Standing Rock and Environmental Social Movements

Standing Rock and Environmental Social Movements

About this time last year, one of the largest environmentally charged social movements in the history of the United States was well underway, This movement was Standing Rock. The demonstration gathered thousands of people together to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline which was threatening to bring oil under the Missouri River and through the culturally significant land for the Sioux tribe. This demonstration, like many other social movements, started out small but over time became quite influential drawing in thousands of people from all over the protest against the destruction of sacred land, and the potential to contaminate drinking water for the Sioux Reservation that lies downriver from the then proposed river crossing site. The issue of the Dakota access pipeline extends farther from just environmental, and when it was decided that the pipeline would avoid Bismark, a largely Caucasian city, and instead go through sacred Native American land, the issue became racial charges as well. The demonstration lasted months with heavy opposition from companies and heavy support from the side of the protesters. Through formidable winter weather, arrests of the protesters,  and even through excessive violent force from law enforcement, the end result was an achieved goal of halting the production of the pipeline, and for the Sioux, the future of their water seemed safe. Unfortunately, this hard-fought battle to save sacred land, and water so necessary to the Sioux people were put in danger when Donald Trump was elected to office.

What seemed like such an important win for those who respect rights for the environment and of the Native American people, is now in question. Last year at the height of the protests, I was personally following the occurrences at standing rock closely. The demonstrations were truly inspiring and when the verdict came that production was to be paused and put under further review I was exhilarated, Finally a win for the underdog, and a loss for the big business. When Trump took office, however, the future of the pipeline was once again hanging in the balance. Things have only gotten worse on this front as well, with the pipeline becoming operational, it seems to only be a matter of time before a catastrophic spill contaminates drinking water, and leaves a devastating impact on the sacred land. With the end result of these protests being so negative, it's important to consider why these types of social movements matter in the first place.

Initially, in the case of standing rock, it seemed that a major victory had been achieved with the halting of production. With the changing political environment this goal was unfortunately reversed, but as long as people refuse to stop organizing and speaking up for what they believe in the political environment could change once again. These types of demonstrations show a mass reaction to the free speech, and in turn provide a great way to get these messages to the mass public, the media and beyond. Without this demonstration, the access pipeline would have gone on as planned and could have already leaked into the Missouri River. Even when the immediate goals of these movements fail, the lasting impact that people refuse to sit idly by while private corporations desecrate the environment is hugely important. Through these means, the government is kept more on its toes than it otherwise would, and even the results are hard to see through social movements, people can take back power, and truly set forth avenues for wide sweeping political change.

Cruel, Synclaire. “Dakota Access Pipeline in Operation after Months of Resistance.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 3 June 2017, www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/dakota-access-pipeline-operation-months-resistance.  

“Dakota Pipeline: What's behind the Controversy?” BBC News, BBC, 7 Feb. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37863955.

                              

Frat Star

Frat Star

Chug!Chug!Chug! Saturday’s are for the boys! Don’t be such a (insert offensive term). These are the sayings that can be found in any fraternity across the entire country. In this article I will dive into the deep sociological aspects that are associated with these institutions. 1776, the year our country became independent, also the year that the first American fraternity was founded. Their roots run deep in the fabric that is the American college system, claiming that the purpose they serve is a positive one. In https://www.wsj.com/articles/should-colleges-get-rid-of-fraternities-1442368892 Georginna L. Martin argues that despite their bad reputation, “The fraternity system is a vital part of university life that plays an important role in shaping young men for the better.” The most appealing aspect of fraternities is simple, brotherhood. These boys claim each other as blood as they spend four years together, creating relationships that will last a lifetime. They also have bonds with alumi which favor them when they enter the professional world. Martin makes the point that frats hate the connotations that are associated with them and do their best to resist them.

While this mindset makes a point on why to join a frat, if you aren’t a wealthy hetero-sexual white male who enjoys drinking and easily fits in with the average frat boy, frats bring nothing but trouble. Sexual abuse, binge drinking, hazing, all go hand in hand with fraternities. The frat leaders saying they don’t like being associated with these labels Link for photo doesn’t mean that they don’t do it partake in these heinous acts.

In her book “Dude You’re a Fag” C.J. Pascoe is exploring the social hierarchy of high school in regards to masculinity. How boys flaunt their masculinity by performing certain acts that society deems acceptable simply because “boys will be boys.” Well frats are just the next level of this mindset. The boys in frats are genuinely the ones who succeed in this show of masculinity in high school, they have been thinking this way for their entire lives, believing that they are owed these things like sex, alcohol, and to not have to worry about important things. They simply want to party and run the campus. Elizebeth Armstrong details this point in her article, https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/05/05/frat-guys-gone-wild-whats-the-solution/the-threat-to-young-women outlining her frustration with frats and how they take the power away from young females, demoting them to nothing more than objects. Frats use their exclusivity as a false sense of importance and they use this sense to justify their shameful acts.

With this many problems stemming from these institutions it raises the question of why don’t universities ban frats. For one it's the money, universities are always about the money, and frat fees bring in a healthy addition to the budget. Armstrong also makes the vital point if universities banned frats they would lose what little oversight they have over them now. These problems are in a small way fixing themselves however as fraternity affiliation falls these past few years. With more and more students deciding to stay independent fraternities start to lose their dominance. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/the-decline-of-the-greek-empire-us-fraternities Is an article by Jon Marcus that illustrates this trend and how it is due to numerous reasons and what this means for the frats. Marcus points to these bad connotations as a major link to this decline in participation, boys don’t want to be affiliated with these labels which shows how the social conscience of at least some of our younger generation is growing more compassionate.

Revolutionize Your Mind: Breaking Free from Neoliberal Programming

There’s no denying that we live in a very frightening time. Sea levels are rising, the middle class is disappearing, and the threat of nuclear war constantly dangles over our heads. Most frightening of all is that every new problem that arises drives Americans further apart. In an interview earlier this year, Christine LaRocca (a staunch liberal Democrat and my mother) professed that she feels more alienated by our current political state than she ever has before. Yet this is true on the other side of the aisle as well. In her book Strangers in Their Own Land, Arlie Russell Hochschild notes that conservative Americans have felt equally disenfranchised by increased government regulation and “inclusive” policies like affirmative action. As our country splits further down partisan lines, many cities have made names for themselves as liberal or conservative strongholds. Portland is one of the former; its automatic association with the “weird” has attracted many marginalized and disenfranchised people. A 2015 Gallup News poll found that Portland has the second highest percentage of LGBT+ citizens in the country, further reinforcing the city’s image as an inclusive haven.

Welcome to liberal paradise?

But how far does that liberal inclusivity go? The picture that I’m focusing on in this post is not from Portland, but the message it sends certainly applies to our city. In early 2017, a nationwide debate over transgender bathroom laws prompted some businesses to make their toilets a bit more inclusive. The traditional stick-figure men and women denoting which bathroom was which were replaced seemingly overnight by gender neutral or gender mixed signage. In cities like Portland, thousands celebrated what would certainly herald a new era of acceptance and an end to the bathroom debate. I celebrated too; I think gender neutral bathrooms are an important step towards reducing the hatred trans people face in this country. I don’t however, think the fight for equal bathroom rights is over, and here’s why.

How neoliberal of them.

The sign on the left claims this bathroom is for everyone regardless of age, race, or gender, but the sign on the right makes it clear that “everyone” really means “everyone who has money.” This is a symptom of what some sociologists call late capitalism, which is basically when neoliberalism hits critical mass. It’s the point when businesses and corporations abandon all pretext of catering to the individual and make it clear they’re just out here to make as much money as they possibly can. It’s a step away from barring people from entering a store unless they have some proof of capital, similar to how California treated refugees of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. And it’s incredibly important in cities like Portland, where almost 4,000 people don't have permanent housing.

The first time I saw that picture, I didn’t really understand what was wrong with it. After all, every corner store and restaurant I’d ever been to had the same rules. When I finally realized that it was, in essence, a violent edict against the poor, I was shocked. How could I have gone my entire life without realizing how twisted these policies were? Duncan Watts approaches this problem in “Why Everything That Seems Obvious Isn’t.” He claims that “one problem with common sense is that what we learn from experience does not lead to a well-defined, self-consistent system for understanding the world in the first place” (33). In this case, the neoliberal system I grew up with condones discrimination against the poor, which in turn normalizes any further discrimination I might witness. It’s subtle, of course; the bathroom signs don’t say “Murder The Homeless!” But they do open the gates for other oppressive practices, many of them much more blatant than the bathroom issue.

On November 10 of this year, Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle threatened to move the headquarters for his brand Sorel from Portland, citing “menacing” people “camping in the doorway.” He didn’t cite any specific violence against his employees, and I doubt that any specific violence has actually occurred.Mayor Ted Wheeler’s official response was to tweet that “homelessness is not a crime.” Ironic, considering he’s determined to designate eight city blocks as “pedestrian use zones.” What that really means is that homeless people would be barred from sitting or sleeping on these blocks, which just so happen to include the Columbia headquarters in question. It’s a step away from some of the policies adopted in my home town of Denver, where the city has lined some shop entrances with spikes to deter the disadvantaged from resting there.

I love Portland. I love that so many of its citizens seem dedicated to fighting injustice in all its myriad forms. But a big part of that fight is inward reflection; realizing that what we see and process often doesn’t correspond with what’s actually happening. Liberals and the left are right to rejoice inclusive bathroom laws, but that inclusivity needs to apply to everybody.

Sweeping the Homelessness Under the Rug

Homelessness is an important social issue across the US. This issue is especially prevalent in Hawaii and is constantly a major social and political issue in the state. I felt like I wanted to cover this topic because of the memories I have of working part time in Honolulu and seeing homelessness first hand and the people affected by it. You will see me use the term RCP (residentially challenged people) or RCPs throughout this post and that is because as Kirk Caldwell the mayor of Honolulu has said the term homeless sounds derogatory to say to someone.

The reason why Hawaii is the focus of this post is because Hawaii has the highest rate of homelessness out of any other state at 554 RCPs every 100,000 people according to the United States Interagency Council of Homelessness. The reason for the higher rates of homelessness could be potentially attributed to various factors from the very high cost of living to the climate. The effects of the mass homelessness are detrimental to Hawaii's economy which is why the topic of homelessness can be political. In case you don’t already know Hawaii’s economy is almost solely reliant on tourism and according to the head of the Hawaii Tourism Authority, George Szigeti, “the number one reason that people were saying they would not come back to Hawaii was homelessness”. Since the Hawaii Tourism Authority views homelessness as a threat something must be done.

However that does not mean the issue will be corrected in a way that is beneficial for the RCPs. In fact if anything it made life even worse the RCPs. It is important to understand that 2 major tourist hotspots in Oahu are Waikiki and Chinatown both of which had problems with homelessness that appeared to be scaring away tourists. So laws were passed in Oahu which made it illegal to sit or lie on sidewalks in Waikiki and Chinatown. Laws were also passed that allowed police to seize belonging left in public areas. Both of these laws directly target RCP and criminalize being homeless in these areas. However these laws did nothing in the way of combating homelessness. The only thing they accomplished was pushing the RCPs out of Waikiki, Chinatown and other popular tourist hotspots. As the laws continue to spread across Oahu it seems that RCPs are being pushed out of all developed areas on the island. Although the homeless population in Waikiki dropped from 559 to 167 RCPs. This was only on a targeted group which was only selected because of the effect they had on tourism and rather than helping them most of them were simple being displaced.

On the matter David Ige the Governor of Hawaii said, “If you are just enforcing and moving people from location to location you are not really reducing or solving the problem. It’s just making it someone else’s problems”. I think that homelessness in Hawaii is not an issue that can be solved overnight even though that seems to be how the state is trying to handle it by criminalizing homelessness. However without giving the RCPs the means of recovering you make it impossible for them to recover. Criminalizing homelessness only burdens the RCP with tickets and fines that perpetuate their homelessness. Instead Hawaii need a more long term solution that will actually combat the issue instead of pushing it aside.  

A homeless woman with her belongings on the banks of the Ala Wai Canal in Honolulu in March.
Monica Almeida/The New York Times

Liquid Hypermasculinity

For years now, AXE Body Spray has created countless ads and commercials highlighting the powers of using their products whether it be shampoo, body spray, hair gel, etc. These complete bogus effects consist of ‘getting girls’, receiving increased attraction from the opposite sex, being a man and not a boy, etc. In no way can using such a product guarantee any of these things, however AXE mainly relies on the targeted 15-25 year old male population to believe that their product can increase their sense of masculinity.

This ad wants men to believe that the fact that because they have dandruff and ‘flakes’ in their hair, that is what is preventing them from receiving attention from the opposite sex. This is in a way similar to what we talked about in class about ‘medicalization’, the process in which nonmedical problems become defined and treated as medical problems. This is a real life process and is being demonstrated as something unnatural and a problem.

Because the targeted audience starts with boys who are going through puberty, individuals grow up believing the stigma that puberty is a time when boys become men, they get stronger, they get the girls, they become more popular, etc. These are all seen as positives, and the media neglects to show the negative effects of puberty. For girls, puberty is seen as a rough transition, individuals may become less popular, changes in girls’ body may create anxiety, depression, etc. Even at the age of 15, there is a gendered double standard. AXE is known for targeting younger males, especially those going through puberty and ‘becoming men’.  Never would there be a shampoo advertisement (targeting younger females around the age of 15) showing a late adolescent female surrounded by multiple shirtless men. It is obvious that AXE uses the naïveté of their audience to lure them into buying their product.

Another reason why this advertisement may be successful is because sex clearly sells. In an article titled “Amusing or offensive, Axe ads show that sexism sells” on the Seattle Times,  they show that although they largely exploit gendered stereotypes, so much so that they can be offensive, their products will continue to sell. Individuals in these types of advertisements are almost always skinny, extremely attractive, half naked and posing seductively. This ‘lifestyle’ is what men might dream of, strive for and want, therefore may be more willing to buy a product because it will allow them to be one step closer to reaching that ‘goal’. In an article from the Huffington post, they suggested that the AXE campaign “insults and undermines men”, suggesting that men cannot control themselves around attractive women. This further demonstrates the power of sex and women and its control it may have on men.

There are rarely any ads where females aren’t being objectified. On one website, they believe that female objectification is AXE’s ‘sense of humor’, however their advertisements can be very offensive especially towards women. AXE probably believes that this is okay because their target audience is younger men and therefore they won’t be offended by the ads. Less than 10% of AXE products are geared towards women and this will probably stay the same for that exact reason stated above.

Weakness is not an option

       In a society dominated by sports, there is a constant magnifying glass on professional athletes and the hyper-masculinity that dominates sports culture. In professional sports team leagues across America there have only been a handful of professional athletes who have come out as gay and supported the LGBTQ community. There is a constant societal pressure in professional sports to maintain a sense of masculinity and strength. Particularly in sports such as football or basketball, which are contact sports that can often turn violent, weakness is not an option. The media preys on weakness and does not hesitate to blast players who come across as soft. Displaying femininity in the arena of professional sports for male athletes opens up the doors for sports commentators to bash on athletes and attribute their failures to their lack of masculinity. 

       Due to the hyperawareness of masculinity, the world of sports pushes men to show as many macho tendencies as they possibly can. In the NFL in particular, the entire sport of football is driven by heteronormative masculinity (https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/masculinity-is-killing-the-nfl-deflategate-wasl/). Players bang their heads against lockers before games, they pound their chests to induce a testosterone filled rage, and they even abstain from sex during football season, believing that this build up of testosterone will better their play on the field. When looking at Dude You’re a Fag, by C.J. Pascoe, the boys Pascoe discusses also engage in extreme heteronormative masculinity. The very essence of the book is these boys doing whatever they can to avoid being deemed a fag, and acting in a feminine manner. The boys, similarly to professional athletes, would only engage in activities that would make them look hyper masculine. This is very evident in a lot of endorsement deals done with professional athletes. The advertisements are often times done in a manner to target young boys who want to look like and act like their role models, who are the professional athletes. I’ve noticed in advertisements for professional basketball players, the ads focus on how to achieve the look of the player and mimic their actions to the best of one’s ability. 

       This complete focus on masculinity in professional sports can be very daunting to athletes who may be afraid to come out as gay. This arena is not a safe place where judgement is not present. Michael Sam was the first player in the NFL to be drafted after coming out as a gay man. While a good portion of people were very supportive of Michael Sam, he received serious backlash for kissing his boyfriend on camera when he found out he was drafted. This was considered a feminine action by a lot of sportscasters, who blamed Sam for not keeping the focus on his talent. However, when a straight player kisses his wife or girlfriend when being drafted, no one even looks twice. 

       This constant need to focus on masculinity in professional sports is discouraging for all young athletes who are afraid to be themselves and come out as who they are. As a society, we need to move away from this intense focus on heteronormative masculinity in sports and be accepting of all people. 

We all laughed.

The renown American sitcom, Family Guy, has created a sense of humor that strives on the viewers ability to understand everyday social and political life. Seth MacFarlane, the creator and main voice actor of the show, has, on multiple occasions, been criticized on the crude humor of the show as it targets a dark sense of humor through stereotypes, political issues, religious attacks and sexual remarks. When asked on the dark humor of the show, MacFarlane offered an enlightened response by saying that the show is "making fun of the stereotypes" and not the specific group in which the stereotype targets.

The shows main target point, at which they use politically and morally incorrect slurs, is through the  cut-away gags, and used to provide a better understanding of the shows humor. Often, jokes involve  the use of a targeted ethnic group from which the "stereotype" is made fun of. In a more recent season of family guy (S11E15), the episode entitled "Turban Cowboy", places Peter Griffin, the father and main character of the show, in a difficult situation as he becomes a terrorist through his Muslim friend, Mahmoud. In a desperate attempt to blow up a bridge, Peters new group of friends encouraged him to be the one to drive the vehicle. The writers would later place Peter at a check point where an officer admits him passage because the color of his skin is acceptable. The episode attacks major stereotypical and racial remarks through the use of subliminal messages as it hides the criticism behind the humor. As an unfortunate repercussion, the episode places Peter with a car bomb, driving through the Boston Marathon, only a month before the unfortunate real life attack took place in 2013.

Along with the horrible jokes the show displays, it creates a sense of identity to certain characters of the show. Characteristics that are seen socially and morally incorrect have played a large roll in the shows success. Peters long time neighbor, Glen Quagmire, a sex crazed maniac who on multiple occasions has made comments to the number of women he has slept with, the racial groups to which they belong, and even the inhuman jokes on how young some of the women have been.

Herbert, an elderly Quahog man, is a secret pedophile who on multiple occasions has made sexual moves towards Peters teenage son, Chris. Although seen as a sweet elderly man to his community, Herbert's sexual need for young children has created hidden messages to its viewers who find his vulgar attacks on young children as "funny."

Finally, Peter Griffin, a drunken fat man with little respect for others, lives as a "mentally retarded" (S4E6) man who constantly finds no consequences to his stupid and irresponsible actions. Striving on his stupidity, the shows main character forms the backbone of its success as he provides most of the its crude humor. His actions, whether they be drinking on the job or disobeying multiple laws and getting into fights with a giant chicken, have given the show 16 successful and continuing seasons. Peter, along with the help of his family and friends, share in the crazy adventures of a white suburban family and the "life lessons" it provides. The show offers a metaphorical two-way mirror as the jokes said are seen as funny, while holding a hidden meaning behind its dark humor that targets viewers of different ages. But lets be real, we all laughed at the end of the joke.

What the Frack is going On?

Over the past decade, fracking has spread rapidly, leaving a trail of contaminated water, polluted air, and marred landscapes in its wake. As said in an article in Scientific America "However, the true cost of fracking — ranging from cleaning up contaminated water to repairing ruined roads and beyond — are likely to be borne by the public, rather than the oil and gas industry. And as with the damage done by previous extractive booms, the public may experience these costs for decades to come." 

Fracking is the new boom in The U.S., but what people don’t realize is it’s a huge environmental hazard. Some people don’t know what fracking is, so we’ll lay out the basics. Here is some background about fracking before we can talk about the negative effects it has on the environment. "Many sandstones, limestones and shales far below ground contain natural gas, which have formed as dead organisms in the rock decomposed. This gas is released, and can be captured at the surface for our use, when the rocks in which it is trapped are drilled. To increase the flow of released gas, the rocks can be broken apart, or fractured. Early drillers sometimes detonated small explosions in the wells to increase flow." As said by New York Times. On the surface this seems like a groundbreaking discovery and a great way to solve the energy crisis. No!! Fracking is very dangerous and only leads to more pollution into the air. When companies drill and force millions of gallons of water they have this fracking cocktail which includes acids, detergents and poisons that are not regulated by federal laws but can be problematic if they seep into drinking water. This lethal concoction then seeps into the ground and gets into underground streams. Eventually these chemicals get into peoples drinking water. Now thousands of people have to worry about what chemicals are in their water and also the air. A study in Pavillion, Wyoming, has shown that people's “wells were contaminated with fracking wastes that are typically stored in unlined pits dug into the ground.”



What's even worse is that most of the chemicals in fracking are not chemicals that commercial laboratories can detect. These labs were originally set up for the Superfund program, under which EPA cleans up the most contaminated sites in the nation. “They are great at detecting chemicals found at Superfund sites but not as good at detecting chemicals used in fracking.”  One such chemical is methanol. The simplest alcohol, it can trigger permanent nerve damage and blindness in humans when consumed in sufficient quantities. This is similar to the a problem mention in Soybeans and Power, where chemicals and pesticides are sprayed into the air and contaminate nearby villages drinking water and can eventually lead to illnesses. In a case study shown on EnvironmentAmerica Dimock, Pennsylvania, fracking contamination ruined the local drinking water supply. The cost to permanently replace drinking water with a new source is estimated at more than $11 million. There are hundreds of cases like this where people are paying thousand of dollars in health cost because of these companies and the pollution they are causing. Fracking is bad for the everyone living in the environment and the earth itself. Is the cost of fracking really worth the health risks, or should our money be spent on finding a cleaner, more renewable energy?

picture 1
picture 2

WHY YOU ARE NOT PROTESTING

Social movements are a very important medium of empowerment, yet many of us are discouraged to “go out there” and raise our voices in protest. What is the source of this discouragement, you may ask? I was talking to a friend of mine from Colorado some time during this semester. Our discussion was about student protests. I told him that in Italy students would organize riots and protests during a normal school day and get the lesson to be cancelled. At that time I was happy to get my classes cancelled but now I understand the importance of gathering. We used to organize one each month, together with other schools. This went on for about a semester, until the Department of Education gave us a day every month to “democratically discuss the issues related to the school and society in order to maximize the cultural and civil education of the students." I remember our professors being very biased about a protest. The overall reaction was “I am going to give you all a zero for participation if you don’t come” and many times I was threatened by that zero that I did not protest. He had a very surprised face and told me that “authorities, including the government are against the people here.” My follow up question was “Have you ever taken part in a protest?” and the answer was negative.

In these three months spent in Portland, I heard a lot about protests. I talked to people that participated in some. And I talked to people that wish they could bring up a change. I can’t avoid the fact that all the protests I heard about surely enhanced the negative consequences that they caused. I started to believe that social media has a big influence on how people perceive rallies and their willingness to protest. Sigmund Fraud investigates in his article the reasons that hinder citizens from protesting. In primis threats from military authorities, followed by regulations from the government and the media that simply focuses on any kind of violence that happens.

This is a screenshot of the results from the search “Ferguson riots” on Google Chrome. The fire, the angry faces and the masks portray the idea that protests are hazardous and perilous, thus lessening the willingness of citizens to even challenge an attack. Another technique used by the media is glittering generalities, or phrases and mottos that address people’s pathos by touching upon important values. The pictures above and the news linked to the rally description portray “the other side” in a way that the average citizen cannot sympathize with it.

An example of this happened some months ago when the NFL players decided to kneel instead of standing during the anthem as a form of protest against the police assaults against African Americans. Many critics argued that this action led to a loss of patriotism and perceived it as disrespectful towards the country, the flag and the anthem too.

Trump was the first to discourage the behaviour by posting tweets condemning the protest.

The ethics behind what the news describes as going against the moral code of “being American” turn out to be an argument against protesting. Nationalism and the idea of belonging restrain the impetus of the citizens to openly protest in favour of their beliefs, not simply by fueling the idea that only amoral citizens protest, but also by reinforcing the opinion that there are more bad outcomes than good ones in protesting, and no change is achieved, only the shame of treason.

Despite these negative conceptions of protests, many disagree. The article “How Social Movements Matter” explores the importance of using social movements to empower the individual’s voice. The author, David S. Meyer provides multiple examples of social movements that affected public policies and the internal affairs of political institutions in the long run. For example, the nuclear freeze movement further affected the federal bureaucracy of gun controls during Kennedy’s presidency and the many environmental movement that collect money from donors and publicizes government operations. His report enhances the positive vision that social movements can and do make a change, functioning as an incentive for people to gather and protest.

It is clear that the authorities and media conceal the truth that protests have power to prevent public support and magnify individuality more than the idea of being part of one community.

I believe that there are two sides, the protester and the anti-protesters.

Do we now stand together with our people or with the government?

Lessons Mothers Gave to Their Serial Killer Sons

I had been curious about the socialization of serial killers for a while. Recently, I read about how Ed Gein’s mother’s beliefs influenced his killings. As a result, I decided to explore how serial killers’ mothers perceived gender and how their perceptions influenced their sons’ thought processes. While there aren’t many details available about how mothers performed gender in their daily lives, overarching ideas and a few specific events allow me to dissect notions and codes about gender that they projected onto their sons.

One of Gein's 'artifacts' created from human fingers and breasts

credit: batcountrysite.wordpress.com

I focus specifically on male serial killers and their mothers for a few reasons. A serial killer is defined by the National Institute of Justice as someone who commits two or more murders “with a psychological motive or sadistic sexual overtones”. While this definition does not have complete generalizability, it is safe to say that it’s not uncommon for serial killers to have socially deviant sexual motives. It is valuable to examine the existence of these motives in tandem with performances of masculinity. Statistics from a database show that men form an overwhelming percentage of the total active serial killers. In 1990, global proportions were as skewed as 922 men to 69 women. Moreover, a serial killer’s relationship with one’s mother is often highlighted as a key common pattern in discussions. As we consider the impact their mothers’ beliefs had on them, it is also important to note that most of these beliefs were communicated during the men’s childhoods, at which times they were very impressionable. Let’s see how this played out with Ed Gein, a killer notorious for the atrocities he committed.

The twistedminds.creativescapism website writes “Ed Gein’s religiously fanatical, notorious mother (Augusta) convinced her son that women were vessels of sin and caused disease”. Many sources have stated that Augusta was extremely religious and believed all women were “prostitutes and instruments of the devil”. Perhaps the word ‘prostitute’ is used with too many different denotations depending on the user. This makes specific meanings such as Augusta’s difficult to discern without an explanation. Nevertheless, its usage leaves an incredible mark on the young serial killers to-be. As Michael Buchanan writes, “In some sort of twisted misinterpretation, Gein made literal vessels out of women, using their skulls for bowls, and other domestic objects.” This quote directly shows the effect Gein mother’s thinking about what women were had on what kind of a serial killer he wanted to be and how he wanted to kill. He considered his mother a saint and revered whatever she told him. He mutilated women after his mother constantly shared that gendered bias (to say the least) with him.

David Berkowitz, known as the ‘Son of Sam’ entered his trial chanting “Stacy was a whore”. Stacy was his latest victim. His use of the word ‘whore’ shows us that he views it pejoratively instead of being simply descriptive and thus neutral. When Berkowitz was much younger, after long having believed his mother was dead, he found out that he had been conceived as a result of her affair with a married man. He was disgusted and grew up to believe that sexually active women were dirty, lesser, and undesirable. He took this belief and translated it into knowledge about what kind of a woman he victimized, i.e., a ‘whore’. And, he believed this for all his victims, who he said he would kill again if possible. He practiced toxic masculinity in his thoughts and behavior as a killer. There is an unprecedented power, it seems, in the thoughts and beliefs our mothers convey to us in our early years.

Carroll Cole’s father fought in the Second World War, so as a child he witnessed his mother’s multiple sexual encounters. His mother’s sexual(ly deviant) behavior angered him. Later in his life, he would meet women in bars and while many of them would leave unharmed the next morning, he killed those he perceived to be “loose”, in particular, those who were married. Once again, we see the direct impact of a mother’s performance of gender as a ‘loose woman’ on her son’s thinking about how to be a serial killer.

There is a shared, underlying hatred for women who these men perceived to be too sexually active, which as we saw originates from their mothers. By calling these women whores or prostitutes, they asserted that women had a lack of sexual agency, and their sexual worth would be decided by words like 'slut' that men chose to use against them. In some form, their mothers had taught them to belittle women’s sexual choices by giving them pejorative labels.

The other commonality that shocked me was incidents of mothers dressing the young boys in what would typically be considered “girls’ clothes”. Take it right from the source: “If this were not enough, Cole’s mother would dress him in frilly dresses and petticoats for the amusement of her and her friends. They would sit at a table, and he would be forced to serve them tea, dressed as a girl, with his hair curled while they would laugh and call him names.” They go on, “On one occasion, when he was nine, Cole drowned a boy in his class who had called him a sissy, but the incident was thought to be an accident until Cole admitted to it years later in prison.”

Sissy is a word specifically used to denote that one is not courageous, strong, or whatever enough: not masculine enough. Their mothers used this word to instill a perverse sense of masculinity in them. Then, to be attacked by another boy for displaying a lack of masculinity again would result in a harsh reaction. Their mothers essentially de-masculinized them, and this made them obsessive about the portrayal and perception of their lack of masculinity and femininity. Essentially, their mothers consistently communicated that being a prostitute and a sissy was an insulting, degrading, lesser way of being.

These are not the only such stories. These common links fascinate me because they reflect on a unique role women play in the perpetuation of patriarchal violence. I hope that I have ignited some curiosity in you, and acknowledge that for some reason it’s only obscure listicle sites on the world wide web that tend to focus on and cover serial killers, so I have tried my best to provide reputable sources, but it has been hard.

Politicizing People

On July 1, 2015, Kate Steinle was shot by Jose Inez Garcia Zarate. Zarate's status as a homeless undocumented Mexican immigrant politicized Steinle's death rendering it a flashpoint in the national immigration debate. Donald Trump cited Kate Steinle's death during his presidential campaign to push for stronger borders indeed resonating with his supporters. Two weeks ago, the San Francisco jury found Zarate not guilty of murder. Now with Zarate's recent acquittal, Trump tweeted "A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration." and so the immigration debate bubbles again.

Many "Justice for Kate" marches and protests have been organized all around the country within the past week. I observed the end of a march and demonstration this Saturday, December 9 in downtown Portland.

The right-wing Patriot Prayer (right) group rallied in downtown Portland to protest the acquittal of an undocumented immigrant in the shooting death of Californian, Kate Steinles. Anti-fascist group Rose City Antifa (left) showed up to counter protest.

Above is a very Portland scene. Counter protesters on each side of the street and some riot clad police - with a Subaru in the middle. Striking to me was the interaction between protesters and anti-protesters. The two groups started out yelling across adjacent blocks. There was a couple of minor skirmishes. Later they marched down to the waterfront while yelling insults at each other. There was a bloody nose, some mace spraying, and one arrest. What I mostly witnessed was heated arguing that took to provoking the other through ridicule. I did also speak with some protesters from both sides.

José, the person holding the Mexican flag on the left side of the picture, expressed his thoughts to me on the racist underpinnings of Patriot Prayer's anti-immigration movement. I felt proud and excited to be able to share beliefs with someone at this event, the same excitement and pride of solidarity that brought both groups of protesters out that day. In fact despite their polar opposite political viewpoints, Patriot Prayer and Antifa do not differ in their development as social movement groups.

A popular and influential explanation of social movements is sociologist Neil Smelser's (1963) value-added theory. Smelser argues that social movements and other collective behavior occur when certain conditions are present. One condition is structural strain (or social strain) which refers to problems in society that cause anger and frustration giving rise to protest and other forms of mobilization. Antifa members mobilize under the strain of a fascist organizing. A popular chant is: "No Trump! No KKK! No fascist U.S.A.!" Generalized beliefs (or an agreed definition of the problem) include people's reasons for why conditions are dire, their solutions, as well as the group's binding ideologies. Patriot Prayer organizes under the common 'proud American and proud Christian' belief systems. They often simply chanted, "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

Furthermore, an important condition for protest is a precipitating factor: a certain event that ignites people to take action. In this case, the death of Kate Steinle is the precipitating factor for Patriot Prayer protesters and the protest itself compelled Antifa's involvement.

The most poignant takeaway for me was the dehumanization I witnessed. Its easy to dehumanize our enemies. The two groups of protesters were deeply entrenched in the self/other mindset. Their intense anger and frustration limited the identities on the other side to 'enemy' which manifested in generalized ridicule and harm.

We also dehumanize victims. Its often that the names and photos of people who are connected to a political issue become emblematic. Kate Steinle is definitely one of those names. President Trump "sensationalizing" Kate Steinle's death is inappropriate, especially considering his failure to contact the Steinle family at all.

The American melting pot is boiling. Politically, tensions have been running high with stark polarization occurring between Americans on the left and the right. People impelled by social strain have been pushed to the political fringes where division forms as much as community. Ultimately, however, people are much more than their political identity. It is when we lose sight of this essential point that the most flagrant of human behavior is justified. 

Masculinity, And Why You Should Adopt It

Living during a progressive time when it is easier for people to break from societal norms than it was in the past, it is almost alarming to see how old-fashioned many values are that people today hold in regards to gender and sexuality. Yes, the LGBTQ+ community has seen much success for quite some time now, which can be seen simply in the fact that homosexuality is no longer classified as a mental disorder. For the most part, as a society we no longer shun two men for holding hands, but their identities as men are usually questioned in lacking a “sufficient” sense of masculinity. Somehow, “being a man” goes well beyond physical anatomy and self-identity, and it is curious to see the ways in which this is seen in our society even today in 2017.

Masculinity is a vastly convoluted concept that has developed over many years into being the standard identity that men are expected to follow. What does this mean exactly? Although many definitions and descriptions of what it means to be masculine exist, the idea behind it is quite a bit more complicated, as there are many factors that go into successfully exhibiting a sense of masculinity. One of the things at the fundamental core of masculinity seems to be an attraction to women, making it so that oftentimes men who find themselves attracted to other men are therefore seen as not being “masculine” enough. Interestingly, a study has noticed that bisexuality has become gendered, in that far more women identify as being bisexual than lesbian, whereas far more men identify as being gay than bisexual. Clearly there are many factors that go into these results, but they are suggestive of a possible larger trend for men to either fully accept or denounce their “masculinity” when it comes to their sexual orientation.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KYvWhzSKoc4/maxresdefault.jpg

Even within the LGBTQ+ community, this expectation for people to strive to exhibit masculinity manifests itself in different ways. It has become a growing trend for men looking to hook-up with other men on social media to explicitly list on their profiles “masc 4 masc” or “no fems”, with the intent of warding off more “feminine” men. This is surprisingly divisive for a demographic of people who are already disadvantaged and who seek the respect of others. This may very well be due to the reality of the sexual preferences of certain men, but it acts as a way to deny traces of femininity and to place masculinity at the top of the power hierarchy. It is also interesting to note that men are not the only people who seek to achieve masculinity, which is seen, for example, in C.J. Pascoe’s book Dude, You’re a Fag. Pascoe encounters a girl who identifies as a lesbian who does not seem to encounter discrimination from her classmates because she embodies masculinity in that she dates many girls and rejects traits seen as being “feminine”. If exhibiting masculinity is not only appealing to men but to a small number of women as well, it could lead one to wonder the extent to which there is a sort of privilege associated with it.

One could have hoped that by now we would live in a world that is accepting towards all identities that a person chooses to hold, a world that does not expect them to act a certain way or meet standards in order to belong. The unfortunate reality is that this world does not yet exist, which can be seen in the way that most men, regardless of their sexuality, feel pressured to prove themselves as “masculine” men. It is important to note that the power hierarchy that holds masculinity at the top has almost always been around, meaning that it will certainly take a lot of time before this power structure is updated to fit our ever-changing society. Until then, we will have to do what we can to bring about the day when we are all allowed the freedom to be who we want.