuing on in the face of adversity and insurmountable odds when you know that you all hope is lost. It is not an isolated moment or action, but rather continuous action aimed at accomplishing one's goals/what must be done. It is a crucial piece of Finnish culture, and one that I cannot fully explain. More detailed explanations are available at http://poski8.tripod.com/SISU/index.html and Wikipedia, as well as a host of other sources.

Beyond untranslatable words, there are countless idioms and phrases that do not translate cross-culturally or -linguistically. Then there are puns, double entendres/meanings, and (for art at least) rhyme, word/sentence structure, syllables, etc, etc. Translating is hard. I believe it is particularly hard to translate poetry because it is an art form made out of words. And unlike fiction, when sometimes it is less the words and more the plot, characters, or ideas, the specific words used are integral to the meaning, mood, and impact of a poem. Different languages tend to have different norms and conventions regarding poetry. For example, in Spanish poetry in which meter, syllable-count, and all of that jazz are relevant, two vowels next to each other become/are counted as one syllable--even if they form part of three words.

For example, simpática y amable would not be the 8 syllables you might think (sim/pá/ti/ca/ y/ a/ma/ble), but rather 6 (sim/pá/ti/ca y a/ma/ble). "-Ca y a-" becomes one syllable that is blended together as you read. Luckily, this particular type of combination does not happen very often. But it makes translating a poem even more difficult if you want to maintain the rhythm of it.

The next post will be about the translation of a specific poem that is an extended play on language, and which does translate to an extent, but is difficult (I would say impossible) to understand if you were to translate every Spanish word into an English one. I think that, in this case, maintaining some of the original language makes for a better and in some ways clearer translation that many English speakers, even those with no Spanish, would probably understand. I will contrast a professional translation with my own, or at least the changes that I would make. Coincidentally, it is a political poem that I will be discussing! :)





*Hell, "red" in one English-speaking context is different from "red" in another, but that is something else and it usually varies less/people familiar with a less standard or commonly accepted connotation would most likely be familiar with the more standard one.

More on gender dynamics in music

So today I found some more posts about the gender dynamics in music and how many female artists are undervalued. The posts are from the same blog (Tiger Beatdown) as the one that I discussed, but different author (Silvana). In the first one, Silvana discusses what she calls "Dude music": indie/punk/any kind of rock music made by guys and listened to by guys. She talks about how women making the same kind of music are dismissed, how it's ok for men to say that they "just don't like women's voices" or women singers, even though it would be seen as crazy for a woman to say the same thing about men's voices or men singers. Link below.
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/14/ladypalooza-presents-i-went-to-your-concert-and-there-was-nothing-going-on-or-a-meditation-on-dude-music/

The second post, also by Silvana, discusses more generally how privilege functions in rock music in terms of gender, and theorizes on reasons for that. It is also a useful post to check out for an analysis of how privilege can work in other forms of art and other areas of life. In the second post, she links to a bunch of great analyses and expansions by other bloggers of her first post. Not all of which I have read. But check out at least the posts by Amanda and the second post by Spencer, which actually discusses gender privilege, but that's ok.

For a further analysis of gender in music, specifically with regards to the Beatles and Yoko Ono, check out a series of illuminating posts by Cara at The Curvature. Before reading this, I too disliked Ono and thought she was the reason the Beatles broke up and how sad (without really knowing anything about the situation, of course...) The first in the series is http://thecurvature.com/2008/12/15/yoko-ono-a-feminist-analysis-introduction-oh-yoko/

"Political" poetry and other art

Many U.S. critics whose work I've read, professors I've had, and people I've known tend to see much "political" art as less valuable than "non-political" art. The idea is that "political" art places the politics first before the art form, which is *bad.* Because then the art itself isn't as good, goes the idea, and "pure" art is better, and political art, especially poetry and fiction (because they are somehow supposed to be simultaneously intimately personal yet universal, a feat for some reason accomplished primarily by white men) is clumsy, stilted. Poetry in particular is supposed to seek higher truth and ignore such worldly concerns. But thinking back to the feminist movement, isn't the personal political? Why not? Isn't *everything* political? If a political piece of art is "bad," why do many insist on seeing the problem as residing mainly with the fact that it's political and not that it's bad? There is plenty of non-political art that is bad, but we don't fault it for not being political.

Once again, I think it's people's refusal to see that, yes, even the work of dominant classes is political. The topic of a poem is always political, even something as personal as the death of a family member. Yet it is seen as ok and good to write about the death of a family from "natural causes," but political to write about the death of someone from non-natural causes. Just as many female poets and/or poets of color in the U.S. have been given the label of "special interest/(too) personal," or "(too) political," many Latin American poets have been stuck with the "political" label and I have read multiple commentaries about how the problem with Latin American poetry is how political it is. ... Yet when Pablo Picassso paints a scene of Guernica, that is ok. That is "good" art. Dylan Thomas' poem to his dying father ("Do not go gently...") is both personal yet universal, and certainly not political. Nevermind that not all poetic traditions have even focused on aesthetics "above" message.

Anyway, I have read a fair bit of Latin American poetry that was political but also beautiful. With all the colonization, imperialism, and foreign involvement in Latin American affairs, many more things are overtly political. For example, living in Chile during their September 11, when military leader Augusto Pinochet led a U.S.-backed coup against the democratically-elected Salvador Allende, was terribly political. In a country with a population of roughly 10-11 million, several thousand people were directly killed or "disappeared" by Pinochet's government, tens of thousands were tortured or interned in camps, and several hundred thousand fled the country. Even if you consider only these people, that's a lot of affected people. Start considering their friends and family, and that's a significant percentage of the total population. Also consider that *all* Chileans were affected by the change in government, the new policies put in place, and everything else. Yet writing about these changes is purely "political" and not universal or even personal?? I don't think political poetry or other art should have an additional burden to climb in order to be considered "good art."

Rant done. Check out one of my other blogs, which I have been neglecting even more than this one, for a bunch of poetry and quotes that I like from novels. I have a fair bit of poetry in Spanish--with English translations, of course--and I'm about to post some great stuff by Mario Benedetti of Chile! It's a livejournal located at funsizedwit.livejournal.com

Female musicians and artists

It has come to my attention recently that I and many of my friends tend to like more musicians/musical groups dominated by men than women. While this tends to be somewhat true regardless of gender identity, it is more extreme for my male friends. For many of them, liking a female musical group is the exception, and many of the female musicians my female-identified friends and I enjoy are seen as "female" musicians--that is, music by women for women only. This bothers me even though I know that I am guilty of it too, and I have come up with some ideas for why this is. Fortuitously, several weeks after I had been thinking of this, I came across a blog post at Tiger Beatdown discussing this idea.

In this post, K. discusses the exact same issues and makes many good points. Like how when men write about "personal" things like sex, it's seen as "universal" and applies to all MANkind (meaning all humans, of course). When women do the same thing, it's seen as "personal." She discusses this by comparing Liz Phair's work and the critical/popular response to it with Weezer's work (fronted by Rivers Cuomo) and the critical/popular response to it. I must admit I'm not very familiar with Phair's work, but that is going to change as of now. K makes a lot of great points about how Cuomo's lyrics are far more based on intimate, personal experiences of his, yet they are often seen to transcend him, whereas Phair's work is much more varied and even includes songs that are explicitly *not* about her or her experiences, yet her work is typically characterized as being much more intimate and personal.

I think we see this everywhere in music. A lot of people say that they don't like a lot of the female artists out there. Well, many of the female artists who achieve critical and/or commercial success do it by conforming to certain guidelines, which is probably one reason why we have so many female pop artists singing mediocre songs about love and boys, yet so few female artists represented in other genres. Additionally, even when male artists sing songs about love and girls, their work is generally perceived differently (and is frequently seen as better). Many female artists who write songs about other topics are seen sacrificing art for political means. Etc etc.

Moreover, I think this happens in just about every genre. Fiction, short story, poetry, visual art, theater, performance art... Male-centered experiences, perspectives, and stories are seen as universal and apply to all, but female- or trans-centered experiences are seen as "special interest," "personal," and so on. Which is probably why women tend to be more interested in and willing to read stories with male protagonists than men are interested in and willing to read stories with female protagonists--at least in my experience (of course, trans and genderqueer folk don't have much opportunity to read and listen to anything that centers their experiences, and much of the little that has been published has been written by cis-gendered folk). All of this is confirmed by a reading of the classics, most literature classes, thinking about the "great" American rock bands and artists, past and present, etc. This also goes for race, class, and a variety of other categories: the dominant classes' experiences are universalized, and everyone else's are trivialized. I will write more about this in relation to "political" poetry and art in my next post, but there is so much more to say. For now, check out the blog post at Tiger Beatdown below.

http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/04/15/ladypalooza-presents-why-cant-i-be-making-love-cause-im-in-it-or-the-phaircuomo-conundrum/#more-1085

Nuclear energy

Reading Peña's latest post (on Obama's energy policies) has got me thinking about the supposed resurgence in nuclear energy. The Seattle Weekly even ran an article (which I did not think was that great), which you can find at http://www.seattleweekly.com/2010-03-17/news/atom-s-eve/. As someone who's family has been heavily involved in nuclear power and weapons, and who completed a 15-20 page research paper in high school on the combined nuclear industries, I think it is a terrible idea.

First of all, much of the argument for returning to nuclear power is that it does not release as much carbon dioxide as coal and other such things. The idea is that it is a "renewable" energy source that will not run out and is somehow better for the environment. In particular, the lack of negative effects from 3-Mile Island's near meltdown has been touted as proof that radiation is not that bad. Never mind that not very much radiation ended up being released, it can difficult to track the effects of radiation (how do you know if it caused a particular cancer case, for example?), and many of the potential effects of the accidence may not have shown up yet or may have manifested themselves in harmless ways. Never mind how close the reactor was to a FULL meltdown, which would have been much much worse (residents of the areas around Chernobyl have certainly seen that).

Another idea being thrown around is that the waste from energy production is really not that bad. It's just the waste from weapons production that is. And while there may be a kernel of truth in this, in that it is much more difficult to deal with waste from weapons production, we still don't really have a good method of dealing with any sort of nuclear waste. At least, not beyond "stick it in that heavy-duty container and hope it doesn't start leaking out any time in the next several million years." How could anyone think that creating more radioactive waste when we don't have enough room to store what we've already got is a good idea? Somehow, politicians are all for it until the wast is going to be stored in their state... Clearly showing how 'safe' they think it is.

The one note of sanity is from a new-ish company called Intellectual Ventures that recognizes that nuclear waste is an issue. It follows that up, of course, by claiming that their new technology would actually use existing radioactive waste to safely produce energy without re-fueling for up to a century. Needless to say, I am extremely skeptical. It would appear from their website that there is not even a functioning prototype reactor using their technology at present, leading me to believe that, like many other new technologies and nuclear power at almost every stage, their claims will not be borne out by reality. One of the Hanford reactors that my grandpa helped design was also new "safe" technology, and even won safety awards for its design. After Chernobyl, they had to shut it down because of design similarities. ...

In fact, the nuclear industries have always been plagued by safety concerns. Despite being a brilliant nuclear engineer abreast of the latest technologies, my grandpa always dismissed nuclear waste as "just trash" up until he died in 1982. When doing research for my paper, I came across a blurb in the New York Times' Science section (back in the 1950's or 1960's) talking about the "revolutionary" new method of nuclear waste disposal scientists at Hanford discovered: dumping the waste straight into sand. ... I think we now know that this is not the best method after all.

Even worse than all of the untintentional dangers of the nuclear industries have been the intentional dangers created by the industry. These dangers have been created primarily a desire to cut corners, increase efficiency, and make more money. They do sometimes have other purposes (as when Hanford scientists intentionally released thousands of curies of radioactive iodine into the air to test Soviet monitoring systems), but they are never good. There is a long history in the nuclear industries of ignoring safety and quality control regulations, to the detriment of workers and the public. Many of the workers who have fought against unsafe conditions have been ostracized and penalized--or worse. For a good film on a former worker in a nuclear plant who was run off the road and killed while working to expose critical safety violations at the plant, watch Silverwood. It could have just been an accident, true, but it is a little weird that the papers she was currently taking to a reporter were never found amongst all her other things in the car...

Even the research on nuclear safety is not very good. Much of the research has major flaws. For example, one study that examined the risk of a certain type of cancer (bone?) due to X-rays back when they were less safe than now found there were no cases in the group they followed. The study was 9 years long, but the cancer had an incubation period of 10 years, so they would have expected to see no cases even if X-rays had a huge effect on cancer rates. Another research study found a smaller difference than expected between cancer rates of people close to the atomic blasts in Japan and those in the suburbs (of those that survived, of course). Yet if an atomic bomb goes off in downtown Seattle, people in Shoreline will still have a pretty high exposure. It would be better to compare to people in another state who received little or no exposure to the radiation.

In sum, nuclear energy is a no go. For more on the history of the nuclear industries in Washington, check out the Washington Nuclear Museum and Educational Center (WANMEC) at this link. http://toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Welcome;jsessionid=2FD67EB7C4176329E8196A8D0018460B

A great blog on environmental and food justice

So a UW professor who teaches a class on food justice has a blog, which my friend (who is taking the class) recommended to me. I checked it out, and it has some great posts! I have only read some of his more recent ones, but they include a great post (Jan 14) outlining some of the basics of food justice and, important for many Americans, urban food justice. It discusses everything from the capitalist structure of the current food production and distribution system to locavorism and food deserts. When I was in Rome, there were many more farmer's markets (most of them at least 6 days a week) selling fresh produce all around the huge city. Most people think Seattle does well with only one daily farmer's market--and that's Pike Place Market, which no longer has large numbers of produce suppliers. There were also lots more small neighborhood grocery stores with standard grocery fare (as opposed to convenience stores that don't have produce and carry mostly junk/highly processed unhealthy food). Healthy food was much more easily available than it is here, the health-conscious city of Seattle. In Seattle's case, some of it can be blamed on (lack of) density, but I think it tends to hold true for much of the U.S., which is confirmed by findings around the prevalence of "food deserts," or areas where access to healthy food is highly limited, in poor urban areas.

It also has a great post that gives more information about the water crisis and the commodification of water (which hopefully helps explain why Ethos water bothers me so much), and a series on Hispano farmers and myths around them. The series reminds me a lot of the way that traditional Western medicine has viewed medical traditions in other cultures: primitive and ineffective, despite evidence that the other traditions are not primitive and may in fact be more effective! For example, Peña writes about how Hispano (his term) farming methods are seen by many researchers and analysts as inefficient in large part because their plots of land are sometimes smaller and they grow more things on the land. But increasing scientific evidence shows that the large, efficient monocultures praised by these same researchers and analysts are actually less efficient over time because they deplete the land without replenishing it, leading to far greater need for fertilizers and reducing the land's output, contain no natural pest control, increasing need for pesticides, etc. I was excited today to see that he has begun posting a series on Obama's policies in several areas! Overall, a very cool blog. :) I linked to it in the title, but there is another link below.

http://ejfood.blogspot.com/

A nice general article on how to deal with privilege

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

Some articles on the disability rights movements

The first article is a description and analysis of the politics of the disability rights movements. The second is a blog post on the article that takes the sentiments of the article a little further. The disability rights movements are frequently ignored, not only within mainstream society and media, but also within leftist/radical society, media, and movements. I remember taking part in an anti-racist, anti-oppression workshop that focused on racism but spent a lot of time evaluating intersectionality and other forms of oppression. Yet so much of the language used in everyday conversation and organizing is ableist (stand up for your rights, speak up/make your voice heard, step up, etc), and that was something both the organizers and participants struggled with at times.

I think it is particularly important that we begin integrating a fuller analysis of ableism and disability rights into other anti-oppression movements because disability and ableism intersect with other movements to a much greater extent than many people realize. For example, a high percentage of prisoners have mental illness(es), and many who do not when they enter prison acquire one due to the physical, social, and emotional conditions of prisons. People of color are also much more frequently "diagnosed" with particular learning disabilities, particular black males. I know of one case where a recent African immigrant was diagnosed with an anger management/behavioral problem--never mind the fact that his family moved to the U.S. as war refugees and he had probably seen some uncool things prior to being moved from his home country to a new and unfamiliar one where he had to learn a new language, etc, etc. Yet his treatment did not involve therapy for any of this or additional English lessons, simply seclusion from his classmates and work on behavior control techniques. Due to the fact that some analysts estimate fewer than a third of adults with impairments/disabilities in the U.S. have jobs, and because many who do have low-paying jobs, disability is also strongly associated with poverty. Any movement that attempts to take class into consideration and fight for better economic conditions is sorely limited by its lack of consideration for disability rights.

I think you get the idea. I think it is also important to mention that, just as general models of health and sickness vary from culture to culture and country to country, models of disability do too. While the lives of many people with disabilities are more difficult in other countries, in some countries and cultures people with disabilities fare far better. In some cases, people we would consider to have a disability in the U.S. are not considered disabled in other places! (This happens even within the U.S., as is the case with deaf people's self-perception and identity vs. that of mainstream society.) Anyway, the articles are below.

http://ww3.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue31/malhot31.htm

http://gatheringforces.org/2010/02/13/thoughts-on-politics-of-the-disability-rights-movement/

More on consumer activism

This article illuminates more of the reasons why I have problems with "consumer activism," as I like to call it... It allows people to feel good about doing something small (often by doing something they would do anyway, like buying bottled water or clothing) without causing any meaningful, lasting change. Instead, the historical as well as existing political and economic conditions leading to many of Haiti's problems (or the water crisis, or insert cause here) are ignored and obscured.

Checklists

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

Evidence of economic discrimination against women in the U.S. For the first post in the series, scroll down to the bottom. :)

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/category/21/the-wage-gap-series/


http://gatheringforces.org/2010/01/08/queer-liberation-is-class-struggle/

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-05-09_235

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112502776_2.html#

frivolity

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-05-24_170

on checking your privilege

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/

straight privilege

http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8557084638900203143

Health

What it *really* takes to be healthy

http://www.fatnutritionist.com/index.php/dont-be-poor/

Good words and links 4 ALL!

http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/

http://thepinkpinkelephant.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-i-love-black-women.html

http://urbanfeminist.blogspot.com/

http://www.startribune.com/yourvoices/53749702.html

http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/

http://www.oprah.com/relationships/Mother-and-Daughter-Weight-Loss

http://www.historiann.com/2010/02/10/lets-move-and-the-civilized-american-body-of-2010/

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/02/lets-move.html
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/02/lets-move-part-ii.html

Yay! Help with fuck ups! ^_^

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/privilege-is-driving-a-smooth-road-and-not-even-knowing-it/

http://dmp.dreamwidth.org/11437.html

http://portlytruestories.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-fuck-up.html

http://angryblackbitch.blogspot.com/

http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/intent-its-fucking-magic/

(well... disturbing words)

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/patriot-movement-calling-joe-stack-hero/story?id=9889443

(trigger warning related to sexual violence)

http://www.jimchines.com/2009/08/victim-blaming/

http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/sex-relationships/what%E2%80%99s-the-difference-between-a-bad-tranny-and-a-butch-dyke/

Abortion isn't so bad after all

http://www.vivalafeminista.com/2010/02/is-there-love-after-abortion.html

http://www.msmagazine.com/aug01/pas.html

Prison=bad

Rape is never ok... not even in prison

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23690

And more about how prisons are bad

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23382

Good bits from the intarnets

Cross-cultural communication...

http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2010/02/friday-morning-rant-im-not-your.html
http://diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/113/?Youre_So_Articulate

http://colorlines.com/article.php?ID=685 (article on a lot of the problems with post-"reform" welfare...)

More on Roth

Just in case it seemed like I was being unfair... specifics on her beliefs about healthy eating habits! Also, a clip from Fox that I actually like. (amazing, right?) :)

http://jezebel.com/5479381/just-what-are-meme-roths-qualifications-exactly?skyline=true&s=i

http://jezebel.com/5313795/fox-anchor-cries-foul-on-fat+shamer

iPhone apps...

http://jezebel.com/5379070/pepsi-releases-iphone-app-to-help-men-score-with-women-and-brag-about-it-on-twitter

iPhone also had lots of other apps--like Asian BOOBS! (Pictures of Asian women's boobs). Wonderful.

How do people like Roth manage to be taken seriously??!

While the first part of this article isn't too great, pay close attention to the last part especially--in which it is revealed that Roth engages in symptomatic behavior for anorexia. Which is clearly why we should believe her about fat people and the danger of fat. (Also note just how much she suffered because her mother was fat.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/may/24/meme-roth-obesity-nutrition

Commentary on that article and the director Kevin Smith being kicked off a plane for being "too fat."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-17/leave-fat-people-alone/?cid=hp:vertical:r

(One of) The original story(ies) on Smith and the SW plane.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/kevin-smith-fat-fly/story?id=9837268

And more....

http://the-f-word.org/blog/index.php/2009/05/27/the-skinny-on-meme-roth/

http://kateharding.net/2009/05/27/its-not-easy-being-meme/

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2007/05/this-meme-roth-jordin-sparks-fat.html

Really? REALLY??

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/02/23/how-stay-at-home-dads-can-keep-women-in-their-place/

http://blog.crisswrites.com/2010/02/stay.html

The joys of pregnancy

http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/02/what-pregnant-women-wont-tell-you-ever/

http://www.cracked.com/article_16508_6-terrifying-things-they-dont-tell-you-about-childbirth.html

"Meritocracy"

I could write so much about this, but here is a snippet. This is where privilege comes in.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/illusions_of_merit.php

Good work by the ACLU

The dangers of carrying class flashcards while flying...

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-sues-over-unconstitutional-airport-detention-and-interrogation-college-studen

And patenting humans and other things we did not create.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-womens-rights/aclu-challenges-patents-breast-cancer-genes-0

Body and fat positivity

http://adipositivity.my-expressions.com/galleries/9478_1745602162/56796

http://happybodies.wordpress.com/

Thoughts on (vegan) oppression, pt 3

I also realize that I have not been distinguishing between vegans and vegans who are also animal advocates. Admittedly, vegans who are not animals advocates probably do not fit into the ally framework. However, many vegans who are animal advocates have stated that vegans as a class are oppressed in part because of the discrimination against a specific group of vegans because of their activities (thus the reason for my lack of distinction to this point). This distinction, however, separates the treatment of even animal advocates from the treatment of other political groups such as communists. While the site www.greenisthenewred.com has a lot of great articles on how ridiculous (in my opinion) the specific targeting of animal activists AND other environmental activists is, vegans as a group are not targeted. Yet during the Red Scare, anyone known or thought to have Communist beliefs--regardless of their actions--was targeted. Contrast that to draconian legislation that unfairly targets specific types of activities.

Similarly, even those vegan animal advocates who have been targeted by the government are being targeted by legislation also designed to target radical environmentalists. Yes, I think this legislation is bad, but it is based on actual behaviors, however slight, versus just being vegan. I hope everything I wrote makes sense now. This is the end of this portion of the series.

Thoughts on (vegan) oppression, pt 2

One thing I have thought about a lot since I went vegan about a year ago now is the framing of veganism within the animal rights community. Many times when I tell people I'm vegan, they react negatively. One reason people give is that "vegans are so over-sensitive" or "vegans are always being offensive/rude/forcing their views on other people." However, people often say this without reflecting on how it sounds to someone who is vegan for ethical reasons when they say, "Yeah, I don't like factory farming either, but I love cheese." Or "Factory farming is bad, but if you get your meat and dairy from good suppliers, it's ok"--even though you know the person in question makes NO effort to do so. These comments ignore the fact that veganism is not about a bunch of people who don't like meat or dairy. Vegans frequently *do/did* love eating meat and dairy, but are vegan anyway. Because even though I used to love the taste of cheese, I have decided that preventing animal cruelty and exploitation is more important than my love for that food.

The point of that tangent was that some vegans I know who are active in the animal rights community have a tendency to see "vegan" as an oppressed category. I have always disagreed with this, but have not always been able to articulate my views. Recently, I came across several blogposts by vegans (primarily vegans of color) explaining why they believe the same thing. I will link to several of these discussions but also explain how I weigh in and give some examples. Note that some of these discussions focus on white men, which is easy to do, especially when many people resistant to the idea are white cis-gendered men ("biological" males who identify their gender as male). However, I have noticed the same trend among white women.

Some vegans have argued that, just as veganism is a choice, religion is too, so vegans can be considered an oppressed group because of the ways in which vegans are discriminated against by society and the government. I disagree with this belief for several reasons. First of all, while religion is a choice for some, the phenomenon of religiously-based oppression is not actually strictly religious. For example, many Arab (or Arab-seeming) Americans are discriminated against every day without being Muslim. I also think that religious belief is different from political belief. Along those lines, I think there is a difference between political repression and oppression, religious or otherwise.

However, I do believe vegans are allies, which is one of the primary reasons why I don't think vegans fit into the oppressed category. Allies are people who are not members of an oppressed group but rather members of a privileged group *who nevertheless fight with members of the oppressed group to eradicate that oppression.* Other examples are white people against racism and male feminists. While a little problematic because humans and non-humans do not collaborate in quite the same way, I see vegans as allies of primarily non-human animals facing oppression and exploitation as a result of the animal industries (food, clothing, etc).***

I think this is the most important reason why vegans are not themselves oppressed by their veganism. History is full of examples where allies have been discriminated against, persecuted by the government, and even killed. This was not uncommon during the U.S. Civil Rights movement, particularly during the 1950's and 1960's. Male feminists have been and continue to be targets of discrimination, mean-spirited jokes, etc, as are straight allies of the LGBTQ community. However, all of these people were targeted not because they fit into an oppressed group of people, but because they were fighting with a group of oppressed people to improve conditions. Being an ally is not about centering your experiences, particularly because as members of privileged groups, allies experiences (in these areas at least) are already centered. It is about centering the experiences of, in this case, animals. Discrimination against vegans certainly exists, but so does discrimination against white people, men, and the wealthy. Yet white people, men, the wealthy, and humans still hold the balance of power in these relationships.

Anyway, hopefully these posts articulate this theme better than I do.

http://veganideal.org/content/why-vegan-oppression-cannot-exist#comments
http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/veganism-is-not-for-vegans/
http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/the-cult-of-veganism-or-sit-down-shut-up-little-brown-girl/ (a comment I thought was especially edifying)


***While veganism focuses on animal exploitation for what I hope are obvious reasons, it is also the case that animal industries are some of the worst industries in terms of human exploitation because of the ways they exploit their workers.

My thoughts on (vegan) oppression, pt 1

Ultimately, I am aiming to write about veganism and oppression, but here is a primer to what I mean and believe by oppression.

First of all, let me say that I view oppression as being a systemic group-based phenomenon. That is to say, while individual men and women are discriminated against for all sorts of reasons all the time, sexism is a form of oppression targeting women as a group. This is not to minimize the experiences of men who have been discriminated, but to recognize that the causes, context, and frequency with which men are discriminated against are very different than the causes, context, and frequency with which women are.

Secondly, my shorthand definition of oppression is the combination of discrimination and state-sanctioned power. Due to the history of oppression within the U.S., the U.S. state is racist, patriarchal, classist, anthropocentric, etc, etc. It favors white, middle and upper-class, cis-gendered, heterosexual, Christian, able-bodied middle-aged men who speak English as their native language, were born in the U.S. and are U.S. citizens, are from nuclear families, and have at least an undergraduate education. I'm sure there are more categories I'm missing--sorry! You get the point, though, I hope. This helps explain what I mean about the context of discrimination that I mentioned above. An individual woman discriminating against an individual man does so from a very different place of power than an individual man discriminating against an individual woman. Some women may even discriminate against men as a survival tactic developed from years and years of facing sexism every day.

I also view oppression as being linked to certain identity categories. These include "race," ethnicity, class, gender, "biological" sex, sexual orientation, ability/"disability," native language, religion, citizenship status, place of origin, current geographic location, age group, etc. Now, while some of these may change, such as class or citizenship status, most change far less than people would like us to believe--particularly class, which is pretty firmly entrenched on a statistical level. (See www.realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives/3561/ for a discussion of inequality in the U.S.). Others, such as age, do change over the course of every lifespan, but people frequently do not acknowledge the extent, effects, or even the existence of ageism. Because of ageism, everyone at some point or another has been a member of an oppressed category. Yet almost everyone has also at some point been a member of a privileged category as well, and these different categories intersect, interact and affect one another in a way known as intersectionality. For example, being a white, middle-class heterosexual cis-gender woman is different than being a black, middle-class heterosexual cis-gender woman, and also different from women who are working-class, bisexual, transgender, etc. In many struggles against one type of oppression, this is not always recognized, which can lead to problems.

This is already very long-winded, so I will stop here for this post. Here are some more resources to learn more, both on- and off-line.

Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

bell hooks, "Ain't I a Woman Too?" (book)--this looks primarily at mainstream feminism. Pretty much anything hooks writes deals with some form(s) of oppression

ColorLines (www.colorlines.com) and their blog RaceWire (www.racewire.org)
A good post on "reverse racism": http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/07/reverse_racism_word_distracts.html

Pretty much anything by Time Wise (book, and focuses on race)

INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence http://incite-national.org/
They published some great books called
"The Color of Violence: The INCITE! Anthology"
"The Revolution will not be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex"

Anything by Dr. Andrea Smith

...And finally, musing on a new (?) brand of comfortable activism

I will say, my 'favorite' kind of passive, consumerist, and misguided activism has got to be Ethos water: the gimmick is that a portion of the price of every bottle goes to funding grants the company makes towards humanitarian water programs... They are trying to give children clean water and raise awareness of the global water crisis. But wait--the global water crisis and lack of clean water is frequently caused by the very privatization of water that allows Ethos to sell bottled water in the first place!!

http://www.womanist-musings.com/2010/02/activism-round-here.html

Ending violence against sex workers!

So I know this is way late, but I just found out about it thought it was important to post for several reasons. First of all, the NW has been a bad area in terms of violence against sex workers (Gary Ridgeway anyone?). Secondly, the NW is also a bad area in that it is an identified stop in national and international sex trafficking rings, frequently of young girls! In fact, the NW--the broader Seattle area in particular--is a hotspot for underage sex workers, some of whom have been unwillingly trafficked into the area and forced to work. Finally, sex workers should not be subject to rape or violence because of their occupation anymore than a boxer should be subject to illegal/unsporting violence or violence outside the ring. Any woman can be determined "unrapeable" in U.S. society, but sex workers particularly are.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/12/18/international-day-to-end-violence-against-sex-workers/

http://thecurvature.com/2009/03/31/pulling-the-plug-on-rape-culture-one-word-at-a-time-caras-wam-presentation/

Marked/unmarked catagories

A number of short posts around the intarweb about marked/unmarked categories. Basically, unmarked categories refer to what is the default or presumed to be "universal" within a certain category. For example, men, Christians, and white people are common unmarked categories because you usually do not have to specify when you are referring to people or things fitting into these categories, and they are universalized. Example: "he" is considered 'gender-neutral' or 'universal.' Marked categories are when you must specify the category. For example, people generally specify people's race or ethnicity when talking about someone who is not white, but make no reference to it when they are white. Marked and unmarked correspond somewhat with specific/exclusive and general (marked=specific/exclusive, general=unmarked). These posts all give examples.

On men's/"unisex" shirts and (men's) "T-shirts" and "Women's T-shirts." Bad because it assumes the universality of males (have you ever seen a a women's/unisex shirt anywhere and do you think it would be acceptable?) he "Men Can't Wear Skirts" article points out that this is bad for men as well because it gives them only one option instead of two.

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/12/14/women-can-wear-mens-shirts-but-men-cannot-wear-womens/

Other examples of male as an unmarked category.

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/02/10/your-body-men-are-people-and-women-are-women/

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/05/18/stick-figures-and-stick-figures-who-parent/

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/05/04/default-avatars-a-collection/

On "flesh-colored" (read: white) items.

http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/27/stunning-example-of-the-neutrality-of-whiteness/

http://sociologicalimages.blogspot.com/2008/03/from-pale-to-pumped-with-racial.html

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/08/06/for-normal-to-darker-skin/

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/08/03/white-privilege/

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/04/01/the-neutral-and-the-marked-a-primer-for-your-kids/


****Also note that many of the categories commonly employed are binaries--what about people who don't fit either? Think female/male, black/white, etc.

Essays: Traditional Masculinity

A great article on the dangers of traditional masculinity in the U.S. from a great magazine! Focuses on health and emotional issues. (Although I like the idea about people seeing themselves as human *doings* rather than human *beings* and think that applies more generally). It's adapted from a chapter in the author's (Calvin Sandborn) book, Becoming a Kind Father: A Son's Journey.

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/boy-code-and-the-modern-man/

The next article looks at radical masculinity and what a narrow range of expression is allowed to most men who want to be perceived as masculine. Includes a rather disgusting (IMHO) Dockers ad...

http://carnalnation.com/content/43798/44/when-men-wear-skirts

A slightly different take on masculinity: butch masculinity and its attendant layers.

http://www.xtra.ca/public/Vancouver/Throwing_in_the_towel-7855.aspx