Media Activism #8

I attended a screening of a new documentary called Troop 1500: Girl Scouts Beyond Bars about a special program within the Girl Scouts of America that works with daughters of incarcerated women. The purpose of the program is to encourage the daughters to know their mothers and forge bonds now, so that they have a strong foundation to build on when the mothers are released. The philosophy behind the program is based on the strong bond between mothers and daughters that lasts a lifetime, and without childhood memories of times spent together, it becomes difficult to relate and feel that love later in life.

Part of the program involves the daughters bringing video cameras into the prisons to interview their moms. This way they have a chance to create memories and record them to reflect on and watch when they are apart. The documentary includes these interviews between mother and daughter and shows both the touching and heartfelt sentiments that are exchanged as well as the awkward moments between these young girls and their disfunctional mothers.

The documentary is well done as it follows enough mothers and daughters during a long enough period to show a wide array of experiences, so as not to simplify the program or the issues in general. Seeing these women with their daughters, we are able to see their sensitive sides, where they are on their best behavior and regretting all of their bad decisions that put them in prison to begin with. With more time, you are able to recognize the women who are still incredibly self destructive and disfunctional, from the women who may have made some bad decisions, but who are more likely to be rehabilitated. You understand why this program is controversial, because it is difficult to watch these young girls confronted with their unstable mothers. The troop leader who runs the program is really wonderful at standing by these young girls to make sure they have the support to deal with the aftermath of the highly emotionally charged visits.

The film doesn't try to answer questions and does not get political, but it does have strong messages. It is important to really understand the consequences and implications of incarcerating women and splitting up families. To see the effects on the children, it makes it apparent that we could use a lot more mental health environments and rehabilitation centers than prisons.

Media Activism #7

I attended an event last Tuesday at the Riverside Church in Harlem on the subject of sex education in schools (see here). What caught my eye the most about this event was that Shelby Knox and former Surgeon General Dr. Jocelyn Elders would be speaking. That was enough for me to jot it in my calendar. It didn’t occur to me that this event had anything to do with the church. I pictured in my mind a meeting room somewhere inside the church, probably in the basement. Upon arrival, I was really surprised to see that this was an official and well-attended convocation, taking place in the actual church with the backdrop of the dramatic gothic architecture and beautifully ornate details. It was stunning.

It was really very interesting to see Ministers and Rabbis together with the CEO of Planned Parenthood and the Director of Family Planning Advocates all in the same room, speaking on the same issues, and agreeing! I wasn’t familiar with the Riverside Church and I have since found out that they are interdenominational and known as a center for lively political discussion and for the promotion of social justice.

It was so refreshing and encouraging to hear the Minister introduce the CEO of Planned Parenthood with such admiration and respect, making it very clear that he was pro-choice and believed in family planning, using contraception, and comprehensive sex education. I am a little embarrassed to say, but I wasn’t aware that these two worlds could really come together like this. I suppose I am a victim of the media and political influence that makes us believe that Americans are much more polarized than we really are. Everything has to be so black or white and this was definitely a group of gray. We prayed (well, some people prayed), they sang, they quoted the bible, and spoke about God and abortion in the same speeches. It was fascinating and powerful. I hope that these Ministers and Rabbis tour nationwide to speak to churches in other states to let people know that one doesn’t have to sacrifice their religious faith in order to believe in protecting the health of teenagers.

Media Activism #6

In chapter four of Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning (Pearson Education, Inc, 2005) the issue of sexism in women's sports is discussed. The case study is about the Women's World Cup soccer game in 1999 when U.S. team member, Brandi Chastain, threw off her shirt in celebration after scoring the winning goal. The newspapers went crazy with the coverage of the player in a black sports bra swinging her shirt above her head. The question is: was the media sexist in their coverage of this story, considering the real news was that the U.S. team had just beaten their biggest competitor in the highest-attended women's sporting event ever?

The case study gives two contrasting opinions by Skip Bayless, Chicago Tribune sports columnist and Bonnie Erbe, host of the PBS program, To The Contrary. Surprisingly, Skip Bayless takes the position that men should respect these women as athletes and spend more time "cheering than leering", while Bonnie Erbe argues that women shouldn't be upset about the emphasis on sex appeal, "because it may be one of the key factors in finding advertising and financial support for a professional women's soccer league."

I only know Bonnie Erbe from watching To The Contrary on television and I think it's a fantastic program. She moderates a roundtable discussion of women from different political backgrounds and covers all kinds of current events. She is a great host who keeps the conversation on track, gives her panelists equal time to speak, and remains very calm and professional. She invites women who can clearly articulate their viewpoints in an intelligent way, successfully representing different sides of an issue.

I was really disappointed to read her comments on the Women's World Cup. First of all, in her introduction she states, "I don't pretend to speak for feminists, never having embraced that or any other mantel myself (labels make me nervous)." I am always wary of women who feel the need to place the "I'm not really a feminist" disclaimer before offering their viewpoint. What is it about the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes that they don't you agree with? It drives me crazy hearing women who are afraid of embracing this "label," but I will save that for a future posting. She argues that it may take sex appeal to lure men to the women's sporting events, but once there, they "cannot help but be impressed by the prowess of these same women as world class athletes." The problem I see with this argument is that when the recruitment and selection of women athletes becomes a beauty pageant, where they are not just highlighted by their sex appeal, but judged more heavily on their physical appearance and marketability than their skill, will their prowess be as impressive? I can see the headline now, "All Star Women's Soccer Champ Doesn't Make Team USA After FHM Magazine Claims She Doesn't Make the Cut." Once you blur the lines between the added benefit of corporate sponsorship based on sex appeal and the financial dependability on sponsorship based on sex appeal, there is no limit to how strongly physical appearance will play a role in the sport.

It would be a shame to have the prettiest team in the world never make it to the finals because they lost to the Chinese world class athletes in the first round.

I did some research on Bonnie Erbe and found some other points of hers with which I disagree. In her To The Contrary blog, she writes, "I'm all for breast-feeding. But breast-feeding in public? Call me a luddite. It makes me queasy. Please, go for it. But in the privacy of your home, a public bathroom, or perhaps even your van." Now, I don't have children, but from what I understand, breastfeeding babies eat eight to 12 times a day (or more) for up to 15 to 20 minutes a session. (source: FamilyDoctor.org). Telling a breastfeeding mother to stand in a public bathroom or hide in a van for this length of time because the sight of a baby attached to a nipple makes you queasy, seems like a pretty selfish and ignorant thing to say. As my mom would put it, "sounds like a personal problem to me." The facts supporting breastfeeding outweigh these unnatural, sexist, and distorted views people have of the act. So the next time you see a woman breastfeeding, Ms. Erbe, how about you go hide out in the public bathroom until she is done providing sustenance to her baby. I'm sure it's very comfortable in there; otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it, right?