Blog

 
Political Prose

All that glitters is not gold

If you're in Chicago, you should check out the latest production of David Henry Hwang's The Golden Child.


If you're in Chicago, you should check out the latest production of David Henry Hwang's The Golden Child. This Obie Award-winning play, loosely based on the experiences of the playwright's own family in turn-of-the-century China, recounts the fateful decision of a village patriarch to turn from Chinese traditions and embrace Western, Christian ways. Seeing it reminded me of Chinua Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart, set in colonial-era Nigeria. In telling their stories of cultural change, neither work romanticizes the past or its dying traditions. In fact, certain practices — foot-binding in the Chinese context, abandoning children in the Nigerian one — come up for especially harsh criticism, put forward as immoral and destructive outgrowths of unthinking adherence to old ways. At the same time, both works describe in tragic detail the consequences of upending an age-old social order, and the price paid by all — powerful and powerless alike. The eponymous "golden child," in fact, who escapes foot-binding thanks to her father's intervention, nonetheless learns to rue her mother's words: "Daughter, you don't know what a terrible gift is freedom."

Fortunately, Hwang's play offers plentiful comedic interludes to soften its Lear-like final blow, and the strong Chicago cast succeeds in making each character believable and sympathetic — even the conniving second wife, played with delightful malevolence by InTheFray Contributor Kimberlee Soo.

The company responsible for this production, Silk Road Theatre Project, has made crosscultural understanding its mission; founded in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, Silk Road seeks to "heal rifts through the transformative power of theatre." The choice of Hwang's play seems appropriate, speaking as it does to all-too-current events. The violent divide between tradition and modernity, order and progress, fundamentalism and reason — these conflicts continue to confront us, just as they did in an earlier time, and their resolution will likely be no kinder.

Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Feminist blogging flaws


I only discovered feminist blogs (specifically, Pandagon, Feministe, and Feministing) a year and a half ago. I've always had a feminist side, and the Bush administration only brought it closer to the surface. But, like with anything else one wishes to learn about in society, the vast amount of information, opinion, analysis, and current events was too daunting to tackle while going about a non-academic life. I settled for Planned Parenthood's updates. Then feminist bloggers came along and made it quick, accessible. It's so convenient to stop in once a day and learn, oh, this bill in the Senate will make it more difficult for a woman to… If you had more time, there were also the 2,000-word posts and links to lengthy articles. They have opened up a world of knowledge about how domestic and international laws can hinder a woman's life and what can be done about it. But once in a while, I can only roll my eyes and wonder, "Is it a slow news day?"

Last Sunday the NYT ran a story about female soldiers suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder due to the war and sexual harrassment or assault from fellow soldiers. The story was excellent. The few pictures dispersed throughout of the women were, to my eyes, plain. Zuzu of Feministe and Lindsay of Majikthise, however, see sexism, pin-up parodies, and miserable faces.

Take, for instance, this photo: NYT photo1

From Lindsay: "Why would you get a woman in jeans and a t-shirt to pose like a swimsuit model on a beach in order to illustrate a story about how she got PTSD in Iraq and went AWOL?"

Um, what if she insisted on posing that way? What if this was the best shot? What if the photo editor chose this one? Or, what if everyone involved cared more about the content of the story instead of what anyone may read into a single photo? She goes even more improbably for the next one:

NYT photo

"There's something weirdly sexualized about this image. Look at the angle of the shot. She's wearing a knee-length skirt, but she's positioned so that her bare legs and daintily flexed ankle command as much attention as her face."

There is nothing sexualized about this image. This is a tramautized woman wearing her uniform and sitting in a sparse setting. Where her hand is placed or however her ankle may be turned mean nothing.

"…it doesn't seem like [the photographer] Grannan intended to make her subjects to appear happy or comfortable in the positions she chose for them." So, when you have a story about women who  wanted to serve their country only to be raped by comrades, ignored by superiors when reporting it, then screwed by the government when they come home scarred and broken, you're supposed to have pictures of smiling, happy-looking subjects?

Zuzu chimes in: "Her gaze is almost hostile, her arms look like she didn’t know what to do with them, and her legs are pressed together in a way that suggests she’s a construction worker who’s not very comfortable wearing her dress uniform skirt."

How is this woman supposed to look comfortable? She's telling the entire world details of her ordeal? And can we pick one — either this woman's "dainty" ankle is meant to be sexy, or her entire legs evoke a utilitarian construction worker? Pin-up or laborer?

Hasn't one of the main complaints of feminism always been that people focus too much on the physical images of women instead of who they are as human beings? Sometimes sexism is just in the eye of the beholder.

Even if these photos were "sexualized," intentionally or not, that is besides the point. Cerrtain feminist bloggers are the only people who read this story and focused on the possible suggestiveness of the images.

Instead of focusing on something meaningless and opinion-based, why don't feminist bloggers concentrate on doing something about the situation? Why not start a fund for some of these women to get help? Why not promote the health center in California? Contact lawmakers about the gigantic problem of sexual assault in the military, the lack of punishment rapists receive, and the insult to injury the female soldiers endure? Is there really nothing else to be done besides blather on about how someone is posed?

Here's what this story was really about: "Taking into account the large number of women serving in dangerous conditions in Iraq and reports suggesting that women in the military bear a higher risk than civilian women of having been sexually assaulted either before or during their service, it's conceivable that this war may well generate an unfortunate new group to study — women who have experienced sexual assault and combat, many of them before they turn 25." (NYT).

The world, men and women, can deal with this situation and support these women, or we can criticize their looks, posture, and whether or not they smile like good little girls for the camera. ♦

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Life’s not-so- little ironies


 

As the war in Iraq continues, the media focus intensifies.  From highlighting the courage of the individuals who serve, to figuring out just how many troops will be needed and for how long, the media attempts to paint a picture for those of us less affected by the war.

Like a canvas the front page of Tuesday's New York Times informs that the Army's "ready" brigade, a part of the 82nd Airborne Division that has been kept on 24 hour alert for decades, is not as fit as it used to be.  As the members of the First Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division, prepare for a tour in Iraq, they find themselves not fully trained, their equipment scattered, unable to meet their standard of deploying several hundred soldiers to a war zone within 18 hours.  Currently, about 50% of the Army's 43 active duty combat brigades,  each consisting of 3,500 soldiers, are serving overseas.  Upon meeting the White House's demand for additional troops, the Army will have a total of 17 brigades deployed to Iraq, two brigades will be in Afghanistan, and four will be deployed to various overseas locations.

Hiding in the background, is an idea by Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez's staff, to pressure the Iraqi government to stop giving people monthly food rations.  This suggestion set off a major dispute between Commerce and the State Department.  According to this week's National Edition of The Washington Post, the Iraqi government spends about four billion per year to provide basic rations to all Iraqis regardless of need.  A former embassy official further emphasized the lack of desire on the part of Iraqi politicians to end the distribution of free food.  As Commerce continues to insist on its idea, the irrelevancy of the plan is noted, "I can't tell you how many hundreds of hours everyone has wasted on this issue, when there were all sorts of more productive things they could have been doing with their time," stated one former embassy official.            

          

In small brushstokes, February's Fitness Magazine shares the story of how two women, who have lost their husbands in Iraq, use running to remember their husbands and heal their grief.    

Front and center, the soldier frozen on the cover of last Sunday's The New York Times Magazine challenges readers to discover the trauma suffered by female American soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tucked in the right back corner, the OP-ED pages of this week's The Washington Post's National Weekly Edition, give life to former senator Alan K. Simpson's support to overturning the ban on gay service in the military. 

In a signature moment, co host Joy Behar of The View , earlier this week pointed out that it is the men and women of the Armed services and their families that are actually making the sacrifices in the war on Iraq.  During a discussion of Iraqi policy, Joy Behar emphasized her opinion that Americans as a whole have not been asked to make any sacrifices in support of the war effort.

Whether we find it in magazines, newspapers, or interviews, the word on Iraq, the war, its citizens, our American soldiers; is irony.  As the Army faces the difficult prospect of having to return some of its brigades to Iraq with less than a year's training and recuperation, more than 300 hundred language experts have been dismissed under the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  Government agencies who have been asked to work together to resolve problems facing the Iraqi nation; instead end up in their own turf wars.  A couple train for a triathlon yet it is only the wife who crosses the finish line.  Her husband, an Army officer serving in Iraq, killed by a car bomb during a routine check.  Soldiers, carrying the burden of their gender, feel pressured to remain tough, less emotional, to show the world that yes; women can serve in a war zone; find themselves enduring and hiding sexual abuse from their male superiors. 

Each day the sacrifices pile up, careers lost, women made widows long before their time, sleep broken by nightmares, time wasted.  A burden shouldered by a few, images and words to the rest of us.  Yes, the sacrifices are out there, like weeds in the summer, just waiting for someone to pay them mind.                  

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Teenage monsters


The first thing people say after I tell them that I am a high school teacher is “how do you do it?” And what they mean is, “Are you crazy? Don’t teenagers scare you?” I find that almost every adult I encounter has this fear of teenagers. People have an image of monsters who have no respect for authority and who are as likely to pull a gun as an iPod out of their pockets. I think most people forget what it was like to be that age. They forget that they were not really different people then. They were just unsure of their identities and severely lacking in self-confidence.

During my semester of student teaching, my first real teaching experience, I worked at a high school with more than 2,400 students. The building, huge and imposing, overwhelmed me at first. I couldn’t find the teacher’s lounge or the copy room on my own for the first two weeks. Eventually, I found my way around and became comfortable with my students. Except for Emily. Emily tested me from day one. She had a terrible attitude. She thrived on being able to challenge me at every turn, trying to find mistakes in my calculations, asking me how I knew every detail I lectured about. And when she asked questions, it was not with the delightful innocence of youthful intellectual curiosity; it was malevolent. Her eyes glinted with wicked delight if she caught an error. Her sarcastic tone silenced the rest of class as they waited with baited breath for my response. I tried to take it all in stride. She intimidated and irritated me, but my number-one lesson learned as a teacher was to never let them know your buttons have been pushed. I smiled pleasantly as I responded thoughtfully to her every challenge. I admitted graciously any mistakes I made. I was the picture of patience. Then one day, Emily stayed after school to make up a test she missed. As she brought the completed test up to my desk, her face was terribly long and sad. I asked her what was wrong and the flood gates opened. She cried and told me about everything that was wrong. Her family just moved here, she didn’t feel like she fit in yet, she still got lost in the building, she missed her old friends, she was afraid she wouldn’t make the soccer team and she felt like she just failed that test. The poor thing was unhappy about everything and I just sat quietly and listened to her for thirty minutes. When she finished, she said she felt better and went on her way. The next day and every other day Emily smiled at me and treated me with respect. She stopped challenging me and seemed genuinely happier.

Now, whenever I grow weary of the attitude of some of my students, I try to remember what it was like to be a teenager. Every problem and bad circumstance seemed so monumental. I never wish to go back to my teenage years. I remember the uncertainty, the doubts and fears. Because I remember, I do not fear my students; I understand them, at least a little.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

1984/Hillary creator revealed


I don’t like Phil de Vellis.

You may not recognize his name, but you know his work — the YouTube hit of Hillary Clinton’s talking head in Apple’s 1984 commercial. He meant to show support for Barack Obama, whose campaign has been taking heat from day one over the video, insisting no one connected to them had anything to do with the video. But de Vellis was connected, distantly, as an employee of an Internet strategy firm hired by Obama. Now DeVellis has written a letter for The Huffington Post outing himself. He claims he politely resigned; we all know he was fired.

His confession has an arrogant, self-congratulatory tone: “I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the [political] process…This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the last. The game has changed.” De Vellis seems to think he’s doing something new or telling us something we don’t know. Instead, he appears to be jumping up and down in the crowd yelling, “Look at me, I’m special too — I’m the next Kos!”

I found one aspect of the video especially hypocritical. De Vellis chose the Orwellian scenes to protest Clinton’s establishment position — power to the people! Think for yourself! But on the commercial rebel’s waist sits an iPod. I supposed De Vellis hasn’t heard of iPod city — the giant sweatshop in China where workers assemble millions of tiny, DRM’d, 10,000-song holding little symbols of corporate control. It doesn’t get more establishment than that.

Hopefully de Vellis will fade back into obscurity and cubicle life at another company. But I fear that, like Judy Miller and Jessica Cutler, he will be rewarded for his cry for attention. There may be a book deal or a political job, and he will probably make more “citizen ads.” Pretty soon he’ll be just another talking head.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Where do you get your news?


What is Walter Reed, and who are Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney, and Ted Haggard? Jay Leno had to answer each of these questions during his monologue Tuesday night before the audience could "get" his punchlines. Of course, in an profession where laughs judge competence, Leno quickly made the public's ignorance of current events into, what else, a laughing matter.  But with all jokes aside, it seems that Leno was performing a valuable community service. 

A 2004 study released by the Pew Research Center says that 20 percent of young Americans under age 30 "regularly" receive their news from comedy shows. And although the cable news shows were still listed as the number one source of information for this age group, the study suggests that an increasing number of younger audience members are choosing comedy shows as their first choice for news and current events. This can be linked in part to the ability of humor to humanize the most complex of issues as well as the sudden popularity of Comedy Central's Daily Show and Colbert Report, to name but a few.

It seems audiences will have to make a choice next time they decide to watch their favorite comedy show: either pick up a newspaper first so they can laugh at the jokes, or else take notes during the show to discover what's going on in the world. Where do you get your news?

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Terrorism in a suit


Gritty desert sand blowing, tan brick fading in the harsh sun, Arabic letters sprawling across signs and banners, women winding through streets wearing the hijab. Old cars honking as they make their way through traffic, long beards waving in a breeze, what do you see? Improvised explosive devices buried by roads? AK-47s with half-empty magazines? Terrorists?

You are in Iraq, but you probably guessed that before I told you. Imagery commands strong associations, and sometimes those associations help us make sense of the world and predict events. But make no mistake, those associations can just as easily lead us to misguided conclusions. You might think of terrorism when you see a Muslim, or when images show up in the paper of a far-off Arab land, even if you don't think that individual is a terorist. I want you to challenge those assumptions and look inward. Even the American government, under an objective definition, can be a terrorist.

Joshua S. Goldstein, professor of political science at American University in Washington, D.C., and Jon C. Pevehouse, with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, define terrorism in their 2006 edition of International Relations as “political violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately.” By that definition, America commits terrorism, too.

For an example, look no further than the United States’s bombing of Afghanistan in ironic retaliation for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. As Noam Chomsky, prolific political author and professor of linguistics at MIT, explained in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, George W. Bush on Oct. 12, 2001, “announced to the Afghan people that we will continue to bomb you, unless your leadership turns over to us the people whom we suspect of carrying out crimes.” He didn't show a shred of evidence about crimes they might have committed. Then the U.S. bombs started dropping.

What about the American crimes? Professor Marc W. Herold from the Whittemore School of Business & Economics estimates that the U.S. air war on Afghanistan killed more than 3,000 Afghani civilians and psychologically traumatized many more. His explanation? “The apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan.”

Understandably incensed by the atrocious terrorism in New York only a month prior, it seems the American public turned a blind eye to what Noam cites as a “textbook illustration of international terrorism by the U.S.’s official definition.” However, I will be the first to recognize that one argument does not the debate make. For brevity’s sake let me direct the reader to further examples. I simply suggest the American public pull the American-flag-colored wool off their eyes and recognize the hypocrisy before them. Read more of the evidence and debate me. I welcome it.

Senseless fear does no good. As Chomsky once famously said, “Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.” I ask that each of us stop lying complicity by while the powers you vote for perpetrate terrorist violence. Challenge assumptions and examine the facts because sometimes terrorists wear a suit.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Incandescent light bulbs out, saving energy in


More and more countries and states are realizing that saving energy as well as the environment is as easy as changing a light bulb. As energy consumption grows and demand creates a need for alternative energy sources, governments are looking toward the source to solve the problem. Mandating energy-saving light bulbs is becoming the embraced legislation to quickly resolve these energy problems. And the environmental benefits are just one of the many pluses in doing so.

Energy-saving light bulbs are 75 percent more energy efficient than incandescent and last 10 times as long. Installing them cuts down on energy consumption that in turn cuts down on pollution spewed from energy-generating plants. The less energy we consume from traditional energy plants helps the environment and also helps our monthly bills.

Australia is the first country to systematically phase out incandescent bulbs and hopes to do so within the next three years. The goal is, by 2010, to have installed only energy-saving bulbs nationwide and to have eradicated the energy-wasting incandescent ones. The country already has legislation regulating energy consumption for appliances and wants to do the same for lighting. And the reduction of greenhouse gases from less energy consumption is one of the main reasons for mandating restrictions on lights and appliances. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnball told The New York Times, “Electric lighting is a vital part of our lives; globally, it generates emissions equal to 70 percent of those from all the world’s passenger vehicles.”

The European Union is also mulling over legislation to phase out incandescent bulbs. At a recent summit, EU leaders asked the executive branch to think of a two-year plan to introduce the energy-saving bulbs. German Chancellor and summit leader Angela Merkel told the Associated Press, “We need to give people a little time to change all their bulbs. We are not saying they should throw out all bulbs in their house today, but everybody should start thinking about what's in the shops.”

Countries that already have energy-saving light bulb programs include Cuba, Venezuela, and Chile. Cuban President Fidel Castro introduced the bulb program to counter his country's energy shortage. Castro's program influenced Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez to hand out free energy-saving bulbs to his citizens. Chile's bulb changeover is suggested in its new energy-efficiency plan, which calls for the use energy-saving appliances.

In the U.S., states such as New Jersey, Texas, and California are urging bans on the bulbs as well. California hopes to ban sales of incandescents by 2012.

Greenhouse gas emissions from energy producing plants are slowly being cut down by governments' own volitions. The world is realizing that reducing energy use and decreasing harmful pollutants go hand in hand. And regulating simple things like light bulbs make a huge and positive impact.

keeping the earth ever green

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

With a little help from mom and dad


 

Watching Animal Planet with my son, I am drawn to the plight of a  baby hippo who has wandered too far from his mother.  The infant was caught up exploring his underwater playground and did not notice the crocodile eyeing him for dinner.  As Animal Planet is prone to do, the natural consequences of the baby hippo followed, his young life ended by the gulp of a crocodile's mouth.  At this point the cameras zoomed onto the face of the mother, whose impassive eyes betrayed no sign of loss.  Her face so unaffected in this moment of grief, underscores the human need to protect our children at all costs.

While protecting our children is how our species of animal has survived, through the centuries we have upped the ante.  As income has increased, our mindset has evolved from protection into "what can I do" for my child.  Parent financed cars, vacations, and educations are the norm for occupants of particular zip codes.  The trappings of a successful life, they have moved from luxuries to entitlements.  In a quote attributed to Ryan Philippe, he referred to the extras in his own life and then discussed how he sometimes wondered how difficult it would be for his children to give all of this up.  The implication being that they would one day have to fend for themselves.  Yet, in today's world is such a notion realistic?   

Sunday's New York Times looks at one aspect of the question through its details of how local real estate prices are changing the relationship between parent and child.  Sky high real estate prices have made property ownership a challenge for many New Yorkers.  As condominiums and co-ops require ten to twenty percent of the purchase price as a down payment, the $30,000-40,000 a young person may have managed to save just isn't enough.  As more and more 20 and 30 year olds turn to mom and dad for assistance, the definition of independence changes.  According to those interviewed for the NY Times article, parents continue their parenting roles as rule setters as they underwrite the costs of their child's living space.  From the "no boyfriends moving in" rule to serving as tour guide for out of towners, these families renegotiate the boundaries of independence.

Child development experts will tell you that encouraging your child's independence should be a cornerstone of your parenting plan.  For a young child there are a multitude of ways to foster self growth, infants can begin feeding themselves, toddlers start to pick up their toys, parents eventually do less and less for their child.  What happens, however, when you add a bit of consumerism to the mix?  Is anyone thinking about the consequences of buying a two old year yet another stuffed animal?  What about those teen years, when fashion and Sweet 16's costing as much as a wedding, have consumption rearing its ugly head?  Children raised as consumers eventually become the consumed, eaten up with the need for things.  Emotionally desiring independence yet unable to acquire the lifestyle desired without assistance, a younger generation remains tied to their parent's success.

Life in the animal kingdom seems so much easier.  Mothers protect and feed their offspring, providing them with just the right amount of guidance, stepping in when necessary, standing back when it's time to let go.  Today's parents must wade through an onslaught of suggestions, navigate their way past commercial ladened minefields, to somehow produce an independent, responsible, compassionate human being.

The eyes of that mother hippo haunt me.  As the crocodile devours her infant, she blinks and with each blink, exposes her expressionless eyes.  A natural consequence, the narrator intones, "there is nothing she can do," as the crocodile continues his feed.  Not enough, too much, here's to finding peace among the crocodiles.                              

               

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

“Hitlerian” marriages


"The era of plurality and diversity is permeating Mexico City."
—Julio Cesar Moreno, a Mexico City councilor who presided over one of the first gay civil unions in Mexico City.

On Friday, civil unions between same-sex couples were legalized in Mexico City, despite prior opposition from the Roman Catholic Church —the faith to which approximately 90% of Mexico’s 107 million residents subscribe—and the denouncement of the legalization of the unions, curiously, as “Hitlerian” by some officials from the Catholic Church.

While the civil unions now give the same rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples with respect to property, inheritance, and retirement funds, it does not include the right to adopt children, which remains a privilege of marriage.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also: