Calling All Princesses!

In reading the text this week, there is just so much that I could speak to.  This idea of gender is so much “a part of us” that we do not often realize (as our text states) that it “is constantly created and re-created out of human interaction, out of social life, and is the texture and order of that social life.”  However, mirroring culture, gender depends on human production to sustain itself.  And, we do!  There is an interesting YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWc1e3Nbc2g) showing an interview with several children (approximately 3-5 years old) being asked specific questions as it relates to gender stereotypes.

One area that I found interesting as it relates to gender roles is in the media.  How many of you watched Disney films?  I know that I did and so did my children.  How many of those movies would you consider to be gender neutral?  Well, it seems as if they are attempting to steer clear of all princesses and transition to more neutral ground.  This would be a positive move, right?  With this move to the princess-free zone, comes also the girl-free zone.  Very few, if any, films will probably be produced with girls.  Pixar actually has its first girl centric film, Brave, set to release next June.  It will be interesting to see what they will do with this film.

Continuing on this theme of gender roles and media, I ran across a great TedTalks film featuring Joanna Blakley in which she speaks on the matter of social media and the end of gender (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johanna_blakley_social_media_and_the_end_of_gender.html).  After watching this film, I’m curious to know your thoughts about media (social or otherwise) and the role of women.

Just What Are We Afraid Of?

Diana Eck’s article in our text, Afraid of Ourselves, is unfortunately very real.  And, the video we watched in class is just one small example that addresses this issue.  Here we are, all Americans, in the “melting pot” and still, after years of opportunities to accept each other, are still very ignorant of religions outside of mainstream America.  If we simply look at demographics, quite honestly, “mainstream” America just isn’t what it used to be.  As Charles H. Lippy states in The New Faces of Pluralism, “Even within the Christian tradition, it has become impossible to look at Anglo-American styles as normative.”  I also agree with his idea that in the face of our country’s increased diversity, we can no longer regard a single religious tradition as normative or even culturally dominate. 

 

Additionally, the point Eck makes in her article through the example of the American Muslims that were targeted after the Murrah Federal Building bombing was unnecessary, unfortunate, and based solely on fear and ignorance.  And, the media’s failure to report the supportive involvement of Muslim firemen, doctors, and Muslim organizations who donated money and time to the relief effort only exacerbated the issue.  I do not understand this.

In the style of true American tradition, I hope that the citizens will continue to “stand up” and be different.  It is our responsibility to educate each other and explore more opportunities to embrace our differences.  

In looking further into this topic, I ran across a 9/11 story of a true American hero…

http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=9860

Domestic Workers = Oppression

Reading through the article in our text by Mary Romero that speaks to domestic service struck a chord with me.  The idea that along with the feminist movement and more involvement outside the home for women, what happened was not asking your male counterpart in the relationship to share in the household responsibilities, but instead, pushing the duties off onto another woman.  And then, adding injury to insult, these women receive low wages, no overtime, no vacation, no sick pay, no health care plan.  As the text states, “Paid housework that is structured to replicate the unpaid domestic work of the housewife includes practices affirming women’s inferiority.”  This article by Ms. Romero was written in 1992 and, while I am hopeful that positive changes have taken place, there is still injustice occurring.  

See this link to an article on NYDailyNews.com:  http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/08/2009-04-08_give_nannies_and_housekeepers_the_rights-2.html?page=1

Today it is more likely that both partners in a relationship work outside the home (either by choice or need) and there also seems to be more shared responsibility within relationships.  Job responsibilities are changing as well.  Many people actually work from home, which allows more flexibility for shared domestic duties.  Having said this, it is obvious that there is still a need/desire for domestic service, I hope that the days of white uniforms, cleaning floors on hands and knees, and gift giving in lieu of higher wages and benefits is a thing of the past.  These employees definitely deserve dignity and fair labor standards equal to those of any other industry.  

In looking around for information on fair labor standards for the domestic service industry, there truly is very little out there.  The following is a link to Domestic Workers United, an organization of Caribbean, Latina and African nannies, housekeepers, and elderly caregivers in New York, organizing for power, respect, fair labor standards and to help build a movement to end exploitation and oppression for all.

http://www.domesticworkersunited.org/

Toxic Responsibility

If we’ve taken responsibility for matters of toxic waste that has occurred in the past, why have we not done the same for matters of toxic behaviors concerning race?

The following are several quotes from the epilogue of the Blackmon text we read this week.  These quotes relate to the past responsibilities of those companies involved.

The old Sloss Industries (known better today as Walter Industries):

“Obviously, this was a dark chapter for U.S. business.” 

“Certainly no company today could even conceive of this kind of practice.”

Rodney Mims Cook, Jr. (related to the English family who grew the Fourth National Bank – now known as Wachovia):

“In the proper context, we don’t object to it being discussed.” 

Representative of Drummond Coal Company (connected through mergers to Pratt Consolidated Coal – one of the largest forced labor employers of the past and owner of the lethal Banner Mine):

“I don’t know how we could be tied back to something that happened in the early part of the century.”  “Drummond wasn’t even founded then.”

U.S. Steel’s representative: 

“When it comes to the question of burden, I don’t think anybody here at this company today would feel burdened at all by anything that happened before 1908.”

“If we in face knew that the people who were there between 1908 and 1911 were forced to work in obviously unsafe conditions, which we don’t know that was true, we would feel badly about that.”

“Is it fair in fact to punish people who are living today, who have certain assets they might have inherited from others, or corporate assets that have been passed on?” 

“You can get to a situation where there is such a passage of time that it simply doesn’t make sense and is not fair.”

As I read this text, these quotes seemed to build upon themselves.  Then, I reached the paragraph in the text that speaks to hazardous waste and the laws adopted to force companies to take responsibility for past contamination of predecessor companies, irrespective of the passage of time.  WOW!  

I ask the same question that Martha Minow (Professor at Harvard University of Law) asks.  If we (our country) can take responsibility for our past environmental mistakes, why can’t (aren’t) we doing so for matters of race?!