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.