activism/social movements

Marriage–as a social and legal institution–has not always been what it is today.

In early American history, when families largely lived on farms and worked for sustenance, people didn’t marry because they loved each other.  And they certainly didn’t split up because they did not.  Marriage choices were highly influenced by their families and, once married, husbands and wives formed a working partnership aimed at production.  They teamed up to support themselves and make children who would take care of them when they were old and help them in the meantime.

Today, we still (generally) think of marriage as comprised of a man, a woman, and kids, but mutual love and happiness are now central goals of marriage.  This idea only emerged in the 1900s.  It hasn’t actually been around all that long.

I bring this up in order to shed some light on the pro- and anti- gay marriage rhetoric.

On the one hand, those against gay marriage need to define “marriage” in a way that excludes same-sex couples.  One way to do this is to refer to a “traditional” marriage (image found here).

But there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage, just a long history of evolving forms of marriage.  For example, few anti-gay marriage types would actually be in favor of returning marriage to one in which women were property that can’t contract, vote, testify in court, own anything, and have no rights to their own bodies or custody of their children (though the idea that women are property is still out there today).  Because there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage (that is, no reason to privilege one historical form over another), when someone speaks of “traditional” marriage, they actually just mean “the kind of marriage that I like that I am pretending existed throughout all time before this current threat right now.”

On the other hand, to make an argument in favor of gay marriage rights, the movement must either (1) change the collective agreement as to what marriage is (the social construction of marriage) or (2) convince the collective that gay marriage already is what we believe marriage to be.

This ad in favor of gay marriage does the latter. Mobilizing the social construction of marriage as about love, the commercial then defines same-sex relationships as about love. If you accept both premises, then, presto, you are pro-gay marriage.  That is exactly what this commercial is trying to do:

NEW!  This Swedish commercial for Bjorn Borg’s dating website, sent in by Ed L., similarly mobilizes the idea that marriage is for love and that gay men’s marriages are, therefore, beautiful:

This New York Times article discusses the cigarette industries co-optation of nascent feminism.  Hat tip to Jezebel, where Sadie writes:

In the early 20th century, smoking was regarded as unladylike. In the 1920[s], realizing they were missing out on millions of potential customers PR expert Edward Bernays encouraged the American Tobacco Company to play on women’s nascent sense of modern independence… and the smoking feminist was born!

Also in co-opting feminism: make-up, more make-up and, of course, botox; cars and bras; more cigarettes; cleaning products, eyeglasses, and pants; diamond rings; credit cards, cigarettes, and cars; easing kitchen duty; and fashion (I think).

The sexualized campaign against breast cancer (i.e., “save the tatas”) is fascinating.  Why should we care about breast cancer?  Because we think boobs are hot and we like to put them in our mouths.

I think it’s the ad companies that win.  This bottled water advertisement (found here) gets to be simultaneously socially conscious and titillating:

Also in breast cancer awareness and advertising: if men had boobs, they’d care about breast cancer, gender symbolism in breast cancer ads, and objectification in the service of breast cancer awareness.

Also don’t miss boobsboobsboobsboobsboobsboobsboobsboobsboobs.

Last week, in my Race and Ethnicity class, I was talking about how race was used by white elites in early American history to divide and conquer the poor who, black or white, had a joint interest in undermining the class structure from which those elites benefited.  I then show them this video by Tim Wise making this same argument and suggesting that using race to divide and conquer is still ongoing.  One student said: “No offense, but Tim Wise said it better than you.”  It’s true.

Anyway, I bring up this argument–that race is used to divide and conquer the poor and working class for the benefit of economic elites–because of a recent speech made by AFL-CIO Secretary/Treasurer Richard Trumka.  In this speech, below, Trumka argues in favor of bridging racial (and gender) divides in the labor movement specifically because of the phenomena that Wise describes.  In other words, Trumka calls for a join and resist strategy.  I think the two speeches nicely illustrate two sides of one conflict coin.

Don’t miss Tim Wise.

And here’s Richard Trumka:

You might also see this post on the way in which lefty movements and companies tend to focus only on one axis of inequality at a time, such that they are all undermining each other and, thus, the entire left agenda.

Hat tip to Peter D.

This is a famous photograph of Clell Pruett, a farm worker, burning a copy of The Grapes of Wrath while two leaders of Associated Farmers, an organization made up of California agricultural producers, look on. I heard about this incident on NPR this morning; click here for a link to the story.

As might be expected, members of Associated Farmers were not too pleased about The Grapes of Wrath, which they thought portrayed them unfairly and also encouraged union organizing, which they very much opposed. In some counties in California, the book was banned from libraries. According to the NPR story,

Camp [leader of a local Associated Farmers branch] wanted to publicize the county’s opposition to The Grapes Of Wrath. Convinced that many migrants were also offended by their depiction in the novel, he recruited one of his workers, Clell Pruett, to burn the book.

Pruett had not read the book at that point, though he had heard about it and did not like what he had heard, and when he got around to reading it a few years ago (after the NPR reporter gave it to him), he said he “had no regrets” about burning it.

I thought this might be useful for a discussion of protests and how dominant groups may orchestrate protests that denounce or invalidate criticisms of their positions of power. We see a somewhat similar phenomenon today with the so-called “Astroturf” organizations, a term coined to refer to what appear to be citizen advocacy groups but that are basically fronts for corporations or industry groups to push their agenda, often with little or no support from anyone not directly connected to the corporations involved–the term makes fun of their attempts to portray these groups as “grassroots.”

It also brings up interesting issues about agency. I suspect many on the left who are generally sympathetic to organized labor would view Pruett as a traitor or a dupe–an ignorant fool who was used by those in power to undermine the very cause that would have improved his life. But there’s a big assumption there–that it would be impossible for a farm worker to simply be offended by the depiction of workers in The Grapes of Wrath (or to be opposed to the labor movement more generally). So this might spark a discussion about the ideas of “interests” (i.e., that workers’ interests are served by organizing) and who gets to decide what they are (or which set of interests should be prioritized). Is Pruett a traitor to organized labor? Did he betray other farmworkers? Is he just a tool of the wealthy landowners who often exploited workers, or was there a legitimate reason some workers might have been offended by The Grapes of Wrath?

This isn’t to discount the fact that those in power often search for an “authentic” voice they can use to delegitimize criticisms. For instance, universities using American Indian mascots have often looked for a group of American Indians willing to state that they either don’t oppose or actively support the mascot. In some cases these supporters were from other states and might have been offered scholarships or other incentives that led many mascot opponents to question whether they were basically being bribed.

I just thought it might make a good addition to a discussion of social movements and protests in general–how do we conceive of counter-movements and the role of the dominant group in them? When and in what way do the powerful use members of the supposedly aggreived group to delegitimate criticism? And who gets to decide when someone is being used and when they are, of free will and presumably sound mind, in agreement with the group that others perceive to be oppressing him or her? Who gets to decide you’re being oppressed, even if you don’t feel like it?

Of course, it would also make a nice image for a discussion of freedom of the press.

Z. (of It’s the Thought that Counts) sent in this image (found at Andrew Sullivan’s blog on The Atlantic magazine’s website):

According to Sullivan, the text says, “You won’t be able to stop them (i.e. guys), but you can protect yourself. He who created you knows what’s best for you!”

Neither Z. nor I have been able to track down the origin of this image, which is supposedly a pro-hijab PSA, beyond what Sullivan provides as a source–I can’t find any evidence online of any first-hand accounts of people seeing it displayed anywhere or of what groups might be displaying it (the online references I’ve found make vague statements about it being from Egypt). I was really hesitant to post it, but it is available on the website of a major U.S. magazine, and I’m hoping maybe some of our readers might have information about the image–who put it out, if it’s actually on display anywhere, etc. If it is a real pro-hijab PSA (or even just a proposed one), it’s a great example of the way women are often portrayed as having responsibility for controlling and preventing men’s sexual advances, since men are believed to be incapable of controlling their own sexual desires. Whoever made it clearly uses that discourse about men, women, and sexual attraction; the question is, who created it?

While I was doing some online searching for it, I came upon the site Protect Hijab, a site dedicated to “the protection of every Muslim woman’s right to wear the Hijab in accordance with her beliefs and for the protection of every woman’s right to dress as modestly and as comfortably as she pleases.” Among other things, the site provides links to news stories about laws regarding hijab, including the interesting situations that come up when, say, the city of Antwerp (in Belgium) outlaws employees from wearing hijab (or any other symbol of religious or political affiliation) but then allows them to wear bandannas.

Then I came upon this video, which has the description, “A PSA Parody/Satire intended to protest the use of the veil by women. Ban the veil and ban the berqa. A Hijab is okay, however. Free Arab and Muslim women from male religious oppression.”

I’m always interested in things like this video because there is a tendency for groups with no connection to Islam to protest the hijab as a symbol of women’s oppression. This often occurs while the voices of Muslim women who argue that they don’t find the practice of hijab to be oppressive OR they have many other issues that are higher priorities are ignored or silenced. The statement “Ban the veil and ban the berqa. A Hijab is okay, however” also brings up some of the interesting aspects of attitudes toward hijab–who gets to decide what is oppressive? Why would, say, a veil be immediately and always oppressive but hijab (however the author was defining hijab) is “okay”?

Finally, I ran across this video, called “Top 10 Funniest Things a Muslim Woman Hears,” which presents 10 questions Muslim women often get about hijab/veils/scarves/etc.:

I like some aspects of this video–I’ve had Muslim students tell me they are asked these types of questions, some of which are clearly due to simply curiosity and lack of knowledge and others of which are rude. On the other hand, just like the previous video, this video is also constructing the practice of hijab, and the women who wear it, in a particular way–as something “obligatory” for Muslim women once they hit puberty. Clearly not all Muslims agree with this interpretation.

These could be really useful for a discussion of attitudes (both pro and con) toward the practice of hijab and the way it (or the version different groups portray of it) has become a symbol of Muslim (often defined as the equivalent of Arab) women’s oppression to some and of religious freedom and devout Muslim faith to others.

It could also be useful for a general discussion of whose voices are powerful in cultural conflicts. Who is speaking out against the presumed oppression of “Arab and Muslim women”? What is their interest in the issue–that is, is there a genuine concern about sexism and gender inequality, or is the issue of hijab a convenient avenue to express anti-Islamic sentiments? Which Arab/Muslim women are they claiming to speak for? Similarly, who is behind the pro-hijab activism? Are the voices of actual Muslim women represented? Do they play a role in the content of the message? To what degree do they represent the voices of (some groups of) Muslim women expressing their personal preferences and interests and to what degree is it an effort to pressure women to adopt hijab? Again, which Muslim women are they speaking for/to?

For other posts about hijab and other issues concerning Muslim women’s clothing, see here, here, here, here, and here. Also see these images of advice on modest clothing at Brigham Young University for a comparison.

Thanks, Z.!

Sine A. sent in this awesome photo that she and Kayt S. took at a construction site in Fairbanks, Alaska:

As Sine points out, given the history of frequent resistance to women in male-dominated jobs and in unions, it’s “refreshing and quite startling to see this sign on a job site.”

Thanks for an awesome pic, Sine!

Amanda B.-P. sent in this Coke ad that illustrates the idea of consumption as activism (that is, you can be an activist simply by buying things). The ad tells you that every time you buy a Coke you’re supporting both the Olympics and Special Olympics.

The Coca-Cola company issued a press release titled “New Advertising Shows that Nothing Brings People Together Like the Olympic Games and Coca-Cola.Olympic-Themed Ads Invite People to ‘Connect with the World Over a Coke’.”

For other examples of consumption as activism, see here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Thanks, Amanda!

On an unrelated note, Lisa’s off doing crazy stuff again, so you’re stuck with lots of posts from me for a week or so. Sorry.