So You Say You Want to Boycott Arizona?

“No services for people from AZ” Octavio Gallego/reforma.com

Here is a list of AZ businesses and contact information. Please keep in mind that by choosing to boycott businesses you run the risk of making the right choice (telling AZ that there is a real cost to bigotry) on the backs of the wrong people (workers who likely had very little to do with the drafting or passing of the anti-immigrant anti-civil rights bill). If you want to engage in the most ethical intersectional boycott, you may wish to contact these businesses and ask what their stance is on SB 1070; for instance, Buffalo Exchange has left a comment on this post and on their website stating they do not support the bill but they are an AZ based company and therefore on the list of companies being circulated for boycott. If a company does not support SB 1070, you might consider shopping there more and sending in emails or cards that say you are shopping there instead of another business that does support the bill out of solidarity with both workers and undocumented people. The choice is ultimately yours and I hope having a list of AZ based companies helps you know which companies are based in Arizona and how to go about making up your mind about how you will show solidarity with basic civil rights in N. America.

Arizona Diamondbacks – OWNER ACTIVELY SUPPORTED SB 1070 despite his claims to contrary
based in Phoenix
baseball team
http://arizona.diamondbacks.mlb.com

BeachWare
based in Tucson
computer games: Turkey Hunter; Shell Whirl; Vegas Jackpot Gold; others
http://www.beachware.com

Best Western International (hotel chain)
based in Phoenix
4000 hotels in 80 countries
http://www.bestwestern.com/newsroom/contactus.asp

Buffalo Exchange – DOES NOT SUPPORT SB 1070
based in Tucson
used, second-hand and recycled clothes
http://www.buffaloexchange.com

Channel Master
based in Gilbert
television accessories
http://channelmaster.com

Circle K
based in Tempe
international convenience store chain
wholly-owned subsidiary of Alimentation Couche-Tard (Laval, Quebec)
http://www.circlek.com/
http://www.couchetard.com/accueil.html

Cold Stone Creamery
based in Scottsdale
ice cream parlor chain (1400 stores worldwide)
subsidiary of Kahala Corporation, also based in Scottsdale (also runs
Ranch1 and Taco Time fast food chains)
http://www.coldstonecreamery.com

Dial Corporation (formerly Greyhound Dial Corporation)
based in Scottsdale
subsidiary of Henkel North America (parent company Henkel International
based in Dusseldorf, Germany)
Dial soap and anti-perspirant deodorant; AromaSense; Armour Star canned
meats; Borateem; Boraxo; Coast soap; Combat insect control; Dry Idea
deodorant; Fels-Naptha soap; Pure and Natural beauty products; Purex
laundry detergent; Renuzit air freshener; Right Guard deodorant; Twenty
Mule Team Borax
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/28/business/company-news-a-new-name-greyhound-dial.html?pagewanted=1
http://www.dialsoap.com
http://www.henkel.com/index.htm

Discount Tire Company
based in Scottsdale
nationwide tire chain
http://www.discounttire.com

Fender Musical Instruments Corporation
based in Scottsdale
guitars, basses, amplifiers, etc.
http://www.fender.com

Flying Buffalo, Inc.
based in Scottsdale
game company: board games, card games; Tunnels and Trolls, Nuclear War
card game, Death Dice, others
http://www.flyingbuffalo.com

Go Daddy Group, Inc.
based in Scottsdale
domain registrar; web hosting
http://www.godaddy.com

PetSmart, Inc.
based in Phoenix
pet supplies; pet grooming
http://www.petsmart.com

Ramada Worldwide hotel chain
based in Phoenix
900 hotels around the world
subsidiary of Wyndham Worldwide
http://www.ramada.com/Ramada/control/home
http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com

Shamrock Farms
based in Phoenix
dairy products: various “Mmmmilk” products; Rockin’ Refuel; “Milk
Essentials” for Kids; various frozen treats
http://www.shamrockfarms.net

U-Haul International, Inc.
based in Phoenix
car, truck and equipment rental company
http://www.uhaul.com

US Airways Group
based in Tempe
US Airways; PSA Airlines, Piedmont Airlines
http://www.usairways.com

You Can Help People of Color Alt Media Survive in Two Easy Steps

Step One: Donate to BrownFemiPower one of the most consistent voices of female empowerment from a working class woc perspective (what I’d call feminist if she’d let me) on the internet.

Every person who donates will receive a gift!

For those who donate between:

$5-25: You will get a personalized thank you note from yours truly!

$26-50: You will get the personalized thank you note and a newly published zine!

$51-100: You will get the personalized thank you note, and two newly published zines!

Over $100: You will get the personalized thank you note, two newly published zines, and a surprise gift (I will tell you once you order–I only have certain quantities of each, so I don’t want to list them online!).

The bad news: Because this computer breaking down has taken me by surprise, I am only in the planning stages for the zines. So it will be up to two months before those of you who order zines will get them. So that you know what stage I am at making the zines, I will be documenting the process I go through to make them here on the blog. This has the added bonus of hopefully helping other people–so many people I know have expressed interest in making zines, but have also expressed not having any damn clue how to.

So, that’s what is where things stand right now. I hope that you are excited–I sure am. I’m a bit apprehensive as I know it will be a lot of work–but I also am really excited for the motivation to get these new zines out! I love zine making, and I’m really excited to get back to the drawing board again–see how things flow out of the mind this time.

Please donate and/or spread the word–and THANK YOU so much for your continuous support!

Step Two: Bid on Nezua‘s Sheriff Joe painting which gives you both the chance to raise awareness about the blatant racism in Arizona and keep an amazing activist blogger and multimedia radical working/eating.

HARD TIMES HAVE FALLEN UPON US ALL! I know this for sure simply watching the donations I once received from readers—unsolicited aside from the buttons on the page—dry up over the past year or two. It’s tough out there, and it’s not just blog donations but even work online with graphics that has tapered off a lot. In fact, I was bumped offline for two weeks for not being able to pay all the bills this month. And to be honest, this is the first time since I’ve lived in this apartment that I don’t have all the rent this close to the first of next month. Ouch. That’s four days away.

I’m not trying to paint a doom n gloom scenario. … So I’m going to do something here I’ve not done in a while and humble myself to make the direct request to my philanthropist friends, or the ones who have a few to throw down to support their friendly neighborhood nezua: if you have a few, throw ‘em in the bucket!

Alternately, I have put one of my paintings up at eBay, and I invite you to bid, or spread the link around if you want. It’s an 18 x 24″ Lotería card of the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Times are tough for everyone, but with both activists asking for as little as $5 a person, we should all be able to come up with a little something to help them out. The coffee and pastry I bought today cost more than their minimum donation request. And if a distaste for “blegging” (a multi-directional derogatory term that conflates the use of online media and the desire to be paid for one’s writing, film, or activism work with the “undeserving poor”) is getting in your way,  just remember all the times you have talked about, worked on, or simply lamented in the front of a classroom, staff mtg, dinner party, etc. about the absence of radical, engaged, people of color at your events, jobs, or in the media and know that this is the tiniest of steps toward making the connection between words and action. For my POC readers, all I can say is, community means sharing the wealth even when you don’t have any; the wheel will turn and someone will have your back too.

Dr. Who Take II: The Beast Below (A Super Quickie – Spoilers)

BBC 2010

For those who thought I was exaggerating about some of my long time Dr. Who fan companions who said they would not watch after last week’s episode, I am sad to report, I watched this week’s episode alone. That’s right, they were that turned off by last week. I, on the other hand, am semi-glad I watched again this week, because many of the things that turned me off last week were absent from this episode. As I predicted, the show’s “new” creative team knows a considerable amount about the genre and the reboot and really can give us something good if they try. That said, this episode’s plot was still re-tweaked re-hash from the last 5 years and worse, the Doctor comes across as morally reprehensible. Here’s the breakdown:

Plot:

Dr. Who and Amy Pond arrive on a ship with a mysterious and seemingly dangerous creature at the heart of the ship that the inhabitants mostly do not know about.

Sound familiar? It should. Remember when David Tennant arrived on the space ship with the alien that was eating people while they walked around in a daze? Moffat’s only new contribution to the rehash is to shift the alien’s motivation.

BBC 2010

They are also policed by creatures called The Smilers, who also seem like a mix of other villains from both Torchwood and Dr. Who past. I think they are supposed to be scary, but truthfully, how many times can we see statues move, change expression, or otherwise come to life before we point to every statue on the show and think “I bet that is an evil alien or at least made by one!”? Worse, the Smilers have me thinking of a particularly famous Buffy episode … I’m just sayin’, Whedon does it better by a mile.

(And while I am being nitpicky, didn’t the queen’s guard look like he had been shopping in Obi-Wan’s closet? But that I hope was a nod to scifi geekdom more than ripoff.)

Gender:

This episode gives us two adult female characters and one little girl, all of whom are central to the plot. The little girl is mostly absent from the episode, except as the motivation for the Doctor’s arrival and for the final plot twist. She acts as an archetype, damsel in distress, spelled out for us on more than one occasion because they writers are not content to just give us a stereotype, they have to make sure we know it is one.

The other two women, Pond and Liz 10, are strong, intelligent, self-sufficient, and essential to the plot. While Pond, fully clothed this time out, offers the heart of the show this episode, Liz 10 is all action. When the Doctor can’t seem to rescue himself or Pond from the mouth of the ship, Liz 10 comes to the rescue doing her best impression of a caped crusader meets a Martha Jones – Gwen Cooper hybrid. Both female roles are much more solid, much less stereotypical, and far more respectful overall than last week.

BBC 2010

Race:

Liz 10 is Afro-British and also the Queen of England. On the one hand, there isn’t much to say about race in this episode except for the “surprise” shift in the image of The Crown. On the other, Liz 10′s leadership oscillates amongst seemingly duped monarch, under cover spy, and morally reprehensible torturer. She is almost always clueless about her own rule, her own age, her own cabinet, etc. And while I liked her personality, I cannot decide whether her cluelessness and culpability are a comment on the promise of hope and change versus the realities of status quo or something all together more insiduous.

I feel the same ambivalence toward the white porcelain mask she wears when doing her sluething; when she is the duped Queen, she appears in her own smiling face, but when she thinks they are not looking, she dons a white mask and roams the ship. Again, the meanings are likely multiple, with both astute comment on the meaning of the British subject and problematic equations of good and evil with racial stereotype.

A similar shift happens with one of her guards who is Afro-British when he walks in and asks her to do something and then his head spins into an angry smiler when she refuses; smilers are white. The seeming reversal of race-moral character is incomplete since both versions of the guard want her to do something she does not want to do and both are in on the torture.

There is something there in the messages about race, but they are so subtle as to be innocuous. Honestly, I think we’ll have to wait for more episodes before I can really weigh in on race issues. (I have already mentioned some of the positive shifts in ethnicity issues on the show in the previous review)

Matt Smith as Dr. Who:

The good news is that Smith has already moved away from his bad Tennant impression. This means that the yelling, strutting about, and general mania are all gone from his performance. While I find his interpretation of Tennant insulting, the fact is I’m glad most of the truly annoying parts of his inaugural performance was him trying to be David and not the way he was approaching the role for good. Smith did an outstanding job of showing the more serious side of the Doctor this time out as well. His range of emotions was spot on for what his character goes through in this episode and he revealed an angry streak that could lead to some fascinating episodes in the future.

That said, the jerky movements, cocky stride, and condescension of last week seem to be core elements of Smith’s Doctor. Some of these things, like the jerky movements, are off-putting, others are a matter of taste. There have been cocky Doctors before and I have liked many of them … and, yet there is something about Smith that still does not sit right for me. All I can say is that I’ll probably like him well enough in a year or two, but I think the condescension coupled with the morally challenged nature of this doctor are really pushing the bounds of what we have all come to love about Dr. Who.

Moffat’s Doctor (or specism):

Moffat continues to flatten out the wonderful complexity of the main character or at least allow the writers and actor to do so. This episode was particularly egregious in the sense that the Doctor was willing to murder the last of a majestic species to save a few 1000 British people who were either directly involved in or complicit in the torture of an animal for 100s of years for their own benefit. Worse, he made the choice to side with abusers while being indignant about the abuse.

While, thanks to Amy, the episode ends on the moral high ground, the Doctor’s decision left him morally reprehensible in my eyes. Dr. Who has killed many creatures in his time but most of those creatures were guilty of torture, abuse, domination, or simply snacking on humans because the could. To kill a majestic creature who had been aiding the survival of the human race so that a handful of British subjects could continue to live docile lives in space is offensive at best. When one factors in that the origin story, in which the British did not move fast enough to save their own country nor take time out to determine what the creature wanted when it originally appeared, and the fact that 100s of years have passed since the torture began without a single person in power trying to figure out an alternative way to power and navigate a space ship (something everyone else in the universe manages to do just fine), the Doctor’s choice to save the humans over the space whale is incomprehensibly wrong.

We’ve just spent 4 years watching the Doctor confront the demons of being a Time Lord. From the very beginning of the reboot, we are told he is the last Time Lord because of a war that ended his race and that war has left huge scars. As the years have moved forward, the Doctor has sworn over and over again that he will not commit nor participate in genocide, and he has only gone back on his word when to do so meant preventing the genocide of another species. The space whale has killed no one, threatened no one, and does not have the ability to commit genocide, and yet Mofatt’s Doctor Who would kill the whale to save the human beings who trapped and tortured it for 100s of years, for no other reason than he likes human beings.

Gone is the Doctor who questioned his emotional and physical impact on companions, worlds, even time. In his place, a cavalier and self-righteous #11 who brazenly calls back fleeing aliens who threatened the earth just to chastise them up close and decides to kill the last of a majestic race just to save a handful of humans who tortured it shamelessly for 100s of years. Who is this man and where is his moral compass?

Final Verdict:

The look and feel of the show is still recognizable Dr. Who magic. For those who do not recognize or care about the unabashed rehashes every week, the storylines are obviously in keeping with what we have come to expect. And while there are things that still remain disconcerting, the leap from episode 1 to 2 this season has been large enough to quell my fears. I’m still watching, and if you are, please feel free to weigh in.

4 Things You Can Do to Restore Civil Rights in AZ

By now, we have all heard about SB 1070, the latest maneuver by State Government and/or Legislature in Arizona to target Latin@s living in the state. This past year alone, such efforts have included the second attempt to remove key Chican@ history from high schools in a law that would have made it possible to do away with all multicultural, women’s, and/or gender and sexuality history from schools, employment review of some high profile Chican@ advocates working for the state and/or intimidation of state employees questioning discriminatory policing and other government practices,  and the ongoing efforts of Sheriff Joe Arpaio to criminalize Latin@s at the expense of other, needed, community policing. Immigrant rights advocates and civil rights advocates banned together to draw attention to the impact of Sheriff Joe on both race and gender relations in Arizona, citing the absence of follow through on rape cases in order to patrol the border, the increase in petty crime and theft with a weapon, in his district without much response or with response times that have grown every year, making it impossible to catch criminals, and the use of chain gangs and tent prisons in 100+ degree weather, and the rise in racial profiling that was literally targeting all Chican@s in the area and occasionally resulting in young children, N. American citizens, being left on the side of the road, when their parents were carted away and permanently traumatized regardless of whether they had other care providers available. These actions, have already led to Arizona becoming a place where predators who target children, women, and isolated businesses and families thrive because they know that little, if any, energy is being put into investigating their crimes. According to some advocates, rape evidence has been allowed to degrade while Sheriff Joe and his deputies do random searches of families out for a drive. The racial divides in AZ have gotten so bad, that local radio stations actively encourage racist sexism and sexualized violence against Latin@ advocates like Isabel Garcia without much apology and whole communities have been repeatedly pamphleted by supremacist organizations.

Yesterday, despite widespread criticism from both local and national communities, including the President of the United States, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 2010 into law. The bill gives AZ police the right to stop anyone suspected of being undocumented with Arizona borders. The law erodes recent Federal attempts to reign in Sheriff Joe’s racial profiling and seemingly discriminatory policing practices and streamline border patrol efforts. These attempts were not, as some have argued, an attempt to ignore or give a free pass to undocumented people, but rather to draw a permanent line between immigration reform and white supremacy in which the latter was no longer welcome. Finally, the law increases militarization at the border, both in terms of increases in advanced technology at the border and the number of armed border patrol officers and “aids” stationed there, including members of the national guard when/if necessary.

The impact of signing the law far outreaches the legal expansion of discrimination in the state. By signing the bill under scrutiny from the President, Governor Brewer joins a growing trend of conservative Governors and Mayors who have publicly questioned the fundamental powers of the Union in which we live and declared the autonomy of their states in the face of Federal guidelines they have cast as racially insensitive, unequal, or dangerous to white people. These efforts include, casting the health care bill as anti-white or biased toward black people, in an era in which white people are losing their homes and their jobs at an equal or greater rate than people of color over lack off access to medical care or ability to pay rising insurance costs, claims that the President’s support of education and educational reform are about indoctrinating children against “family values”, and now the insistence that border & immigration reform that would have radically reduced the role Sheriff Joe played in AZ were akin to allowing a sea of undocumented (and shiftlessly criminal) people of color into the state. As with all of these examples, SB 2010s symbolic impact is a racial line in the sand that calls for the state sanctioned harassment of people on the basis of their skin color while at the same time, joining a chorus of people questioning the legitimacy of a black president and subsequently re/claiming the nation, citizenry, and governance, as whites only space.

The impact of this law is thus both legally and symbolically important to all of us. So far reports of similar policing in AZ have included issues such as:

  1. costing tax payers in Maricopa County $42 million in settlements for police brutality, unlawful search and seizure, and racial profiling
  2. leaving children on the side of the road to fend for themselves when parents are arrested
  3. decreased school performance and sense of safety for children
  4. the failure to investigate rape reports in a timely manner or, in some cases, at all to police Latin@s
  5. the incarceration of nursing mothers with no access to their children
  6. the breaking of a Chican@s’ arm while in custody for refusing to sign paperwork saying she would return to Mexico
  7. sexual assault of undocumented women by people either associated with or claiming to be associated with Border Patrol or border policing
  8. forcing Latin@ truck drivers to produce birth certificates to move products across the state (think 16 wheelers bringing your produce, the new furniture or fridge your going to buy at the big box store, etc.)
  9. the increase in armed theft
  10. the increase in petty criminality in isolated communities
  11. lack of safety for women, children, and families who are Latin@, interracial, indigenous, or other wise brown appearing
  12. increased open and publicly applauded connections to supremacy
  13. increased public connection between policing and racial profiling that makes everyone who “looks” brown unsafe
  14. the militarization and granting of state policing powers to largely untrained civilians who do not have to pass similar inspection or comply with state laws governing police conduct
  15. the harassment of journalists and attempted policing of news readers

The National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights has released a 4 point effort that anyone concerned about these issues can do to help restore civil rights in Arizona:

TAKE FOUR ACTIONS

NNIRR urges you take four actions NOW to take a stand for justice and human rights.

  1. Raise your voices for fairness and equality at the border. – Call Gov. Brewer’s office and tell her SB 1070 is a disaster for the rights of all our communities. SB 1070 will intensify racial discrimination, criminalization of immigrants – or anyone who does not pass as white or a U.S. citizen. CALL (602) 542-4331 | You can also email Gov. Brewer at: azgov@az.gov
  2. Organize a house-meeting, a vigil and other actions to express support for immigrant rights in Arizona and in your community. Also ask your family members, co-workers, neighbors and friends to talk about what is happening in Arizona. Ask them to make calls and send emails to Gov. Brewer with this message: We are all Arizona. Your law cannot break our spirit of community; your law will not stand. Racial profiling and racial discrimination are illegal and SB 1070 will be stopped.
  3. Build the movement for justice & human rights – tell President Obama to roll back the hate and end all immigration police-collaboration initiatives. Call President Obama to  ask him to speak out against the climate of hate and SB 1070. SB 1070 depends on federal immigration policing programs. Ask President Obama to roll-back the federal immigration enforcement programs that allow local police agencies to collaborate in immigration control. The 287(g) and Secure Communities programs are encouraging the kind of hateful activity we are witnessing in Arizona. CALL the White House at (202) 456-1111.
  4. Give direct support and express your solidarity to communities organizing on the ground in Arizona.

Students around the N. American Southwest, organized walkouts, marches, and protests in solidarity with Arizona. In Arizona, high school and college students also took to the streets in peaceful protests and marches in the hopes of being heard. In many communities, the first of May, ie May Day, will also be an opportunity to stand up for immigrants’ rights, immigration reform without racism, and to participate in the annual call to draw attention to and remove Sheriff Joe. Please be looking out for these efforts in your area as well as considering doing one or more of the four steps above. While you may not live in AZ, we are all ultimately impacted by the turn toward, public, state sanctioned racism, in N America. And the stats about rape cases, petty and weapon related theft, should make both women’s advocates and people in general concerned about their own safety even if they think they are unimpacted by the rise in hate crimes and racial profiling.

The 11th Hour (a Dr. Who Review)

deviant art/dtd studios

Long time readers of the blog know two things about me, if nothing else, 1. I am a huge Dr. Who fan who watches from both a fan and academic perspective and 2. I oppose the tweening of SciFi, including Dr. Who.  While I oppose the tweening of Dr. Who and other SciFi shows, I have seen every episode of Dr. Who, found things to like in some of the lesser seasons, and overlooked how poorly the low budget translated in the first season of the Dr. Who reboot, all because I truly love the mythos and the magic of the show and because I have the privilege to do academic work on it as well. So, you should know that I watched the 11th Doctor’s debut with the same fan energy and intellectual commitment as I would any other.

The Plot

Matt Smith as the new Doctor, is still transitioning from his former self. As such, he is having a hard time controlling the TARDIS and other well known devices (ie the screw driver). However, time does not wait for a Time Lord to sort things out, so the Doctor finds himself in small town England discovering the prison break of a dangerous alien through a crack in a young Scottish girl’s wall while he is still transitioning. As the episode unfolds, the Doctor moves in and out of Amelia Pond’s life, with little regard to his impact on her, while trying to stop the escaped alien’s guards from incinerating Earth.

BBC 2010

The Good

Karen Gillan does a great job as companion, Amelia Pond. She brings a nice mix of dead pan/incredulity and excitement to the role. Her cynicism, born out of unintentional abandonment by the Doctor when she was a child, seems much more palatable than that of Donna Noble. While Tate’s Noble was often judgmental and grating, Gillan comes at Pond’s cynicism from a place of hurt that wants to heal. And while both characters embodied a healthy modern interpretation of how anyone would react to the Doctor, Gillan’s character also lacks the sometimes questionable crassness of Tate’s choice in her role as Noble. This is important not only for the longevity of the character but also because of the sometimes negative stereotypes about the working class that Gillan’s Pond seems to shed.

For me, it was also a nice nod to Doctor’s past that Pond is Scottish and allowed to speak with her Scottish accent. While it may just represent the shift to a Scottish producer, ie Moffat, one needs only ask how many people in the Whoniverse have had to stifle their accent to get the job done to know this is an important shift in the ethnic representations of the show. One quibble, however, is that Gillan’s accent fades in and out throughout the episode. At some points her accent is thick enough that some N. American audiences will have trouble understanding her and at others she sounds English. Given that Gillan is in fact Scottish, the shifts feel very odd. They also represent a very minor indication of a larger problem with directing in this episode: often, the decisions the actors make seem to be completely without direction or directed by someone whose vision needs more editing.

The Bad

BBC 2010

The plot of “The 11th Hour” is essentially rehash of several different Dr. Who episodes with a dash or two of Torchwood ones. There is nothing new nor fresh about the escaped alien prisoner and the possible explosion of the world. In fact, I think one of the first Tennant episodes covered the same territory early in his time as the 10th Doctor. Worse, according to the “First Look” information, Moffat came up with the idea based on the combination of wondering about what caused a huge crack in his son’s wall and curiosity about what one sees or misses out of the corner of their eye. I don’t know what is worse, Moffat’s insipid inspiration or the fact that he thinks this rehash was born solely out of it. Given that Moffat wrote some of the most moving episodes of Dr. Who and that he is a long time fan of the show, I expected so much more from his first time at the helm.

despite tagging on this image, the real copyright belongs to BBC 2010

In keeping with the tweening of the series, I think this is the first time the show has every wasted 10-15 minutes on toilet humor. While many of the Doctors have included transition jokes, like spitting out food they once liked or mocking the clothes they once wore, Moffat has Smith tasting an endless supply of increasingly liquid based foods and then spewing them out from different camera angles. He is aided in this stupidity by the young Amelia Pond, who is there to remind us: this is funny. Perhaps this kind of humor is entertaining in the genres Moffat is more familiar with as a writer, but in Whoville it plays like a bad episode of Pee Wee’s Playhouse minus the irony and wit.

No one watching the episode with me laughed. In fact, the combination of a young amused child and an adult behaving like a two year old with his food made everyone at my house question the taste level of season 5. It did not help that the background music to these scenes was the same cartoonish score they use in children’s programming … I’m not sure any adult watching was particularly interested in seeing Smith spit out his food over and over again, but I feel fairly certain no one was entertained by him finally settling on yellow pudding spooned into his mouth with fish sticks. As the father of a young child, Moffat may have been nodding to new parents, but let’s be clear, that is not his demographic. Intimately tied to the poor directorial decisions in this episode is the potential to alienate true Dr. Who fans in order to get younger hipper ones. (And can I just say, I resent that fans are characterized as neither young nor hip in these decisions?!?) Worse, none of this inane behavior is tied back to the plot with the exception of an apple he rejects at the beginning of this farce.

That Face, London’s Royal Court 2007

Also in keeping with the tweening of the series, Matt Smith’s Doctor Who is given to vernacular. At one point, near the end of the episode, he throws up his arms and shouts “whose your daddy?” While even the characters around him frown with disdain, the fact is they put in the script and the show. Something that clearly is meant to stick is Smith’s constant thumbs up to both the camera and the people around him when he talks. It’s an affectation that both annoys and speaks more to the age of the actor than the remaking of the character. His other references are a little less well known, and some involve unsuccessful, or banal, gay innuendo.

Moffat is straight and it sho. Davies introduced us to a mainstream SciFi world in which sexuality was fluid and characters identified across the spectrum. In Davies’ Whoniverse, characters who had picked a team were still at ease switch hitting or at least flirting with the idea. It made the series hot without resorting to typical sexist and otherizing gazes that permeate Moffat’s new world order. Surprisingly, given that Moffat gave us the first incarnation of Captain Jack Harkness, Moffat’s Whoniverse is a landscape in which Davies’ well scripted fluidity falls flat. While many of the jokes are at no one’s expense, they are executed by Smith in such a way as to permanently cement the character in a heterosexist narrative. The circulation of images of Smith from his outstanding role as Henry in That Face, a play about a confused young man, sexually molested by his mother and forced to wear her dresses, are misleading at best. The PR machine hopes that the sight of Smith in a dress will call up the playful goodness of both Tennant and Barrowman and ensure that those of us who are drawn to the queering of scifi will come a running. The reality is, that Smith looks no more comfortable in a dress in these shots than he does making gay innuendo in The 11th Hour, nor, at least in the case of the former, should he, since the decision to put him in a dress is not his own. Effectively playing opposite transmisogyny and homophobia is not the same thing as being able to embody sexual ambiguity or effectively convey insider humor. You don’t have to be gay to get it but you do have to be able to act beyond the basics.

Similar failures can be found in the handling of women in this episode. There are two women besides Pond, one of whom is a woman of color. The women of color, an Asian, plays the stereotypical role of dragon lady doctor. The other woman, an elder, fulfills the same role most non-main character elder women have on who, i.e. the quirky busy body who recognizes the Doctor immediately.

While Pond is a strong and funny woman with a mind of her own, the character also embodies several female stereotypes. As a child, she unquestioningly allows a stranger into her home and cooks him a number of meals without question. Despite being young, she is at ease in the kitchen. Smith’s Doctor is comfortable allowing her to stand on tiptoe to heat his food rather than help or do it himself. In fact he orders her around like she was made to cook and serve him. As an adult, Pond is a “kiss-a-gram” worker, which I can only assume is the tweened up side of sex work. Despite the fact that we are supposed to believe Pond is a Police Officer, she is in a uniform with shorty shorts and fishnet stockings with the proverbial line up the back of each leg. The camera makes sure to give us several long slow shots of her legs in these first reintroduction scenes, lest we miss it. And Pond wears this outfit throughout the episode despite it being inappropriate for the amount of running she needs to do. If you look at the image at the start of this section, you will see Gillan running while trying to hold the shorts down so as not to flash anyone. It’s insulting.

Thai Soldier

In fact, many of the early reviews have had little more to say about Gillan or Dr. Who than that they are “sexy.” SciFi Wire’s review is almost entirely about Gillan’s fishnet stalkings and the long slow shot that introduces them. Other reviews have been illustrated by similar montages to the one above, which was taken from a review that mentioned nothing else but Gillan’s “sexiness.” Not only does this behavior prove my point that Pond’s intelligence is overshadowed for many viewers by the objectifying camera gaze and costuming, but early releases of other shots of Gillan’s wardrobe imply that her skirt length will likely always be this high. Like many young actresses weened on a watered down version of “girl power” Gillan sees using sex appeal on the screen as empowering. When she is the one making the costume decisions, determining the angles at which she is shot, and how she embodies the character, she is absolutely right. As a femme, I could not possibly argue that being in control of one’s sex appeal is anything short of powerful. My concern here however is that Gillan is not the one making these decisions nor are they being made to increase the character’s power or depict female sexual power in general. Instead, Gillan’s gams, wide eyes, and fiery hair, are being used to bring in the pre-teen male viewer. Her body has been part of the marketing campaign to get people to watch the first episode and her costumes are part of the ploy to keep them watching. Why not trust that Gillan is an outstanding actress and market her as such? Why not trust that Dr. Who has a loyal following that would watch, and has watched, some very unattractive people in major roles on the series? These are the questions I think we need to ask about gender while watching this latest incarnation of the show. Moreover, they are questions that I think run markedly counter to previous visions for the show, especially with regards to the sort of feminist revamp of the companion role in it.

It should be noted that the gaze is supposedly shifted when the Doctor changes his clothes near the end of the episode. In a particularly homophobic moment, Pond’s boyfriend freaks out about Doctor Who changing his clothes in front of them and demands he stop. The Doctor simply tells him to turn around if he is bothered, which he does amidst loud proclamations of disgust. Pond, on the other hand, stands there drinking it in with a wide smirk on her face. Rather than subversive, this scene serves two purposes: 1. to once again cement the overarching heterosexist vision of the new series and 2. shift criticism of the sexist cinematic gaze by equating Gillan with the viewer. The problem with the second, is that there are no accompanying slow shots of Matt Smith’s body to objectify him nor his potential objectification steeped in oppressive gender norms. Put another way, he is an object for a brief moment and only to Pond, while Pond is an object for anyone interested throughout the episode, in the marketing campaign, and possibly throughout the season.

In Style Magazine/unattributed

When Pond signs on as the new companion, she is not allowed to pack her own things like other companions. The Doctor simply tells her, there’s plenty of leftovers in the TARDIS for her to choose from. This episode was full of leftovers, the female companion should not be one of them.

Moffat also fails to adequately address the transition from Tennant’s broken-hearted refusal to have a companion in the last season to Smith’s open search for one. Pond asks the Doctor why he wants her to come with him and he responds by saying he was lonely and had started to talk to himself. The Doctor had been lonely for quite some time and that did not seem to matter. Worse, the previous Doctor had spent a considerable amount of time considering the impact of his presence on the women around him. This first episode of the 11th Doctor was defined by this same preoccupation, the Doctor drifts in and out of Amelia’s life irreparably changing who she is and how people see her, and yet he is the only one who does not seem to notice. He does not ask her what has happened to her since his last visit on either return. When he finds out that she has been forced to go to a series of mental health providers and mocked by townspeople, he neither apologizes nor attempts to rectify it. There isn’t even a moment when he stops to think about what he has already done to her life in the context of his promise to never disrupt another companion’s life again. And while we are all clear that the Doctor could not possibly keep from causing disruption in people’s lives, and that he is better with someone than without them, it does an extreme disservice to this storyline to have the 11th Doctor not only fail to recognize his impact but to appear indifferent to it in the face of some serious consequences.

When he whisks her away, he doesn’t even bother to find out if she has other plans, and in the ultimate rehash, it turns out she does: like the other red-headed companion of late, Amelia Pond is joining the Doctor when she is supposed to be getting married. The mix of old storylines and new anti-introspection bravado is one of the largest disappointments of the series next to the fish stick pudding stupidity. While the Doctor is supposed to be new each time, there is no reason to write in so much old information only to leave it unresolved. From the failure to address his impact to his ignoring all the references to Pond’s crush on him,  this Doctor’s self-absorption insults the storyline to date and fails to reflect the critical lessons he has supposedly learned. Again this is a failure on the part of both directing and writing, either give us a new Doctor divorced from past issues or deal with his past in a legitimate way. At the very least, direct Smith to look tone down his mania and look introspective in these moments.

dtd studios 2009

Finally, my opinion of Matt Smith as the Doctor remains on shaky ground. According to one of the people who watched the episode with me, Matt Smith’s performance “was so over the top” and annoying. It was as if Smith had watched Tennant at his most manic and turned it up 20 notches. He was in constant motion throughout this episode in ways that were dizzying rather than plot related and he also delivered most of his lines in a yell that was meant to convey urgency and really just came across as loud. While Tennant’s babbling and occasional grandiosity were endearing, precisely because they were meant to highlight the strange and “human” parts of Dr. Who, Smith’s seems like a bad parody for the Graham Norton Show. It grates early and often.

At least one of my companions walked out based on the combination of the food scene and Smith’s performance and another said several times that he would not be watching again as long as Smith was in the role. (Smith has a 5 year contract, so that is a really long time to not watch.) For my part, I tried to remember something Tennant himself had said about a photo from his first episode, “Oh yeah, that’s me doing my best impression of Eccleston.” In that episode, Tennant seemed oddly out of place as well. He still wore Eccleston’s signature leather jacket and tried to strut around the way Eccleston had. It was only in the second and third episodes that Eccleston’s ghost wore off and Tennant’s new version of the Doctor came to life. At the time, I remember worrying that Tennant was the wrong choice for the role; looking back on it, I think his ability to both embody Eccleston and make that embodiment seem strange and wrong, was an early sign of his genius. While I can’t say that Matt Smith is that kind of genius, his performance was clearly a parody of Tennant and did show signs of recognizing the subtleties of human interaction and the compassion that makes the Doctor so magnetic, even if those signs were rare and fleeting. If both Smith and the director can move away from the mania, I do think he has a chance to make the character his own and to give us something worth watching. My viewing companions, disagree.

Conclusions

Ive seen some really bad episodes of Dr. Who over the years, so it would not be fair to say this is one of the worst one’s I’ve ever seen. What I can say is that it was both insipid and insulting on multiple levels. The writing had little to no redeeming qualities and the plot had even less. The acting was uneven, with the supporting characters far outshining the main one. Both sexism and heterosexism seeped into this episode in complete defiance of the standards previously set. And yet, Gillan’s performance and Smith’s mostly hidden, but still slightly visible, potential make me want to give it another go.

Moffat is best known for his comedic writing and I think that is going to work against him here. However, he is a life long fan of Dr. Who, who has written several introspective and powerful episodes of the reboot in his time. I believe he can give us a brilliant new Doctor if he tries. Perhaps all he needs is for the acting, writing, and directing teams to gel. For now, belief in the franchise is all that will be bringing me back to watch the show next week that drove other fans watching in my house out of the room (and in one case to drink).

You should note, other people really loved this episode and their reviews are available online for those looking for a contrasting opinion.

All the Promises We Made …

Post edited for clarity and grammar

Long time readers know that I hate commitments. I try not to make them on the blog because inevitably I fail to keep them. Perhaps I have a problem with authority … (yes, I hear you laughing & it’s ok, I am laughing with you). Nevertheless, I really, really, meant to do a Friday health post every Friday. Truly I did … but as per usual, life got in the way.

So here’s the harsh truth, I didn’t fulfill my commitment to walking 30 minutes a day every day this week with GirlTrek. As a person with disabilities that impact my mobility, any commitment to long term, sustained, movement is refracted through what my body is or is not capable of on any given day. This of course runs counter to the Reagan era slogan “anyone can walk 30 minutes a day” that has been repeated from the top down so often that no one even stops to consider the limits of ability; or worse, they assume those limits are a direct result of your lack of participation not that your participation depends on the lack of your limits. In this discourse of health, there is no room for modification. The belief that large women or inactive women are sloth-like and differently-abled people are whiners who have internalized their own victimhood are embedded at every level of the Western world’s obsession with “health.” In fact, the discourses of health currently circulated in the U.S. have far more in common with eugenicism than the people supporting them seem to understand. The emphasis on perfect bodies and “restraint” as a sign of “moral fortitude” coupled with societally accepted judgment and even threat of harm against those whose bodies, and even attitudes, fail to conform to an arbitrary ideal were the precursors to several genocides on our planet. While the conflict has often been shaped along the lines of fatphobia and “health”, the hidden targets have always been differently-abled people who fat or thin may not be able to meet these able-bodied norms.

Since I live in the land of the able-bodied, my abilities are hidden, and at least with regards to my mobility issues they are adult onset, I find myself often succumbing to the myth of universal ability. While I would never expect others to bend their bodies to an able-bodied norm, I still, occasionally, believe that I can. So on Monday morning of last week, despite all the warning signs, I laced up my tennis shoes, got our two endurance walker dogs leashed up, and began my trek. My thoughts were simple: The pain you feel in your leg is psychosomatic, if you just do it, it will go away. Raise your hands if you have ever been told that your not really differently-abled, it’s your diet or your lack of exercise that is in the way? When other people say it, I call ableist fail, when I said it to myself I just let that internalized lie take me straight into the mouth of pain.

10 blocks later, I could not walk at all. My knee buckled underneath me and sent me to the ground. Sitting there in a crumpled heap on the sidewalk, I remembered the day that I permanently damaged muscle, bone, spine … I remembered all the rehab and the way my colleagues treated me. In the first week they were sympathetic, in the second they began to wonder why I was not better since I was “not in a cast.” By the third week they began to act as though I was faking it and by month’s end I had been summarily dismissed from multiple curriculum, awards, and fellowship committees “due to non-attendance” as if my 5 days a week of physical therapy was optional and their decision to hold meetings during those hours was not. I could not even get into my office because the door into the building was made extra heavy to keep out the cold, so heavy that neither I nor anyone in a wheel chair could ever hope to get the door open on our own & the genius who designed the building put the buzzers on the inside doors but not the outside ones. Imagine for a moment being reprimanded for not holding office hours in a building where you have to literally wait for up to 30 minutes in the ice and the snow for some student or colleague to come by to open the door for you … Come to think of it, that was the year I decided to leave Snooty Poo U.

Luckily, I live on a fairly active street. Young kids run up and down it, several dog owners walk their dogs through it, and yes, the gang bangers down the street hold huge summits and drug runs through it as well. In fact, it was one of the latter who helped me up. He looked at me, sitting on someone’s lawn with my dogs, smiled, and asked if I could stand up. If I were just a little more bourgeois, I might have said yes and waited like a dumba** for someone else to come and help. (And to be clear, no able bodied middle class folk who passed me that morning offered to help before he came by.) Instead of internalizing race and class based fear, the way some of the gentrifying new neighbors did when they crossed the street to avoid walking by me, I told him the truth.  He in turn reached his large tatted arm out to me, so I could grab it and lift myself. The gesture, designed to allow me to have the most power possible in a situation in which I needed an aid to get to my feet, made me wonder if he had differently-abled relatives or had learned how to be helpful to differently-abled people without ablism in some class. Sad thing is, even when people are helping you, most of them do it in a way that infantalizes you and renders you dependent.

He walked me back to my house, while taking a phone call.

When we got there, he said “You know mami, you look good in sweats but maybe you should go to the gym or somethin’ where they have people to watch out for you.” Ya se fue his anti-ablism in sea of sexism meant to make me feel better about by abilities. It’s ok that I can’t walk because I am pretty …

Two days later, when I could feel my leg again, I laced up my shoes again. This time I was listening to my body and my body said, “walk for 30 minutes, ehh, let’s make it an hour.” I didn’t need people to watch out for me like an infant, I needed to watch out for myself.

And as I came around the large hill back down toward my neighborhood, the gang bangers car with the painted faces for every person they’ve “dealt with” drove by me. It slowed and then backed up right against the curb where I was. The boy who helped me two days before leaned out the window, and asked “You got this profesora or you need a ride” and his boys laughed at his double entendre.

I smiled back and said “If I get a ride, then how is the whole neighborhood gonna know how good I look in my sweats?!?”

As they drove away, my mind wandered back to the way our culture ties concepts of beauty to the myth of healthy bodies to able bodied norms. I thought about how my tumble days before had forced me to face my own internalized ableism, turned solely in on myself, and the way my two exchanges with the young man from my neighborhood both deconstructed and reinforced the connections between sexism, ableism, and “health” that underpin oppressions even as it undermined discourses of class and the engendering of fear. For a moment, I was embodied theory; my life, was the reminder that our discourses disable and only when we look past them can we really succeed. It is not about being a supercrip or the cool professor who can hang with the gangbangers, it is about moving past isms to listen to oneself and one’s own body to do what is right for not only your own survival but ultimately everyone else’s.

So, I didn’t walk for 30 minutes a day this past week. I walked when my body said it was ok and I swam when it did not. And some days I staid home. And while that may not fly with any program that assumes “everyone can walk for 30 minutes a day” (a statement put out by the government and physicians invested in the “get healthy” movement, not by GirlTrek itself), I’m done internalizing the ableism.

—–

Please note, that everyone’s abilities are different and that some people can and do walk every day without incident. As the images from the paralympics show, differently-abled athletes challenge the normative thinking that differently-abled people are handicapped by their abilities and therefore unable to do sports or to compete. The reality is, assuming anyone can or cannot do something on the basis of their ability is based on ableist assumptions. We know our bodies and we know how to listen to them. And like everyone else, we do have days where not wanting to do something manifests physically and has nothing to do with our ability to do that thing, and most of us can and do differentiate between those moments and actual physical limitations. The point of my story is that I chose not to listen to my body in order to fit into a discourse of health that blatantly ignores, erases, or punishes physical difference and what I learned about myself from it.

All images come from the Beijing Paralympics and are unattributed.

A Testament to Evil

A verdict has come in, in the August murder of Roberto González Onrubia in Spain. In 2006 Onrubia reached out to two homeless cis women, Dolores de los Reyes Navarro and Ainhoa Nogales Bergantiños, in the hopes of providing them an opportunity to get back on their feet. While the potential “guilty liberal” politics of such a decision are questionable, they did not justify the violence and humiliation Reyes Navarro and Bergantiños heaped upon him for the misguided attempt to help them out. Within a few months of moving in, they took over his home and kept him prisoner in his bedroom while they sold his mother’s jewelry and his inherited stamp collection. His attempts to free himself where met with both physical violence and transphobic and cissupremacist sexual threats. On more than one occasion Reyes Navarro and Bergantiños forced Onrubia to wear women’s clothing and threatened to prostitute him for additional cash. They did it both to humiliate him as a trans man and to intimidate him sexually, relying on both transphobia and sexism in the sex industry to menace Onrubia as much as their own behavior. They also forced him to give up much of the outward markers that allowed him to live in his chosen gender while again filming the abuse.

When the two women had sold all of the furniture and possessions in Onrubia’s home, they beat him to death.

Onrubia’s was found, disfigured by physical abuse, dead in his own excrement and urine. It was clear he had been forced to spend an unknown amount of months living and sleeping on the same mattress where he was forced to go to the bathroom rather than be allowed to use the facilities in the home. He was also extremely malnurished at the time of his death; Reyes Navarro and Bergantiños took pleasure in denying him food and may have even linked the starvation to their transphobic torture by telling him his dwindling body helped him look “more like a man.”

While the abuse in this story is horrifying, one has to ask why none of his neighbors, co-workers, or friends asked what happened to him. Though he did receive calls during this time, Reyes Navarro and Bergantiños took his cellphone and screened his calls. No one seems to have done more than a preliminary inquiry about where Onrubia was and why he had allowed these two women to sell everything he owned. Was he ignored because he was trans  or did he lack an extensive support network because he had transitioned and was rebuilding his life? Either way, his vulnerability seemed to be clearly linked to cissupremacy that often requires people to start completely over when they transition.

For their crimes, Dolores de los Reyes Navarro and Ainhoa Nogales Bergantiños were fined US$180,000 and sentenced to 18 years each in prison. While it is an impressive conviction given the slap on the wrist most murderers of transgender people receive, can we really put a price on the life of any person, especially one who tried to help others survive?

—-

This article is based on information from El Pais

Dixie Carter as Julia Sugarbaker

On the hypocrisy of and policing by neo-conservatives/politicians

On solidarity and infighting (via the pageant)

I’m sure it comes as no shock that we in the Susurro household loved Julia Sugarbaker as much as we loved Murphy Brown. And I have been told that Dixie Carter was no less fiery an advocate for women and civil rights or for the right of women and girls to speak their minds. As both the fictional character she played and the real woman she was, she inspired many to be passionate, strong, and stand up even when you had to stand alone. She did it with a Southern drawl many on the Left discount as some how less intelligent and as such embodied a feminist politic that we often fail to recognize and therefore help shove to the other side. Dixie Carter was a Republican and though I fundamentally disagree with Republican politics, I can’t help but wonder how it is such an outspoken, strong supporter of women, gay, and people of color’s rights and a woman who passed so easily as a liberal on our tvs so many nights ended up on the other side … There is a lesson, more than one, in that I think.

Dixie Carter died yesterday at age 70.

Where Has Susurro Gone?

So you may have noticed the blog posts around here have been slow lately, except, of course, for my mindless IPad reviews. Truth is, I am trying to figure out a way to blog about bad teaching or better yet not blog about it … and until I either find a way to let it go or to write it in a way that is helpful to others and not just a rant, I’ve kinda needed to be as far away from the blog as possible. After all, academe is small and the blogging world of academics is even smaller …

So instead, I am leaving you with the two songs I have in my head as I march back into the abyss …

Say it with me you all “G-d be with me in these trying times” …

Wilma Mankiller

Wilma Mankiller was the first female Chief of the Cherokee Nation and a prolific writer, speaker, and thinker. She was committed to decolonized tribal health care and education and spent her 10 years as Chief raising funds for both causes. Under her leadership, enrollment in schools rose to 3 times its original number for Cherokee youth. She was also a strong advocate for Indigenous equality in the eyes of the Federal Government; as such, she met with three separate U.S. Presidents advocating for Indigenous Rights and an end to discriminatory policies, land grabs and pollution, and laws negatively impacting the bodily integrity of women and girls. Her radical praxis led her to participate in the historic take over of Alcaltraz to force a national level discussion about discrimination against and marginalization of Indigenous peoples in N. America and to eschew big casino building and smoke shops for the building of schools and hospitals when she was tribal leader. In the early 80s she founded the Cherokee Nation Community Development Department to help members of the Cherokee Nation become self-sufficient in issues of housing and access to clean water. In the early 90s, her work alongside then-Navajo Nation President Zah, helped create the Office of Indian Justice in the Department of Justice in D.C. to better help address ongoing inequality of Indigenous peoples in the U.S.

She was also an inspiration to women and girls. Her first attempt to be elected as Chief of the Cherokee Nation was met with public sexism questioning her ability to lead. Sexist jokes about her last name dogged her campaign and her leadership. Yet she never faltered. Though she lost her original bid, she met the sexism head on and eventually became the first female leader. She used her own struggle to inspire her own two daughters and other Cherokee women to reach for whatever they wanted in life. In writing her biography, she hoped not only to address Indigenous identity but also to encourage other women and girls to take leadership roles and stand up for their rights. In speaking about her commitment to women and girls she said:

“I try to encourage young women to be willing to take risks, to stand up for the things they believe in, and to step up and accept the challenge of serving in leadership roles.”

She also wrote or co-authored two other books in the field of Women’s Studies: Every Day is a Good Day and The Reader’s Companion to the History of Women. The former edited volume included the accessible reflections by 19 Indigenous women activists about gender justice, spirituality, equality, sovereignty, etc. It hoped to weave Indigenous women’s voices back into feminist discourse as well as general discussion of identity without creating a space so steeped in theory as to be inaccessible. The latter, edited along with noted feminists like Barbara Smith, and mainstream feminists like Gloria Steinem, was a broad reader meant to be accessible to middle school through life long learners. The Companion centered both activism and multiculturalism, including stories from over 300 activists addressing issues as widespread as Asian picture brides, lynching activism, and the rise in Orthodox Jewish feminism. It also included a wide array of articles addressing feminism from multiple perspectives rather than simply offering up a watered down, hipster, or mainstream perspective to the exclusion of all of the dynamic definitions and praxis at play. The mammoth books is best as supplemental reading for middle and high school history books but definitely a starting point for people who have never received a more multicultural look at feminist history, or any feminist history (you know beyond 1990 w/ a few references to the 1970s) at all.

In 1987 she was Mrs Magazines Woman of the Year for her commitment and in 1998 then-President Clinton awarded her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her longstanding activism on behalf of Indigenous people in U.S.

Like so many activist feminists of color, Wilma Mankiller died yesterday morning from complications related to cancer. Despite the occasional controversies related to her leadership (including the failure to include black Cherokees as full members of the nation), she will be sorely missed.