"Even the Rain"

Have you seen this movie? 

It's about the Water War in Bolivia, which happened exploded in Bolivia in early 2000.

Yeah, I hadn't heard of it. With any luck, you're better educated than I am.

I just wrote a brief essay about this, for a class. Now I'm going to proselytize and tell everyone that they should watch it, because it was a) well done, in my opinion, and b) a serious eye-opener for me. I think it might open some other people's eyes, too.

The movie's available on Netflix (streaming), or you can buy it on amazon. There's a crappy version (which happens to not have English subtitles, if - like me - you need those) on youtube, too. Seriously, check it out.

Here's what I wrote about it, since I know you're curious:

There is a recurring theme in the history of Bolivia since their colonization by Europeans; it is a theme of racial superiority representative of the hegemonic ideologies of the colonizers. This theme is artfully highlighted in the film Even the Rain (2011), which follows the efforts of a fictional film crew attempting to create a dramatic documentary of Christopher Colombus’ invasion and subjugation of the Taino people. To save on the cost of production, the film crew is working in Bolivia, where a casting decision leads them right into the middle of the Water War, a very real internal political crisis that occurred in Bolivia in early 2000. Using this backdrop, the viewers are led to see the connections between Columbus’ actions, and the actions of the foreign film crew, and the Bolivian government.

The director of this film crew has striven to use Columbus’ exact language (from his journals and letters), so that they might remain as close to the reality of the Spaniards’ actions as possible. Early in the movie, a scene begins (at 0:25:47) in which we see the film crew acting out a speech given by Father Montesinos, who was, as the director says, “the first voice of conscience against an empire (0:29:19).” Father Montesinos railed – against the Spaniards’ treatment of the Native peoples, demanding that the violent and dehumanizing practices (including not just slavery, but the particularly brutal methods of enslavement and debasement for which Columbus’ occupation of the Bahamasis now known. Sandwiching the scene with Father Montesinos’ speech, we see what’s going on in Boliviaat the time: the beginnings of the Water War, when communal wells were being locked against the people who’d dug them, and the first of the public protests.  

In that first protest scene, we find the actor cast as the lead Native role, “Daniel,” leading the protests. Cinegraphically, Daniel is set up as the ‘first voice of conscience’ in the Bolivian Water War.

While Daniel is clearly aligned on the ‘side’ of the Natives, and the Bolivian government – which sought out and supported the privatization of their country’s water – is clearly aligned with Columbus’ ideology, the film crew itself is torn. In their conversations with each other, it’s clear they are sympathetic to Columbus’ victims, and to the impoverished Bolivians (despite the crew’s disagreement over what their involvement should be, their sympathies are nonetheless made clear over the course of the movie). However, the conflict over what their role should actually be comes out early, and in such a way that they are forced to consider how they might be involved on a grander scale, intentionally or not. At 0:32:40, we see the executive producer, “Costa,” helping the actor cast as Columbus to rehearse his lines. The actor’s lines roughly quote a letter from Columbus, written in 1493 from the Bahamas(the difference in the lines and the letter is so slight, that it is likely to be only a difference of translation). He is speaking of the Taino people. “They are so naive and generous with what they have,” say the lines, “that they never refuse anything. Whatever they have, if you ask them for it, they will give it to you, inviting the person to share it with them... With just fifty men, you could subdue them, and make them do whatever you want.”  Then, in the very next scene (beginning at 0:35:05), Costa condescendingly tries to convince Daniel to stay out of the protests, then discusses the low cost of production while on a phone call, saying, “two fucking dollars a day and they feel like kings.” Moments later, the audience it reminded of what Costa has just said when Daniel reiterates Costa’s words back to him: “two fucking dollars, no? And they’re content.” Daniel forces Costa to see his own condescension, by repeating Costa’s words back in English – which Costa had clearly assumed Daniel would not understand. These scenes, and these words, all illuminate the disregard the ruling classes may have for the ruled classes, whether it be Spaniards versus Natives, rich versus poor, or employer versus employee.

The disregard humans hold for ‘others’ is probably more universal than what ‘haves’ hold for the ‘have nots,’ but it is in relations of power that these prejudices are most evident. In Even the Rain, it is the conversation between the film crew and a governing official, who appears to be the Mayor of the city, that the extent and nature of the government’s disregard for its citizens is fully elucidated. The scene begins at 0:51:58 and opens with the chants of protestors echoing in the background. “A little domestic row,” the presumed Mayor says, “Nothing for you to worry about.” One of the actors responds by comparing the scenario to the infamous “let them eat cake” of Marie Antoinette; of course this is an escalation, prompting the Mayor to defend his administration’s actions. His defense, though spoken in various terms, ultimately rests on the supposed racial inferiorities of the “Indians” he blames for causing the unrest – even as he references the “long history of exploitation” of Bolivian Native peoples – and his listeners are intended to share his implied racial superiority. He characterizes them as primitive, stone-throwers in the global economy. “It’s the cult of victim versus modernity,” he says. That statement calls to mind the goals of Columbus and other explorers, who sought to ‘bring civilization to the barbarians’ they encountered. It was thought though, that any Native peoples found were too barbarous, too cognitively ill-equipped, to truly reach ‘civilization’ at the level of the Europeans. The Mayor says as much, saying that if they were allowed, “these Indians [would] drag us back to the Stone Age.”

Even the Rain shows how the behavioral patterns created by the actions of the dominant governing bodies in Bolivia are representative of the same hegemonic ideologies under which European colonizers operated in their ‘discovery’ of the Americas. The overlapping stories keenly illustrated the racial themes which have survived hundreds of years in the histories of Bolivia and much of the Americas. The viewer is forced to ask – what happens next? The dust settled and the government of Boliviawas forced to reconsider privatizing their water, but is this progress? It seems that, given the country’s history (then and since), no real lesson has been learned. The heart of the problems, illustrated so well in Even the Rain, have not yet been acknowledged, and thus will continue to plague Bolivia.

References

Christopher Columbus: The Untold Story. (n.d.). UnderstandingPrejudice.org. Retrieved July 16, 2013, from http://www.understandingprejudice.org/nativeiq/columbus.htm

Bollain, I. (Director). (2011). También la lluvia[Motion picture]. Bolivia: Image Entertainment.

 

happy?

I've been holding back.
I made myself catch up on my homework before I posted a blog.
           ^That's something to be proud of, eh?

I've had a post brewing since before I left the hospital.

I went in Monday morning for my surgery, got out on Thursday. Why so long? Well, I kept running fevers at night. The first painkiller they put me on was morphine. Whoa. Big mistake. It didn't actually touch my pain, but it sure did a number on my stomach. Ugh. Let's just skip over that, shall we? They switched me to percocet, and things got better from there. So I came home. Whoohoo!

I love being home.

Before I came home, I had a moment I knew I would write about.

I was laying in the hospital bed, doing a whole lot of nothing. But that's not the important part. What struck me was this: I was happy.

I was happy.

The ever-present undercurrent of depression - wasn't present.

Whoa - didn't want to get my hopes up. Maybe this was post-op elation, or post-morphine relief, or maybe it was just the percocet. No, no I knew better. I've had surgery before. I've had percocet before. The undercurrent has never left. Still. I kept it to myself.

And it happened two more times: in these little moments with nothing going on, I realized I was happy.

At home, I confided in Archer that this was happening. He said percocet is actually kinda a depressant, so it's not likely to be a result of that. I don't know about percocet being a depressant (not that I don't believe him), but I know that I've taken percocet for my back pain many times over the years, and I've never felt a difference in my depression from it. I've never felt a real difference in my depression, period. Not like this. Sure the anti-depressants help, taking it from an 8 to a 4, say, on a 10 scale. But I'm at 0. Zero! WFT?!

I haven't even taken my anti-depressants since the Saturday before the surgery.

Suck on that one a moment, Big Pharm.

Still, I don't want to believe that it could be gone. But I'm not waiting for it to show back up. I'm on guard, like a chihuahua over the last donut: vicious and vigilant. I'm watching my thoughts; when they slip toward old sad habits, I scramble to right them, to set them back on the right path. I won't let myself slide back into depression out of habit. If I do go back there, it'll be kicking and screaming.

Fuck you, Depression. Fuck you.

*insert jazz hands here*

My surgery is tomorrow morning. It's a partial hysterectomy, which doesn't mean they're only taking part of my uterus. It means they're only taking my uterus and cervix, as opposed to also taking the ovaries. That's a good thing - I'm not ready for menopause. The closer it gets, the calmer I feel. I'm not so 'ok' with the early morning wake up call that's coming, but I'm ok with the surgery which will follow it. I'll be staying overnight at the VA hospital where they're doing my surgery. I have my tablet and keyboard with me (obviously - you didn't think I would type all this without a keyboard, did you?), but I don't know how soon I'll feel like typing a follow up. Probably soon, actually. They don't intend to let me out of bed very quickly, and I anticipate much boredom. Anyway, updates will come as they come. That was really the whole point of this paragraph.

I'm feeling a little loopy tonight. - And this is before the anesthesia!

Arizona bliss

"Forest" incense, perfect for this rainy day... the smell of the deep wet woods is a piece of memory brought back to my arid present. I love living in the desert; I love it even more during monsoons.

sex and gender with bodies

In this course, we have been carefully considering the concept of gender, how it is culturally situated, and how it is created through public acts of performing selves, themselves informed by cultural ideologies of gender. Now, for your final post, reflect on what you have learned about the relationship of gender and language—what knowledge have you gained thus far?

After your reflection, consider the relationship of the body to gender by reflecting on Laqueur’s idea that sex and gender are both “staged” according to cultural understandings of them:

• How does a discussion of the body complicate or enhance a discussion of gender?
• How does the film Is it a Boy or a Girl enhance our understanding of this relationship? Be sure and bring in examples. 
• Where would you put the body in a theoretical understanding of gender and language?

The inclusion of biology in the discussion of gender necessarily complicates and enhances the context. Research efforts such as those we see in “Is it a boy or a girl” and Laqueur’s works illustrate, increasingly, the nature of sex, gender and sexuality as interconnected spectrums rather than dualities. So few things in nature are dualistic; it should be no surprise that there is little about humans that is dualistic. If forced to guess, I would hypothesize that the body is the platform for these three things. In one sense the body might be the necessary and hugely influential structural framework for gender and sexuality. Simultaneously, the body might be justthe platform, from which any picture might emerge, depending on the other components.

With as much time as I have spent in the genderqueer, transgender, and intersex communities – either because of my identity or through my work – it seems that the body must be an active component of gender and sex (and sexuality). However, it’s equally apparent that the body does not play the role it is assumed to play by our dominant cultural gender ideologies. The role of the body is not cut-and-dry, nor is it dualistic in any sense. Even intersex might not be best described as ‘part boy, part girl,’ as sometimes happens in conversations. Rather, it could possibly be said that we are nearly allintersex to some degree, because nearly all of us fall short of the hegemonic gender ideals – there are no real Barbies and Kens, in other words.

Is it a boy or a girlhighlighted the very interesting position that doctors are placed in when a child is born which is visually intersex (not all intersex individuals have external indications of being so – some are not discovered until the autopsy). At 3:52 of part 3 (as viewed on youtube – links below), the narrator begins a discussion of two people’s effort to instigate legislation against sex-assignment surgeries done during infancy. At 4:12, the narrator begins a somewhat-paraphrased quote of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ official position on the practice: in full, that quote is, “research on children with ambiguous genitalia has shown that a person’s sexual body image is largely a function of socialization, and children whose genetic sexes are not clearly reflected in external genitalia can be raised successfully as members of either sexes if the process begins before 2 1/2 years.” The sentiment behind that quote seemed somewhat dated (after all, “Doctor” Money’s work has long been known to be a travesty of false pretenses at best). Some snooping around on the AAP website revealed that they have actually updated their official position on the evaluation and management of intersex ‘disorders.’ Their new policy does reflect the more recent findings concerning the biological basis of gender, and subsequently they no longer support the erroneous claim that “a person’s sexual body image is largely a function of socialization.” (Links to the articles relevant to my findings are listed below.) I was mollified by their updated policy statements; it seems they are moving more toward an evidenced-based approach and away from the previous hegemonic ideology-based approach.

Is it a boy or a girl?– youtube version:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITuuxmlfqs

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQESPaEj8dk

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQJmPbHSdM

Intersex Society of North America – 1996 stance of American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): http://www.isna.org/books/chrysalis/aap

-          “Research on children with ambiguous genitalia has shown that a person’s sexual body image is largely a function of socialization, and children whose genetic sexes are not clearly reflected in external genitalia can be raised successfully as members of either sexes if the process begins before 2 1/2 years.”

-          At this time, the AAP made the potential fertility of the infant their primary decisive factor in determining the gender of the infant; surgery was performed to “correct” any aspect of the infant’s sex which might cause them to appear other than the sex which was most likely, in that individual, to prove fertile.

AAP revised policy (2000) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/2/e488

-          Still based on potential fertility; removes direct language concerning malleability of gender to social constructs, but indirect language remains and no counter statements are offered (this revision seems more political than functional).

AAP revised policy (2006) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/2/e488.full.pdf

-          Acknowledges limitations sociocultural as well as genetic influences on gender development of intersex people; seems to be a functional step forward.

This is the book referred to as the work of Laqueur: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Sex-Gender-Greeks-Freud/dp/0674543556/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372916642&sr=1-1 

Also, for more information on John Money’s experiments with gender, this is a decent starting point (after wikipedia): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01541983?LI=true

the makings of men: yes, I'm doing my homework again

The conversation transcribed below is scripted, and is from a TV show called Six Feet Under. The clip (which is available for your viewing pleasure at the bottom of this post - you're welcome) is from the first season, which aired in 2001. The section which has been transcribed is a conversation between a father and son who run, with their family, a mortuary and funeral home. It so happens that the father in this scene has passed away, and is speaking to the son as a sort of ghost. Later in the clip, it is implied cinematically that the conversation happened as part of a dream. Despite the unlikely circumstances of the conversation, and despite the fact that the conversation is scripted rather than natural, it is well-scripted, in that it could very plausibly be a conversation between any father and son who have been unexpectedly reunited. The two men sit across from each other, and share a cigarette as they talk.

1 D:     So I’m walkin a/long one day

2          and this asshole `stops me

3          and /asks me if I’m `alright?

4          He says I got a /look.

5          He’d seen a /man.

6          with that /same look once.

7          a:nd had ignored it.

8          And that man had `jumped out a nine story window.

9          ((high-pitched laugh))

10        .hhhh

11        Do you know the reconstruction `involved

12        in a death like that?

13        hhh-

14        This business gets under your skin.

15        It’s like a fuckin virus.

16        You can even /see it on your /face.

17        `Smell it on you.

18 S:    What the /hell is this place – this music?

19        Since when do you listen to (.) the classics four?

20        What the `hell did you /do here?

21        Who the `hell /are you?

22 D:   So many questions –

23        why didn’t ya ask them when I was still aLIVE?

24        (.2) It’s ok, I couldn’t’ve answered most of them anyway.

25        Unlike now, /now I’m a /fucking prophet.

26 S:    Right.

27 D:   You think I’m kidding buddy-boy?

28        ((Leans back))

29        That’s one of the `perks of being /dead.

30        you know what `happens after you /die?

31        `and (.) you know the meaning of life.

32        ((smiles, quiet laugh))

33 S:    /That seems fairly /useless.

34 D:   Yeah I know.

35        Life is `wasted on the /living.

36        ((puffs cigarette))

37 S:    Ya `coulda told me you were /proud of me.

38 D:   You were never /around for /me to tell.

39        Which was `exactly what I was `proud of you /for.

40        ((short laugh)) therein lies your catch-22 ((laughs more))

TRANSCRIPTION KEY:

D: Dad as speaker

S: Son as speaker

` heavy accent

/ light accent

? rising intonation

. falling intonation

(.) brief pause

(.n) measurable pause

CAPS increased volume

*Transcription begins at 3:26 in the clip, which is from Six Feet Under, season 1.

Of the three characteristics of hegemonic masculinity described by Bird – emotional detachment, competitiveness, and objectification of women – two are evidenced in this scene: emotional detachment and competitiveness (1996, pg. 121). Although Bird first defines emotional detachment as the detachment of a young man from his mother in his process of masculinization (pg 121), there seems to be a certain degree of emotional detachment from other men which is integral in the hegemonic identification of masculinity. Indeed, Bird discusses this aspect of emotional detachment as an identifier of masculinity on the very next page, and we see evidence of this behavior in the conversation transcribed above. Bird describes this emotional detachment as “withholding expressions of intimacy” (pg 122). We can gather from the conversation that the son in particular is aware of an emotional distance between him and his father. In lines 18 through 21, the son expresses his frustration with this distance. His frustration is made more evident by the suddenness of his statements, which are contextually unconnected to the last statement made by his father. This emotional disconnection is verified by the father’s reply, in lines 22 and 23: “So many questions – why didn't you ask them when I was still alive?” From this, we know that these two men didn’t discuss such emotional matters under normal circumstances. Further, in line 37, the son expresses frustration that his father hadn’t expressed any pride in the son. This is another indication of the two men having been emotionally at arm’s length from each other.

The father’s response, on lines 38 and 39, brings us to another point; Bird discussed this in terms of competitiveness, and Willott and Griffindiscussed it in terms of successful masculinities: the son wasn't home enough for the father to have a chance to express his pride in his son, which was the source of the father’s pride. Not hanging around at home could be an indication of the son’s independence, which is also an indicator of emotional detachment as a characteristic of masculinity (Bird, pg.125), but it’s just as true that the son’s absence from the family home provides a valuable measure of masculinity in and of itself. As Willott and Griffin found, the ability of a man to spend time away from home is, in some ways, and indicator of his success as a man. Even without the pub as a destination – since this TV show is set in USA, not England, and rounds at the pub are less dominant in American culture than in British – a man still must leave the home (in terms of the hegemonic masculine ideology) in order to be a successful provider. Thus, being away from home is a symbol of success as a man, because being a good provider is a tenet of masculinity in the hegemonic ideal (Willott and Griffin, pg. 117). The son’s success might also be considered a measure of the father’s success; the father is proud of his son because his son has succeeded in displaying himself as a capable provider (by not being home), and the success of one’s progeny can be considered a reflection of the parent’s success in their role. Therefore, the competitive aspects of the father’s statement of pride (lines 38 and 39) are relevant to and evidence of the masculine successes of both father and son.

This conversation as a whole might be viewed as edging over the boundaries established by the same emotional detachment it gives evidence of, but the two men maintain a certain distance even as the content of their speech becomes intimate. Their retained distance is visible in their physical distance – they remain on opposite sides of a sitting area, across a small table from each other – and their emotional controls do not escape them beyond a slight raise in volume by the father (line 23), which is quickly contained. Furthermore, the potentially engaging emotions are laughed at – exactly as Bird found in her studies (pg. 126), when participants told her that “feelings are ‘something for us all to joke about.’” The fact that the single moment of raised volume is acted out by the father, as opposed to the son, is also notable. Bird describes how a man’s relationship to the hegemonic masculinity ideals might change over his lifetime, and specifically mentions that one man, at least, cared less about fitting into that ideal as he grew older.

Overall, this conversation gives us an inverse sense of the ‘Father knows best’ ideology discussed by Ochs and Taylor (1996), in that we’re made to understand that the son knows very little of the father’s life. So, despite the role of the father as the protagonist (in that he is the subject of the story he narrates in lines 1 through 17, and in that the son’s contributions to the conversation are almost entirely questions concerning the father’s past behavior) in this particular conversation, the viewers understand that this has not normally been the case. The son is frustrated by how little he knows about his father, and it seems that perhaps he has never even realized, before, how shallow his understanding of his father is. Thus it’s clear that, while we don’t know whether or not the father was a recipient in previous family conversations, he certainly wasn't the protagonist. This finding is consistent with what Ochs and Taylor discovered about fathers, which is that fathers are typically not protagonists (pg. 102). Even within their families, fathers – as the primary masculine identity in a typical nuclear family – maintain the emotional detachment evidenced in Bird’s research.

References

Bird, S. R. (1996). Welcome to the men's club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 10(2), 120-132.

Ochs, E. & Taylor, C. (1996). ‘The father knows best' dynamic in family dinner narratives. Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self. ed. by K. Hall. Routledge. pp.97-121.

Six Feet Under, The Room - YouTube. (n.d.). YouTube. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29SIKOFJnAA

Willott, S., & Griffin, C. (1997). `Wham Bam, Am I A Man?': Unemployed Men Talk About Masculinities. Feminism & Psychology, 7(1), 107-128.

masculinities - another short academic offering

THE QUESTION POSED: 

For this post, consider dominant images of masculinities in the media. For an example, watch the following clip of masculinity in Disney films: Masculinity in Disney.

• Do these media portrayals follow Willott and Griffin’s discussion of hegemonic masculinity? How so?
• How do you think dominant ideologies of masculinity will shape everyday performances of masculinity? In your answer, be sure and draw on Willott and Griffin’s and Bird’s descriptions of how men orient to these ideologies in their daily lives.

Next, discuss how you use the discourse marker “dude." Draw on Kiesling to explain how this is an example of everyday performances of masculinity. 

Finally, consider whether or not we are seeing a new type of masculinity in the “bromance” genre. For an example, watch the following trailer for the film “I Love you Man”: I Love you Man. Is this a new type of masculine relationship or does it fit hegemonic masculine ideals? 

References

Bird, S. R. (n.d.). WELCOME TO THE MEN'S CLUB. Gender & Society. Retrieved July 2, 2013, from http://gas.sagepub.com/content/10/2/120.short

Kiesling, S. F. (n.d.). DUDE. American Speech. Retrieved July 2, 2013, from http://americanspeech.dukejournals.org/content/79/3/281.short

Willott, S., & Griffin, C. (n.d.). `Wham Bam, am I a Man?': Unemployed Men Talk about Masculinities. Feminism & Psychology. Retrieved July 2, 2013, from http://fap.sagepub.com/content/7/1/107.short

MY RESPONSE: 

Disney’s portrayals of males certainly follow Willott and Griffin’s discussion of hegemonic masculinity. If anything, Disney’s male characters provide frighteningly accurate caricatures of hegemonic masculinity in America (and probably, I think, in western society as a whole). In Beauty and the Beast, Gustav’s masculinity is celebrated at the pub – a social location much discussed in Willott and Griffin’s work – and is emphasized by his ability to buy rounds of drinks and the display of his hunting trophies. Both of these are indicators of a man’s ability as a provider, which is an integral aspect of hegemonic masculinity as described by Willott and Griffin.

I know from watching my own son and his friends grow up (and from the work of developmental psychologists such as Erickson, Piaget, and Kohlberg) that children tend to look to those most like themselves when trying to figure out how to behave socially. It’s no surprise, then, that the strongest enforcement of hegemonic gender ideologies come from within homosocial interactions, as Bird’s research suggests. We see this in the way that the men in Willott and Griffin’s study describe the pub as a place where their masculinity can be proven. Their relative masculinity demonstrations concerning their home lives have more to do with what they provide which can be proven to the guys later than how their wives and children perceive them.

Dude: I use “dude” a lot. Too much, according to certain friends of mine. I am more female than not, and I use “dude” to address every single one of my friends at one point or another, regardless of their gender. Perhaps this is an expression of my masculinity, or an indication that I was raised primarily by my older brother in the 80s, which was when “dude” became a mainstream word. It seems equally plausible, though, that my use of “dude” is more an indication of the relative gender-neutrality of the word, in comparison to its gendered history.

I do think that our hegemonic ideals are changing. For example, hunting is still more of a man’s game, but it isn’t a necessary skill for men, as it was earlier in our history. “Metrosexual” was a big thing not so long ago, and it indicated a slightly less “masculine” guy, but the look we once described as “metrosexual” is now the mainstream fashion. I don’t know the ‘bromances’ are new, but I do think the way we talk about them – and name them – is new. There have always been male friendships and ‘brotherhoods’ – fraternal organizations are a huge part of American history – but we have new words to describe them which are indicative of the softening of the lines of masculinity evidenced by, among other things, the metrosexual fashion developments.