impassioned pleas

You are currently browsing articles tagged impassioned pleas.

Today I was doing my normal pre-work routine: eating toast while doing my hair, wrangling my dog, and listening to NPR in every room.  As you may know, I love NPR.  My radio is completely locked on NPR and now that I have a smart phone, I can stream my favorite NPR stations at any time and use an aux cable to play them through my car speakers.  Road trips just got a lot better.

I expect a lot from NPR, but I was very disappointed in them this morning.  Jason Beaubien (which really is a fantastic name) was reporting on a mass shooting at a drug rehab center in Juarez – the second this week.  His report was troubling.  Mostly because this incident is disturbing and infuriating, but also because of a choice Mr. Beaubien made when describing the victims.  He informed us that there were six casualties “including two women”.

Including two women?

Now, let me say, that I understand why, historically, people have included this descriptor when discussing casualties of war and violence.  First, there is the notion that women are a protected class because they are defenseless.  Killing a woman is like killing a bunny rabbit.  Violence against one who cannot defend herself is especially heinous.  However, and thankfully, there has (mostly) been a shift in perceptions and we don’t automatically think of women as completely defenseless or automatically innocent.

Next, war correspondents will often report the number of women and children killed.  This is basically code for both innocent and civilian.  We have a general concept of soldiers as adult men, but haven’t these same correspondents told us over and over again about the children around the world who work as soldiers?  Do they still fall into the protected category of women and children?  If you’re reporting that there are 10 dead, 5 of them are children and 2 of those 5 are soldiers, then are 10 dead including 5 children or 3 children?  If women and children is code for innocent and defenseless, who qualifies?

Which brings me to today’s story.  Yes, the drug war in Juarez really IS a war, but are there clear lines between civilians and soldiers?  Six dead including two women.  Is that four men who died who may have been responsible for bringing about their deaths and two unsuspecting women that were just caught in the crossfire?  I don’t understand why “two women” is meaningful news.  Don’t use “women” as code for innocent, civilian, or defenseless.  Just say it.  Say what you mean.  Can you imagine a modern-day reporter calling out other traditionally marginalized groups?  Can you imagine someone saying “There was a shooting today during a bank robbery, six people were killed including two Jews, two Athiests, an African-American man, and an obese woman?”  What does that mean?  What are we supposed to understand about the situation by naming parts of their identity?  Is the event not as tragic for the families of the men that were killed?  Let’s not reduce people to one aspect of who they are.  Let’s not rely on a term as complex and overflowing as “woman” to be shorthand for weak.  If you mean weak, say weak.  If you mean innocent, say it.  Don’t use lazy language to strip the power from half of the world’s population.  I expect more from you, NPR, and, as a librarian, I can refer you to a great thesaurus.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

“Human devastation as mass entertainment” – Ani DiFranco

It’s almost noon, I’m watching the local news, and they keep running a teaser for a story on a controversial art exhibit at a public library in Texas.  I’m not sure if it’s the ALA Annual buzz running through my Facebook minifeed, or that I’ve been really using my public library a lot since graduation, but I’ve been feeling extra library-y lately. 

I have been waiting about a half hour for this story, and finally decided to consult the Internet.  I just read an article on Sculptures reflect violent life on the border — and death that presented the case in a completely different tone than my local news. The news story was about 2 -3 minutes long, and was in the last “newsy” slot of the broadcast. In the teasers they didn’t ever mention or hint at context, it was just images of disembodied heads peppered with bullet holes and brilliant splatters of red paint. I understand that they wanted to keep us watching, and it’s more enticing and inflammatory to let our imaginations figure out the meaning behind these images on our own. I know my imagination went to the worst possible option for me.

I think that all library people have these locations where the personal clashes with the policy. I think at times most of us caveat our stance on intellectual freedom. Yes, you should be able to access any information you want, and I will help you and won’t judge, but I’m a feminist, and I’m a subset of feminists that finds pornography troubling. What do I do with that when I’m working at the reference desk?

Also, I’m a person whose life has been altered by suicide, and I see images of heads with bullet holes, and my stomach lurches and I want to grab all the children and “wrap them in a blue cloud cloth away from the too rough fingers of the world” (shout out to L. Hughes). So I was prepared. My stomach was steeled. I was ready to become indignant. But, when I read the article, and finally saw the entire news piece, my opinion immediately changed. “Oh,” I thought, “that’s about Juarez. So, it’s poignant.”

Other people’s tragedy is apparently ok. I do understand that talking about things that aren’t talked about, or expressing one’s feelings through art are incredibly important. I have a gender studies degree, a field born out of consciousness-raising sessions, I understand the power of thinking, feeling, sharing, and speaking.

I can’t help but think about a show I heard on public radio – I think it was This American Life, but I’m not sure. There was a woman whose family had been devastated by murder, talking about all of the cop/crime shows – Law and Order, CSI, Homicide, The Wire, The Shield – and how we as a culture seem to find murder one of our favorite forms of entertainment. For her, these shows made light of the tragedy her family went through. I don’t think she expected everyone to watch their words around her for the rest of their lives, or for all pop culture to change to reflect her tragedy, but she was just sickened by how common, accepted, and routine murder was.

I get this. When my stressed out friends and colleagues put their fake finger gun to their head my stomach bubbles with acid, and I feel the lurch from my intestines to my throat. “You just don’t know,” I think, “if you knew. You couldn’t do that. You would never be able to do that, say that, or make light of that if you knew.”

We all have our tragedies, we all have those “button issues” that chip away at our hearts. Who are we to think that ours should be the only protected category? And what would happen to us if we were unable to discuss ANY button issues? I don’t know. I really don’t. All I know is that I steer clear of Law and Order: Rape as Entertainment (aka SVU), don’t like things that are inflammatory for inflammatory’s sake, and will always always always be keenly aware of any reference to my personal list of tragedies.

People who want to help

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

« Older entries