Catherine A. Traywick

Author Archive

Idealize This | Feminism

In Activism., Feminism, Hyphen, Idealize This!, Philippines, Third World, women on November 24, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Written for Hyphen on November 24, 2009.

For most of my life, I’ve acted the part of the fiery feminist activist. At age 10 (before I even knew “feminist” as a word) my surprisingly cogent defense of biblical Eve moved my evangelical father into surrendering his argument that women are the root of all evil. At age 16 (when I only knew “feminist” as a term of derision) I scandalized my Filipino teachers by conducting an (albeit amateurish) study charting gender discrimination within Republic Central high schools. And by age 19 (when I proudly donned my first signature “this is what a feminist looks like” t-shirt) my transformation seemed complete. In those enlightened times, I was fond of telling people, “You’re probably a feminist — you just don’t know it yet.”

So thrilled was I to have found a word — an ideology, a movement! — which embodied my long-standing belief system that I didn’t realize until much later the foolishness of such a proclamation; feminism isn’t, after all, defined by one’s inherent, unarticulated views on gender (however progressive those may be), but is rather a conscious, political choice one makes after considering and asserting those views.

These days, a much more educated, experienced, and cynical Me teeters on the fence. Some days, I hear feminism derided by an ignoramus with a beer and the beast inside rears its rosy head in indignation. Other days, my oft-broken heart smarts at the memory of old friends and activists whose feminist ideals didn’t stand in the way of their marginalizing a person of color, or objectifying another woman, or even downplaying the sexual assault of a friend. Most of the time, my commitment to social justice advocacy doesn’t feel as though it requires a label so I have the room to vacillate.

However, my indecision piques about every six months.

Read the rest of this entry »

Idealize This | Solidarity Tipsheet

In Activism., Feminism, Hyphen, Idealize This!, Las Otras Hermanas, Third World, women on September 11, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Written for Hyphen on September 11, 2009, and cross-posted at Racialicious.

My last column, about the ethical differences between charity and solidarity, was a heavy-handed critique of NYT Magazine’s “Saving the World’s Women” issue. Good criticism, however, ought always be tempered by practical suggestions for improvement. So, for this week, I’ve distilled the opinions of other critics, suggestions of notable theorists, and my own rich reserve of activist foibles into 3 simple (albeit wordy) tips for doing solidarity work the right way.

Tip #1: Realize that, no matter how much you know, you actually don’t know shit.

When Americans set out to work transnationally, we have a tendency to assume that our education, or experience, or even underprivileged upbringing makes us both “insiders” into other people’s struggles as well as qualified to tell them how to address it. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that a poli sci major, a backpacking trip through Southeast Asia, and/or a stint as the president (and incidentally only member) of your local Amnesty International Chapter makes you qualified to be anything more than an asshole just shy of completing an undergraduate degree.

Third World activists, as well as scholars studying transnational activism, have long decried the Western tendency to speak for, over, and about people of the Third World under the seemingly benign mantle of “global sisterhood” or “global citizenship” or some other similar ideal that blurs the ethnocentrism of their efforts. The first UN Women’s Conference in 1975 is a well-known example of this conflict: many Third World participants took issue with the feminist manifesto drawn up by white American feminist Gloria Steinem, which had been touted as a common framework for action, but was crafted without input from Third World activists.

Eminent postcolonial and transnational feminist theorist Chandra Talpade Mohanty similarly made waves a decade later, when her 1988 essay, “Under Western Eyes,” deconstructed the ethnocentric and ironically paternalistic analyses of Third World women that was (and is) prevalent in Western feminist scholarship. Delia Aguilar, another feminist theorist hailing from the Philippines, similarly argues that there is no such thing as “international sisterhood” and talks at length in many of her books about her problematic interactions with well-intentioned but misguided scholars and activists who wrongly presume that their experiences in the west qualify them to speak on women’s issues elsewhere.

If you really want to be effective (as opposed to annoying, useless, and embarrassed), get over yourself. Listen before speaking, and pause before acting. To paraphrase Aguilar, you have to illuminate these power relations in order to make unity possible. Read the rest of this entry »

Idealize This | The Ethics of Solidarity

In Activism., Hyphen, Idealize This!, Third World, economic justice on August 27, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Written for Hyphen on August 27, 2009, and cross-posted at Racialicious and Worldtown.

One of the first things a (good) transnational activist learns is the practical meaning of solidarity — which, as the latest issue of New York Times Magazine illustrates, is a concept not easily grasped by even the worldliest and most committed of advocates. This week’s installment of the NYT Magazine manages (for the most part) to thoughtfully and contextually explore the plights of Third World women, while examining some of the the hard realities of transnational activism. Nevertheless, the clear subtext of the articles belies the contributors’ apparent commitment to building real and lasting solidarity movements. As journalist Edwin Okong’o points out, the lead feature paints a rather two-dimensional (albeit compassionate) portrait of life in the brutal third world, but shies away from covering the efforts of impactful Third World activists and movements in favor of spotlighting the high-dollar (emphasis on the $) development projects of western nonprofit organizations.

The collective implication of the pieces (particularly as underscored by articles like “The Power of the Purse,” “Do It Yourself Foreign Aid,” and the issue’s own title: “Saving the World’s Women”) outlines a rather paternalistic view of solidarity, in which the savagery of the Third World must be resolved through the philanthropic efforts of the West. Tragically, for the Third World, solidarity is not about westerners recognizing how terrifyingly crappy things are “over there,” and subsequently dedicating a relatively minuscule portion of their grossly exorbitant resources to save the undeveloped from themselves. If only progress and partnership were so simple.

And: if only Asian Americans, by virtue of our heritage(s), were innocent of the above-mentioned paternalism. Unfortunately, you don’t have to be white to bear the White Man’s Burden — Sheryl WuDunn, one of the issue’s key contributors, is herself Chinese-American. And, as Americans, egoistic benevolence is part of our national identity. On the bright side, we do have one up on our Western counterparts: while we can certainly appreciate the value of a dollar with regard to international development, some of us may also have distilled from our multicultural rearing a more practical understanding of the profound importance and subtle complexities of this mysterious thing called solidarity. Read the rest of this entry »

Hyphen Lynks: Transpacific Edition

In Hyphen, News Round-Up., Race/ism, assholes on August 21, 2009 at 10:00 am

Written for Hyphen on August 21, 2009.

Momentarily setting aside our overwhelming obsession with all things healthcare, let’s take a quick second to discuss the hot reform topic of yesteryear: immigration. President Obama may have put this issue on the backburner for now, but the Asian American Pacific Legal Center, along with dozens of other API organizations, are pressing the president to prioritize immigration reform with a week of action (August 17-22) designed to publicize the ways in which the “broken” immigration system is affecting API immigrants and their families. While immigration reform is widely (and understandably) regarded as Latina/o issue, this week of action reminds us how much our communities have at stake, as well. Not only do Asian-born immigrants make up more than a quarter of all immigrants in the US, Filipinos are the largest immigrant group in the US after Mexican immigrants (even in spite of the average 22-year wait for a visa).

In a perfect world, though, a 22-year wait for the sake of family reunification and the pursuit of the American dream wouldn’t land you in a place where…

But there is some good news for those who — even in spite of the above-mentioned bullshit — decide to migrate to our star-spangled shores in the hopes of joining our high-earning ranks: Thanks to Vonage, we now have free international calling!

Oh, and contrary to Ken Jeong’s sell-out example and an emerging generation of plastic people, there are still some (very hot) Asian men out there who have managed to make it big time without going under the knife or transforming themselves into a tired old steretype — check out this Tribute to the Top 10 Asian Sportsmen Around Today. Whether you stay or go, these cosmopolitan, Asian-born athletes are just a little reminder of what’s a-waitin’ back home!

Idealize This | An Introduction to Hyphen’s Handbook for Idealists

In Activism., Hyphen, Idealize This! on August 10, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Written for Hyphen on Monday, August 10, 2009

As do-gooding overachievers straddling transnational, cross-cultural and inter-generational divides simultaneously, Asian American activists are a breed unto ourselves. Carefully crafted by overbearing parents into perfectionist pinnacles of productivity, we boast: cognitive abilities honed at a young age by bilingualism, an inviolable sense of duty and discipline instilled by the stringent mores of a conservative household, and bleeding liberal hearts touched by the experiences of prejudice and injustice that come from growing up mixed-raced, multicultural, and/or just plain different. Not to brag, but we are also awfully good-looking. This favorable combination of intelligence, skill and soul that forms the Asian American Activist is unique among do-gooders. We could be social change powerhouses, if we wanted to.

We have been before, after all. Prior to touching these shores, our activist forebears staged revolutions throughout Asia: the Indian Independence Movement founded on passive resistance, the People Power Revolution of the Philippines which peacefully ousted a corrupt dictator, the Indonesian National Revolution which freed the country from colonial Dutch rule… and so forth. Just a few decades ago, our own American progenitors founded the Yellow Power Movement and coined the term “Asian American” as a statement of unity and rejection of racial stratification.

Today’s Asian American activists are, by comparison, doin alright… We’re not radicals, but we’re still out there, putting our skills to good use. We may have mainstreamed a little, either shedding ourselves of our seemingly incidental Asian American cloak or hyphening ourselves out the American way with a string of extremely specific identity markers, but the point is we’re still activists. Activating. Against stuff. Or for stuff, whichever the case may be.Ok. Maybe we’re a little on the average side. Somewhat innocuous. Middle-of-the-road…. So maybe it’s not that fulfilling serving as cultural emissaries on our campuses, celebrating our heritages with food festivals (while forgetting that many of us have hungry relatives across the ocean) — still, it’s an important thing to do. Maybe it’s a little frustrating when we intern with national nonprofits that are completely disconnected from our communities, and have to turn a blind eye when they regard the rest of the world with that trademark American paternalism — but you have to pick your battles, right? Maybe we overlook our mother countries when we’re campaigning for women’s rights, but who can blame us? From what we remember, it’s way backwards over there, anyway. Read the rest of this entry »

American “Activism”: On the Neda Video, and Other Images of the Brutal Third World

In Activism., Racialicious, Third World on July 12, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Cross-posted at Racialicious on July 16, 2009.

Two weeks after the much-publicized death of Iranian protester, Neda — whose final moments were famously captured by a cell phone camera and distributed the world over — a couple dozen performers put together a music video tribute slash “non-violent resistance” anthem filmed (appropriately?) with nothing but a cell phone camera. Described by CNN as “a call to action against human rights violations by the Iranian government against Iranians,” the video’s creators/stars rap and harmonize about non-violence, their fuzzy, pixelated faces crooning between clips of the now historic footage of Neda’s death.

The graphic clips excerpted by the creators of the video for the the purpose of spreading their message of solidarity and pacifism have generated a cacophony of international outrage, sympathy, outright disbelief, and controversy since their initial circulation a few weeks ago. While the footage has galvanized protesters in Iran, creating for them a martyr to rally around as they strive for real, lasting change, it has also prompted enthusiastic Americans to wear green and tweet about revolution in what has already been described by numerous commentators as a superficial and ineffectual display of “solidarity.” The “United for Neda” video, as well-intentioned and misguided as any green-clad American, seems to fall into the latter category. Like Americans who continually replay the Neda footage in order to sustain a dimming sense of shock, outrage, and civic duty while imagining a connection to a less complacent world, the music video appropriates the controversial images of Neda with the aim of fostering activism through the propagation of sensational violence.

Plenty has been written on the subject already. Virtually every reporter covering current events in Iran has addressed the issue of Neda’s death in some way or other — sometimes dramatically (in the case of CNN, who broke the story) and sometimes tenderly (in the case of Roger Cohen, who never fails to convey a sense of humanity and compassion in his thoughtful articulations of the events unfolding in Iran). Some have gone so far as to suggest that the Neda video was a hoax based one source’s “obvious rhetorical flourish” when recounting the event, while others have criticized our macabre fascination with the woman’s death (as evidenced by the video’s propagation).

Perhaps the most interesting bit of commentary I’ve read on the subject, however, is a piece on a personal blog which suggests that Americans’ sense of humanitarian duty is only activated by their vociferous consumption of violence against people of color:

On blog threads, commenters are thanking bloggers for posting the video of Neda’s death [...]

I understand these readers’ sentiments, but why? Why must we see an Iranian woman die on a city street in order to understand the gravity of the country’s political upheaval? Why must we see brown bodies bloated and floating to give a damn about the tsunami in Myanmar or the hurricane in New Orleans? Why did we have to see Oscar Grant killed in cold blood by police on a BART platform to talk about racism and the justice system? Why did it take the mangled body of 14-year-old Emmitt Till to give America an inkling of the tyranny and danger that black folks faced in the South every day?

I think Americans are fetishizing video of Neda Soltani’s death in a way they would not if she were a young, blonde, American college student shot down on an American street. We do not need to see the lifeless bodies of those women in order to care for them. But people like Neda owe access to their deaths so Americans can access their own humanity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Obama, and the Birth of the (Above-)Racist

In Hyphen, Race/ism, Racialicious, obama on May 8, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Originally published at Hyphen on May 8, 2009, and cross-posted at Racialicious on May 18, 2009.

The New York Times commemorated President Obama’s 100th day in office last week with some optimistic reportage of race relations in the United States. Citing a recent New York Times / CBS News poll, the article asserted that Obama is positively influencing public perception of race relations, stating that

“Two-thirds of Americans now say race relations are generally good, and the percentage of blacks who say so has doubled since last July….”

If only the public’s perception of “progress” were motivated by actual progress. Even a cursory examination of the state of race relations in the US will reveal that we are still a very racially divided nation, in some ways even more so than before Obama’s election. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for example, just released a report which found that the number of hate groups in the U.S. has increased by more than 50 percent since 2000, and by 5 percent since last year. SPLC attributes the increase, in part, to growing anti-immigrant sentiment — a key point to remember, as Obama’s rise seems to have us thinking about race relations exclusively in black and white.

It wasn’t so very long ago that we were all too aware of the racism-infused anti-immigration sentiment that surrounded last year’s elections and talks of immigration reform. Back in those days, the Pew Hispanic Center found that half of Latinos believed their situations were worse than they had been a year before — and this year, the situation only seems to have worsened. Polls commissioned by New American Media now find that 82 percent of Latinas report that discrimination is a major problem for their families. And let’s not forget Committee of 100’s recent national survey, which found that Asian Americans still experience considerable discrimination.

And, contrary to apparent popular opinion and the cheery anecdotes featured by the New York Times, the situations of blacks haven’t improved markedly either, as Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress points out in his own analysis of the New York Times / CBS news poll results:

I’m surprised that as many as forty-four percent of blacks say that both races have equal opportunity. I think the evidence is unambiguously clear that they do not. African-American children have parents with lower levels of income and education. Their families, even when they have above-average incomes, tend to have less wealth than white families. And even controlling for parental income and educational attainment, black kids do worse in schools than white kids. Then beyond all that, there’s clear evidence of discrimination against job applicants with “black” names that tends to suggest a broader pattern of employment discrimination. There are inequities in the criminal justice system both in terms of more punishment being meted out to black offenders, and the police and the courts doing less to protect black victims.

Evidently, race relations haven’t improved quite as much as people want to believe. Clearly, in some situations, race relations have even deteriorated further. So what gives? Perhaps the (apparently unfounded) optimism uncovered by the poll has less to do with respondents’ personal observations of progress than it does with the overwhelming significance they placed on Obama’s election. Certainly the election of the first black/bi-racial U.S. president is groundbreaking — and many, I’m sure, hoped that the very possibility of his election signified a momentous shift in the way Americans think about race. But the misguidedly belief that everything is automatically better now has unfortunate repercussions.

What begins as a benign belief that things have changed for the better can quickly turn into the obstinate conviction that racism is behind us and need not be addressed any longer. I can’t count how many times, since Obama’s election, I’ve been advised to take my race relations commentary down a notch because, in post-race America, we are too “above race” to necessitate continued critical discourse on the matter. My own sister called me a racist recently for addressing race issues on the Hyphen blog because, according to her, doing so is an affront to everything that Obama has built for us. Such sentiments are shockingly pervasive, I’ve found — so much so, that I’ve taken to calling people who harbor them “(above-)racists” — people who think that race is so far beneath them that they can’t help but actually be racist. They are best known for their belief that Obama’s election means either 1) racism no longer exists or 2) white racism no longer exists and/or 3) pointing out racial differences (whether casually or critically) is, itself racist. Not exactly what Obama had in mind, I think, when he said this:

“…the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed, not just with words, but with deeds…”

Clearly even Obama doesn’t think racism is behind us, and the rest of us would do well to get that straight too. We need to recognize that one man’s rise — however monumental — doesn’t in and of itself change the structural inequalities that have long defined and limited the experiences of people of color. Believing otherwise reduces Obama to a token — a misleading indicator of illusory social change — rather than correctly recognizing him as an important step forward on a (still) long journey towards racial equality.

Being Bi-racial in a “Post-Race” World – Part I

In Race/ism, assholes, identity, privilege on April 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm

Last week I received a scathing e-mail from my older half-sister, who alleged that my recent contributions to Hyphen have been nothing but “anti-white rhetoric” and that I, myself, am a racist. Against whites.

I knew instinctively that her comments didn’t have much to do with my actual writing, and probably more to do with something that she’s got going on in her own life, but I was shocked and hurt enough by her vitriolic remarks to re-read everything I’ve ever written for Hyphen, searching for any trace of prejudice, or semblance  of anti-white sentiment (in spite of my confidence that the blog editors at Hyphen would never publish things of that nature).

What I found were familiar posts that questioned the reverse racism” myth (that favorite fall-back of affirmative action opponents), criticized the white male fetishization of Asian women, and reproved another (white) writer’s admitted attempts to “edge out” her bi-racial daughter’s non-white heritage. None of that smacked of racism, to me; in fact, I regard my writing (and myself) as staunchly anti-racist, and my contributions to Hyphen evince that.

The real problem, I know,  isn’t *what* i wrote…but, rather, the fact that I choose to write critically about race issues at all.

My sister is white; I am not. We did not grow up together. While she has spent the majority of her life in Alabama and Georgia, I have spent mine in the Philippines and Arizona. While she grew up in an all-white household, I grew up in a mixed-race household in mixed-race communities. Despite this, and our (at times) close friendship, we have never once spoken about issues of race — not even in the context of our own large, disjointed, multi-racial family.

I guess it just never came up.

And I can appreciate that, after years of never mentioning race between us, her discovery that I actually do have many mixed, complicated, and  public thoughts on the topic must have come as a surprise. Perhaps she feels that my seemingly new criticisms of white hegemony group her unfairly -  and according to race – into one homogeneous group, dismissive of her role as my sister, and her individual views on race relations.

While I can understand where she may be coming from, I’m still troubled by what I see as the crux of this issue: her intense disapproval of my generalization of “whites.” If I had said “some whites” or left “white” out of it altogether (despite the fact that I am discussing white hegemony), this would be a non-issue — she could go on believing that we are color-less, color-blind sisters whose relationship is uncomplicated by legacies of racism and differently-privileged positions in an inequitable society.

Her real problem with me and my writing, I feel, is something that Berneta Haynes articulates insightfully for Womanist Musings:

I’ve been asked on three separate occasions by three separate white people: “Can we just be friends (or lovers) without you being black and me being white?”

…I have always been dumbfounded and amused by the fact that the very people responsible for the creation of racial categories are the very people who can’t seem to handle racial categories anymore. [...] Having to deal with the fact that the brown and black world sees them as white people, rather than just people (as whiteness is supposed to be seen as the norm of humanity), is seemingly too much for white people to handle. The reality of their race creates a whole existential crisis in white folks.

The very recognition of race is a racist act, according to my sister. That’s asinine, but I get that about her. I just wish that she were as willing or capable of understanding my perspective, which is this:

  • My thoughts on race, racism, white hegemony, power and privilege, etc. aren’t new, despite my selective silence on the topic. They are the product of a lifetime spent as a PoC, as a mestiza, as a woman, and as a migrant.
  • What is relatively new, however, is 1) my level of comfort publicly articulating these views,  2) my understanding that doing so is absolutely necessary for my own contextualization, happiness, and sense of personal identity, and 3) my realization that the articulation of these views is potentially valuable to others like me, as well as relevant to ongoing discourse on race relations.

It took me a long time for me to be comfortable with my racial/cultural identities enough to begin thinking about them in a critical way, and begin really questioning my place in the world, and my mother’s, and my father’s…it took me a long time to stop regarding my mother and her heritage as inferior to my father’s (as my father did), and to stop regarding myself as a somehow “less than” my white peers (as my mother did). I’m 25 and only now beginning to figure out how to balance these seemingly oppositional identities, and learn how to be critical of the racism that infused my family household, while still loving and appreciating and respecting BOTH of my parents, and all of my siblings, regardless of their race and tacitly racist sentiments.

I have never felt so complete and comfortable with my ethnic/cultural identity as I have this past year or so that I’ve begun my reconnecting with my Filipino heritage. I’m finally able to contextualize myself, place myself here in the U.S. as well as elsewhere, as an American, a mestiza, a person of Filipino descent and multiple cultures. Despite some of the more hurtful things my sister states in her email, I don’t deny my white heritage, nor do I resent my white father. He, and his, are half of me. That includes the good and the bad stuff. Thinking critically about the power and racial dynamics within my childhood household, which were primarily defined and reinforced by my father, isn’t a crime against his name, but a reclamation of my own.

Why is this empowering process an affront to my white family? Certainly, it’s threatening; the recognition of and appreciation for my Filipino heritage is indivisible from the recognition of prejudice and racism that originally characterized that heritage as nothing more than “non-white.” …And this recognition inevitably brings to light my (both white and brown) family’s complicity in upholding gross racial hierarchies.

For my entire childhood, I was conditioned to believe that white was right, and brown was shameful and inferior. I’m so disappointed, and deeply hurt, that as an adult who has come a long way in developing critical race consciousness, I’m being told once again (albeit far more indirectly) that in order to be part of the family, I have to choose between being a whole person, and erasing one side of myself. That is, embracing my bi-racial identity with all of the complicated, uncomfortable strappings, or shutting up and pretending like race doesn’t exist.

Green is the New Black?

In SPM, vegetarianism on April 29, 2009 at 11:13 am

Originally published in SPM on April 29, 2009.

Damien and my editor think the title is cheesy. I’m still patting myself on the back for it. And personally, I don’t think its as cheesy as the lime-colored photo of the White House that they picked to accompany it. Anyways, I’ll admit this isn’t my best work.

Washington is going green. From Michelle Obama’s White House vegetable patch to the organic “people’s garden” that will soon span the lawn of the Department of Agriculture, our nation’s capitol has jumped aboard the sustainability bandwagon and affirmed the onset of what is now being hailed as a “Sustainable Food Movement.”

And we know all about that. With our pioneering School of Sustainability (appropriately bedecked with solar panels and cyclist showers), our innovative “eco-fresh” café and our burgeoning Campus Harvest Program, we practically invented “sustainability” or were, at least, one of its earliest champions. We have recycling programs, solar-powered trash compactors, water-conserving toilets (at least in the Coor building) and fair-trade coffee. We may live in a desert, but we’re as green as you can get.

…Right?

Perhaps that depends on what we mean by “green.” If the surge in canvas tote bag sales tells us anything, it’s that our drive to preserve the Earth is one with our drive to consume…a lot. Somewhere between the premiere of “An Inconvenient Truth” and the roll-out of Wal-Mart’s “fair trade” coffee brand, this noble idea of “sustainability” seems to have devolved into a super-charged marketing and branding exercise.

It begs the question: Be-sandaled and fixed-geared as we are in this solar-powered, organic Garden of Eden, can we be guilty of it too?

Engrained: Fair Food or Fad?

To find out, I thought I’d go straight to the shining star of our sustainable little universe, our very own glittering contribution to the Sustainable Food Movement – The Engrained café, brainchild of the multinational ARAMARK, which brings us nearly all of the food on our campus.

On the surface, Engrained seems like a green (albeit uppity) paradise. Not only does it boast Earth-toned walls peppered with facts about the environment and a “starlight terrace” where you can eat your organic basil and ricotta frittata under shade panels woven from natural fibers, it also professes to abide by six principles of sustainability: locally-sourced food, responsible procurement, energy and waste conservation, green buildings, waste stream management and responsible transportation.

Sufficiently heartened by what appears to be a legit, eco-friendly operation, I arranged to speak with ARAMARK’s sustainability manager, Katrina Shum, and the company’s “Farm-to-School Facilitator,” Kristen Rasmussen, to learn more about what makes this café so darn sustainable.

My good-natured optimism waned a bit, however, when I was informed that my interview questions would have to be screened by ARAMARK’s marketing department and all responses approved by their corporate headquarters. Nevertheless, I complied. And was rewarded by a transcript containing no more information than (and at times, quotes directly from) ARAMARK’s Web site and marketing materials…. An apropos reminder that “sustainability” is engineered, marketed and monitored by a multinational corporation.

Nevertheless, I’m impressed by the café’s apparent commitment to locally sourced food. One of Rasmussen’s chief responsibilities, in fact, is to facilitate the café’s produce purchases from small farms within a 150-mile radius — a laudable practice that supports small farmers, boosts our local economy and minimizes food transportation costs and emissions. Sustainable food activists across the country have long advocated that such institutional support of local food networks and famer’s markets are pivotal to the success of the sustainable food movement.

Unfortunately, the café seems to be more lax about its meats. While it does source seafood from suppliers that meet Monterey Bay Sustainable Seafood WATCH’s fishing/aquaculture guidelines, the specs on its other meats are less clearly and certainly stated. According to Rasmussen, the café uses free-range, antibiotic-free poultry and beef “as often as possible when available,” but doesn’t offer any information on how possible or available these actually are.

I’m a little surprised by this, considering how meat-intensive the menu appears to be, as well as everything I’ve heard lately about the environmental consequences of unsustainable meat production. In the interests of sustainability, why not less meat and more veggie options?

“We try to have something to please everyone,” Rasmussen says.” We are demonstrating that one can reduce the footprint that they make while still enjoying the foods that they like.”

But with famous chefs, media bigwigs and even the United Nations reminding us that “the livestock sector [is] one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems at every scale from local to global,” (according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) can a casual commitment to organic/ethically-bred meats really make a significant difference in reducing the carbon footprint?

A Meatless Movement:

While “free-range” is still the “it” word for hip, responsible consumers, the sustainability bandwagon is radicalizing — and the new litmus test for environmentally sustainable consumers requires a much greater lifestyle change than just shelling out a few extra bucks for antibiotic-free beef. The liberal Intelligentsia, spanning progressive media nationwide, is very vocally advocating less meat now (or no meat at all) as the most efficient and noblest solution to climate change and environmental insecurity.

Read the rest here (and try to disregard the fact that organizing sub-headings have been integrated into the text in a confusing, nonsensical way…eek!)

My Mother’s Migration Story

In Hyphen, Philippines, identity on April 24, 2009 at 11:55 am

Submitted to Hyphen for the April blog carnival of AsAm immigration narratives.

Growing up in a tiny rural town in the mountainous Bicol peninsula, Mom had wanted to become a doctor. The dream was short-lived, though, as her parents were only inconsistently able to make her tuition. She switched to nursing, then, but wasn’t always able to collect the fare necessary to get to her classes in the next town. After a few years of this, she just got a job in a bank so that she could help support her seven younger siblings, and send some of them to school.

When she was in her late 20s, she says she published her information in a magazine in order to get a G.I. penpal, which is how she became acquainted with my dad, a retired U.S.A.F. techsargeant living in Phoenix with his eight year old son.  They corresponded for several months, and my dad sent her a plane ticket to come to the States. She did, and six hours after her plane landed, they were married by a Justice of the Peace, and made house in a little apartment complex my father managed in Central Phoenix.

Mom was terribly miserable and lonely. Apart from the culture shock, and the language barrier, her hopes of getting a job and sending money back home to her family were dashed when Dad told her she wasn’t allowed to work, and ought to focus on taking care of the house, him, and his son. He taught her to make beds the military way, and how to cook his favorite foods. She (grudgingly) cared for his son, and clashed spectacularly with his family who regarded her as an unscrupulous gold-digger. Despite her unhappiness, though, she had no resources, no social network, and really no will to try to return home after leaving it for the first time in her life. So she accepted the cards she was dealt, but decided that a baby, whom she could love and who would love her unconditionally, would make her lot more bearable.

When I was born, my father decided that I should grow up in the Philippines where I would be safe from the evils of Western society, and so we moved back to Mom’s home town where she proudly paraded me as the only half-white baby around for miles and miles. My little brother was born shortly thereafter and a little while after that (for reasons that I still don’t understand) we began our bi-national lives, moving between countries every few years, enjoying immense privilege in one, and poverty in the other, comfortable in both places, but at home in neither.

My mom is in the middle.

My mom is in the middle.

The Great Melting Pot: “Edging” Us out within Interracial Families

In Hyphen, Race/ism, assholes, identity on April 16, 2009 at 8:57 am

Originally published at Hyphen on April 16, 2009.

Earlier this week, Racialicious guest blogger Thea Lim deconstructed a controversial NYT blog post which details a white woman’s experiences and concerns as she raises her mixed-race child. The author (and white woman in question), Nicole Sprinkle, very honestly describes her desire to incorporate her husband’s Colombian heritage into her daughter’s upbringing while prioritizing and carefully cultivating her white identity:

“Yes, she would learn Spanish and English, but to emphasize her Latina side, I felt, was somehow a disservice. Frankly, I didn’t want her to lose any of the privileges of being white. [...] I just wanted the eyelashes, and cheekbones, and that lyrical Spanish when appropriate. I wanted the good stuff, and from both sides.”

…It gets worse. Read the whole article to get the full effect. Lim responds somewhat emotionally to Sprinkle’s unabashed prejudice. As a mixed-race person myself, who was raised to value my (father’s) whiteness above my (mother’s) Filipina heritage, my initial reaction to the article left me too appalled to be articulate, so I asked another mixed-race friend of mine to break it down. She sent me the following thoughtful analysis:

[Sprinkle] lacks any kind of sincere introspection. Basically, she has fallen in love with a man who is Colombian but her main goal is to avoid having to integrate her self identity in a way that might threaten her white privilege…In trying to shield her daughter from identification with a part of the young girl’s self, she is sending a pretty clear message about what is important, valued/valuable. There is a distinct racial hierarchy being taught. A lack of race analysis also is problematic because, like it or not, as the mother and wife of people of color, she is a part of a multiracial community. She scrambles to use her money and whiteness — assets without intrinsic value — to protect her daughter from her own culture and affirmative race consciousness — assets that do have intrinsic value.

[Thanks, Megan!]

Many who have commented on Sprinkle’s narrative, including Lim and my friend Megan, focus on the potential effects of such prejudice on the child, but as I was reading the article, I kept thinking about how Sprinkle’s husband fit into the equation. She tells us that he is a Colombian immigrant who seems to have some classed ideas about the Spanish language, but apart from that we don’t get to hear from him very much — and we never get to hear his perspective on her determination to raise their daughter as mostly-white with just a touch of the exotic.

I’m kind of fascinated by this, because it’s new to me. Though I grew up in a similar environment, it was my Filipina mother who tried to cultivate my whiteness (not my white father), in part because having an “Americanized” child served as status symbol for her. While I don’t agree with it, I suppose I do understand her compulsion. However, the concept of the white parent insisting on “edging out” the child’s non-white identity is almost too much for me to comprehend…almost too imperialist to be real.

I’ve always appreciated interracial relationships because I thought they were a real and meaningful illustration of our great multiethnic, multicultural society, but Sprinkle’s article has made me rethink that a bit. Specifically, I started wondering (dramatically and hypothetically): What happens if, in mass numbers, our white partners begin to “edge out” our cultural heritage(s) because they, like Sprinkle, recognize the benefit of privilege and find it more expedient to play into the system rather than challenge it (for the sake of the children, of course!)? And thus, what we used to define as “racism” becomes nothing more than “pragmatism.”

It puts me in mind of an article I read in the Washington Post recently which asserted that a recent decline in interracial marriages is due to a desire among the U.S.-born children of immigrants to marry people of the same ethnicity. The article suggests that, despite conventional wisdom, greater immigration generates a greater desire to partner with people who share a similar cultural heritage. It certainly makes sense, but after reading Sprinkle’s article, I can’t help but wonder if a prevalence of prejudicial attitudes like her’s might have something to do with our generation’s newfound preference for partners from our own (or similar) communities.

But I suppose Sprinkle’s ideas about race and privilege probably shouldn’t be that surprising to me (or any of us). After all, her approach to childrearing is perfectly consistent with our Melting Pot ideal, a metaphor which we’ve been squawking ad nauseum since Obama was elected. We just don’t seem to realize the truth of that metaphor: that a “melting pot” isn’t about diversity or inclusion but about homogeneity, about heterogeneous groups melting into the dominant culture rather than enriching it.

That ‘Single Asians’ Video and Other Cultural Comedy

In Hyphen, Race/ism, identity on April 13, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Originally published at Hyphen on April 12, 2009.

Likely you’ve already seen this gem from Mixed Company of Yale — but in case you haven’t: it’s a racialized parody of Beyonce’s “All the Single Ladies.” Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

I’ve been trying to make sense of how I feel about this video since it came out a couple of weeks ago…and am still torn between what little of it I find amusing and the rest of it, which I find tasteless and insulting (Seriously: Are there really any AsAms who think that “me love you long time” is anything other than an offensive, sexist, racist trope?).

The arguably racist/sexist overtones of the video are obvious and have been covered pretty widely by other blogs, so I won’t go into that here. Besides, I’m less interested in dissecting why/how the piece is racist or sexist than I am in why the video is (meant to be) funny…particularly to the women who created it. Are these women poking fun at racists/racism by performing every stereotype associated with Asian women, a la “hipster racism“? Or are they simply making fun of Asian women? And for whom are they ultimately performing?

Humor performed by people of color about people of color isn’t anything new, of course. Comedians of color — Carlos Mencia, Dave Chappelle, etc. — have made careers out of making race jokes, lampooning their various cultural heritages by drawing on stereotypes that seem edgy when coming from non-white mouths but which have ultimately been constructed by white society’s interpretation of non-white groups.

The same plays out, I’ve noticed, within groups of people who share similar cultural/ethnic heritages. Whenever I’m in a group of young Filipino-Americans, for example, not ten minutes passes without a tabo joke made or a FOB-ish accent attempted — much to the delight of others in the group who seemingly never tire of hearing the same jokes made, arguably at their expense, on a regular basis. I’m guilty of it too.

And it seems harmless enough. At best, in-house race/culture jokes actually do speak to our experiences and/or serve as a way to bond (albeit tastelessly and superficially) with people who understand how you grew up or what kind of home you live in. We do it in life, and comedians do it on television.

But the very prevalence and popularity of this kind of humor makes me wonder why so many AsAms have taken offense to this particular video, despite an unwavering appreciation of Margaret Cho’s often self-loathing race jokes. I suspect that the difference has to do with Cho’s accepted role as an “insider”; we tend to think that she’s speaking to us, rather than to non-AsAms about us (though the latter is probably more accurate). The women in this video, on the other hand, don’t specify their intended audience — and their affiliation with Yale, a mostly white university, definitely doesn’t grant them insider status. As a result, we are perhaps hyperaware of the hackneyed, eurocentric stereotypes which they
perform.

And, while the stereotypes definitely are hackneyed and eurocentric, the underlying issue here is deeper than a common recognition of blatant prejudice. The bottom line is: It doesn’t matter if those jokes come from the mouth of an insider or not, because ultimately those jokes weren’t conceived by one. Jokes that poke fun at “Engrish”  are understandly (though not rightfully) funny to white people, for example, because they point out aspects of Asian culture(s) that are so
apparently different from mainstream white culture that they seem ridiculous by comparison…and people like to point out difference as much as they love to affirm their normativity.

On the other hand, people of color who make similar jokes (the women in this video, for example) are just regurgitating
the same old shit that white people have been saying about us for as long as they’ve cared to recognize our existence.

I don’t mean to imply that we second and third generation folk are simply the unwitting victims of our hegemonic society, or that all of the jokes we make at our expense are self-loathing. Rather, I am critical of a particular kind of humor, constructed by whites, and adopted by us. I suspect that our compulsion to make those kinds of jokes has more to do with our own desire to affirm our own normativity by laughing at difference. When we associate Beijing with dry cleaning or posit the tabo as laughable, we aren’t, after all, making fun of ourselves, are we? We’re making fun of our
parents and grandparents, and a country and culture that we don’t really understand, because we’ve never really been a part of it.

Our adherence to and perpetuation of stereotypes likes those in the video seem to say less about our comical cultural similarities than they do about our own lack of cultural awareness and identity. They aren’t an expression of our cultural heritage, but a statement about our disconnection from it. And there’s really nothing funny about that.

***

Here are the complete lyrics:

Mixed Company of Yale

“Single Asians”

All the single Asians
All the single Asians
All the single Asians
All the single Asians
All the single Asians

Now put your hands up
Library and CDB
Test comin’ up next week.
You dropped a flask,
And now I’ve gotta ask
If you’re enough to be in a lab with me.

I need this grade.
I’ve never been late,
Because I live my life for med school.
I do bio-chem
On the weekends
You ain’t hardcore enough for me.

Cause if you like me
Then you shoulda got an A on it.
Cause if you like me
Then you shoulda got an A on it,
An A-minus
Ain’t the same as an A is it?
Cause if you like me
Then you shoulda got an A on it.

[lots of Oh's]

Let’s make some noise
For all the boys
Who have yellow fever.
I’ll be Lucy Liu
Or Sailor Moon
A geisha just for you.

At the restaurant
I’ll taste your sauce
And you can slurp my sushi.
I like it raw,
So bring it on,
And me love you long time.

We from Beijing,
We dry cleaning,
And practice Viorin.
We visit Yale,
We bring peace there,
And take picture at the Beinecke.

I make the rice,
(She make it nice)
Cause I’m in charge of Dim Sum!!!
I make Chai Tea.
I do Tai Chi.
And bring honor to our family.

Academics of an Economic Crunch

In SPM on April 8, 2009 at 10:11 am

Originally published by SPM on April 1, 2009

When political science junior Jonathan Alanis was hired as a policy intern for a research center at Arizona State University last summer, he never expected that university-wide budget cuts would render him jobless within a few short months.

“I heard that budget cuts were coming,” says Alanis, 21, “but I always felt like [they] would never hit me. I felt like I was off to such a great start with that job…I was part of something, and then all of a sudden it stopped.”

One of three student workers employed by the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS), Alanis abruptly found himself with a difficult choice to make: either keep the internship without pay, or find a new job elsewhere.

Faced with mounting bills and other living expenses, he chose the latter.

“I couldn’t afford anything…” he says. “I knew I had to leave. I made some calls, called about seven different business owners I knew, different departments at ASU, but no one had anything.”

The timing of the center’s layoffs was particularly unfortunate, as they came barely a week after President Crow distributed a video message to students assuring them that tough economic times would only minimally affect them — if at all.

“You all are […] in one of the safest ports in the storm,” he said in his video, which was sent to students via email. “College students are well supported overall by the infrastructure that we have, […] by Pell grants, by university financial aid … and many of you have that support in addition to strong support from your families.”

While clearly intended to be more of a statement about educational costs than student livelihood, the message nevertheless underplays the negative impacts of budget cuts on students — especially considering that 61 percent of ASU students work at least part-time, with 5,553 of those employed by the university. Then again, much of the information presented by ASU regarding their responses to the recent economic downturn has underplayed its potential (or actual) effects on students.

While the university admits to eliminating 550 staff positions, including deans and department chairs, and warns of potential additional lay-offs to come in 2010 , no concrete information is available regarding budget-related elimination of student positions or reductions in student worker hours or pay (though anecdotal evidence may abound).

Keep reading “Academics of an Economic Crunch”

Memories from the Phils…

In Philippines on April 6, 2009 at 3:46 am

Found this on an old blog, from 3 years ago, and it made me smile:

A Few Things I Miss About the Philippines:

My school uniform consisted of a hideous neon blue pleated jumper with a white ruffled blouse that buttoned in the back, meaning that we girls always needed help putting them on. Usually our maid helped me, but I liked it when my mom did. She would set her cup of coffee, caramel colored from so much milk, down on my dresser and talk to me about things while she buttoned: there were new toothbrushes in her closet if I needed one, could I sort through my clothes and give away whatever I didn’t wear anymore, was there anything in particular that I wanted for dinner?

During lunch Jourdanne and Alton copied my physics homework and an hour later we all got mad at each other when everyone’s anwers were wrong.

On the way home from school I used to ask my friends to wait with me so I could eat brown sugar fried bananas on skewers or, on really good days, boiled peanuts wrapped in newspaper.

I covered my nose with Jahmal’s oversize hankerchiefs to avoid smelling exhaust from passing jeepneys and, though I promised I would, I never gave them back because they made me feel close to him. Alton wore a towel down his back, beneath his dress shirt, to catch sweat, and repeatedly asked me if his head smelled. As a measure of our friendship, I always checked. It was so warm and humid that the slightest breeze touching our foreheads made us shiver.

Jourdanne liked to show up at my house unnanounced, before we were close enough for it to be appropriate, but no on minded. He didn’t talk much at first, but he let me dress him up like a geisha (which alton and I later named murajaki) and take pictures of him, and that was enough.

Whenever I was sad, I went to Francis’s house where he cheered me up with playstation and lumpia, and regaled me with stories of his fictional heterosexual exploits.

On the weekends I hung out in Carmenville, even though Joe’s mom didn’t like me, Eri’s parents never let us in the house, and Robert and Ruthanne’s dad kept us out by walking around in his underwear.

Ruthanne always told us that she hated being in the rain so one day when it was pouring Francis and I knocked her down into a puddle and kicked rainwater in her face until she laughed enough to love rain.

We went ghost hunting in the cemetery outside of their subdivision and on halloween we had a bonfire and spent the night in a big abandoned house. I was the baby that started crying.

Joe’s mom made the best cookies, Francis’s mom made the best lumpia, Alton’s mom made the best steak, and Jourdanne’s mom gave him a lot of money and he bought us McDonalds.

We drank Coca Cola from 8 ounce glass bottles, or in plastic bags with straws sticking out of the open end.

When we visited my mom’s province, we swam in the river and at the beach. An uncle walked us through bits of jungle to see a pineapple field. Distant relatives wondered why we didn’t bring their fingers to our foreheads in blessing whenever we met. We stayed in a house built of concrete and marble, but when we made the rounds, we visited my aunt in a house of brown-painted wood, cousins in a bamboo house on stilts, and my great great grandmother living in a house with woven leaves for walls and a bare dirt floor. When we brought her back to Angeles to live with us she sat in a hours long trances, fingering her rosary beads.

In Angeles, everything is covered in gray dust, from the eruption of mt pinatubo. The buildings look worn and empty and only after you’ve been there for a while, do you realize that people are everywhere. In San Vicente, where my mother is from and lives now, everything is green and lush. The water, though, is sometimes brown.

The men are always leering and because I’ve always hated this, my friends walked arm in arm with me whereever we went.

I got into a lot of fights and when I came home expecting either sympathy or anger from my mother, she just looked up from her desk, scrutinizing me over the top of her glasses, and asked me if I’d won. She always said that small women need to be meaner than regular sized men.

:o ( I wanna go home. It;s been a really long summer.

The Perils of Internet Research, and More on “Reverse Racism”

In Hyphen, Race/ism, assholes on March 31, 2009 at 3:53 am

Originally published at Hyphen on March 30, 2009

Ben Hwang over at 8Asians recently took issue with my post “Reverse Racism at Princeton…” because, according to himself, the South, and the Urban Dictionary, “reverse racism” is a misnomer, or non-existent, or something along those lines:

“Hyphen’s recent blog post about Princeton University’s “Reverse Racism” was amusing to me, especially since the terminology was used incorrectly — it’s not reverse racism, it’s just racism. (Especially ironic since I learned this after I moved to the South.)”

Far be it from me to contradict the teaching of “the South,” but I get the feeling that Ben doesn’t exactly get it. Then again, his sources included the third (not to be confused with the first or the second) definition of “racism” provided by dictionary.com, as well as some of the less articulate definitions of “reverse racism” posted at the Urban Dictionary, which he describes as his “reference for all things slang this side of Wednesday.”

While I do appreciate the obviously extensive research he conducted in an effort to understand the tricky concept of “reverse racism,” I think his analysis would have benefited a tiny a bit had he scrolled down the Google search results page a little further to discover either of the following links:

  • Tim Wise’s essay, “A Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism,” tackles this topic in language accessible enough for even regular readers of the Urban Dictionary to comprehend. (FYI, Tim Wise is a leading anti-racism activist and educator in the U.S.)
  • Stanley Fish’s essay for The Atlantic, “Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black,” examines the relative nature of “racism” and what “reverse racism” means to opponents of affirmative action.

If he had, he might see that these essays, like both his post and mine, question the validity of the notion of “reverse racism.” Unlike Ben, however, we don’t take issue with the concept because we find it equivalent to “racism” — on the contrary.

“Reverse racism” is a term used to describe discriminatory acts performed by non-dominant groups towards the dominant group in a society. It’s highly charged because 1) it implies that dominant groups
can actually be victims of racism despite the institutional power they wield over all other groups and 2) it is a rallying cry for opponents of affirmative action.

Tim Wise cleverly illustrates Point 1 with an anecdote about a group of Native American students who tried very hard to be “racist” against whites:

Indian students at Northern Colorado University, fed up by the unwillingness of white school district administrators in Greeley to change the name and grotesque Indian caricature of the Eaton High School “Reds,” recently set out to flip the script on the common practice of mascot-oriented racism.

Thinking they would show white folks what it’s like to “be in their shoes” and experience the objectification of being a team icon, indigenous members of an intramural basketball team renamed themselves the “Fightin’ Whiteys,” and donned t-shirts with the team mascot: a 1950’s-style caricature of a suburban, middle class white guy, next to the phrase “every thang’s gonna be all white.”

Funny though the effort was, it has not only failed to make the point intended, but indeed has been met with laughter and even outright support by white folks. Rush Limbaugh actually advertised for the team’s t-shirts on his radio program, and whites from coast to coast have been requesting team gear, thinking it funny to be turned into a mascot, as opposed to demeaning.

Of course the difference is that it’s tough to negatively objectify a group whose power and position allows them to define the meaning of another group’s attempts at humor: in this case the attempt by Indians to teach them a lesson. It’s tough to school the headmaster, in other words.

Objectification works against the disempowered because they are disempowered. The process doesn’t work in reverse, or at least, making it work is a lot tougher than one might think.

Without the power to define another group’s reality, Indian activists are simply incapable of turning the tables by way of well-placed humor.

[emphasis mine]

As for Point 2, “reverse racism” and affirmative action, I can put it no better than Stanley Fish:

“At this point someone will always say, “But two wrongs don’t make a right; if it was wrong to treat blacks unfairly, it is wrong to give blacks preference and thereby treat whites unfairly.” This objection is just another version of the forgetting and rewriting of history. The work is done by the adverb “unfairly,” which suggests two more or less equal parties, one of whom has been
unjustly penalized by an incompetent umpire. [...] The word “unfair” is hardly an adequate description of their experience, and the belated gift of “fairness” in the form of a resolution no longer to discriminate against them legally is hardly an adequate remedy for the deep disadvantages that the prior
discrimination has produced.”

I referred to “reverse racism” as a myth in my last post because I disagree with the term’s underlying assumption that all prejudice is equal. While we ought to examine race relations critically, never rashly justifying any kind of discrimination, we must also always be careful to place ourselves and our criticisms within an appropriate historical, social and political context that takes into account the legacies of racism that inform our current, and varied, personal experiences in the world of race relations. The Internet is great, because it means we can educate ourselves about these issues quickly and easily… but, as in the real world, we have to be careful where we go for that education. Google isn’t always the justest arbiter of knowledge.

“Reverse Racism at Princeton” or “White People Can’t Read This”

In Hyphen, Race/ism on March 19, 2009 at 2:59 pm

[Originally published at Hyphen on March 18, 2009]

The Prox, a Princeton University blog hosted by the Daily Princetonian, published a piece earlier this week about an incident of purported racism in one of its classrooms:

Raphael Balsam ‘11, a Bloomberg Hall resident, was working on a computer in the third floor computer room when he noticed Chinese written on the blackboard last Sunday. He was surprised to learn that the writing translated to:”White people can’t see this / White people can’t read this / White people can’t understand this” and immediately notified an RCA, Carrie Carpenter ‘10.

Evidently the chalkboard scrawl has caused a bit of a stir, inciting an investigation into whether or not the message was a violation of the university’s Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities.

According to Roger Wang, a photographer for the Princetonian, most of those present when the message was deciphered treated it lightly, but, “I feel that there was a true concern regarding how the writing could be seenas a joke while an attack in English would suffer severe consequences.”

Perhaps more puzzling than Balsam’s initial reaction to the seemingly benign message is the clear subtext of Wang’s account: the shared perception of unfairness underlying the students’ certainty that the English version of such a message would generate a lot more (unjustifiable) outrage. The implication, of course, is that ethnic minorities enjoy a certain amount of joke-privilege that not only excludes white people, but is often exercised at their expense. After all, if Miley Cyrus is shunned for referencing a particular race while innocently “goofing around,” why should anyone be able to reference any race in any way ever?

While I often have the pleasure of hearing white folks around me decry “reverse racism” when confronted with their own prejudices, this case is particularly close to heart because it so clearly illustrates a major flaw of the “reverse racism” myth: That it fails to take into account the inherently asymmetrical connotations of different prejudicial acts.

The students were concerned that a message written in Chinese which said “White people can’t see this / White people can’t read this / White people can’t understand this” would not be taken as seriously as a similar message written in English. To be clear, a similar message in English would be “Chinese people can’t see this / Chinese people can’t read this / Chinese people can’t understand this.” Obviously these two “similar” statements, similarly written on a chalkboard at Princeton, have disparate implications.

The first — written in Chinese in a place where Chinese is not widely visibly recognized, read, or understood by whites — could very well be a statement of fact. Would I expect cleverer graffiti from Princeton students? Yes. Does that mean it’s racist? No. On the other hand, the second message — written in English in a place where English is widely visibly recognized, read, and understood by Chinese — implies that Chinese students at Princeton don’t know English. See the difference, there?

Now, I know the second message is only hypothetical but — well, actually, wait a second… doesn’t it kind of remind you of that time when the Princetonian published a joke article lampooning a particular Asian American student who had been denied admission? It went something like this:

“Hi Princeton! Remember me? I so good at math and science. Perfect 2400 SAT score. Ring Bells? Just in case, let me refresh your memories. I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me.”

That’s almost… straightforwardly racist. Nevertheless, the Princetonian’s Managing Board justified the article, saying:

“Using hyperbole and an unbelievable string of stereotypes, we hoped to lampoon racism by showing it at its most outrageous… We embraced racist language in order to strangle it.”

Kind of makes the whole Bloomberg Hall chalkboard incident seem rather trivial, doesn’t it? Perhaps those leading the investigation which it sparked will come to think so too.

On a side note: They “embraced racist language in order to strangle it?” Really? Don’t these kids go to Princeton, for crying out loud??

Debunking the White Man Fetish

In Hyphen, women on February 16, 2009 at 7:10 am

[Originally posted in Hyphen on February 16, 2009.]

Since writing my last entry on the Asian Fetish Myth, I’ve received some interesting responses. Most of them have implied that, while Asian women are fetishized by white men, Asian women perpetuate the fetish by favoring white men in the dating game (I believe Neela commented on this as well).

One person even asked if I was, while writing the post, reminded of my own parents (an older white man with a much younger Filipina wife) — as though the circumstances of their relationship somehow undermine my initial claims about the ways in which the Asian Fetish plays out in the media.

To that, in particular, I respond: Certainly, I had that in mind. But my mother’s marriage to my father (like other interracial relationships) doesn’t undermine my assertion that the Asian Fetish is one perpetuated onto, rather than by, Asian women. In other words, it is characterized by the sexual objectification of Asian women by non-Asian men due to the latter’s (mis)perceptions about the former’s nature and culture (not the other way around).

My father was an excellent example of this as he was, admittedly, attracted to Asian women because he believed that they are submissive and gentle (fyi: my mother’s a firecracker so… don’t think he really knew what he was getting into there…).

My mother did marry my father willingly and so, I suppose, one might be tempted to make the case that she is living proof that the Asian Fetish is perpetuated by Asian women who like Caucasian men. Thing is, she didn’t marry a white American because of of some misguided, dominance-driven infatuation with older white men (unlike my father, whose attraction to Asian women was really a sexual objectification of Asian women; in other words, she’s no Misaki Nakajima). Rather, my mother’s desire to marry a white American was predicated on the belief that doing so would grant her a level of personal and  financial security that otherwise might not have been possible, given the level of inequality and inopportunity prevalant in her home country. Was she simply a gold digger, looking for a sugardaddy? Or is her reverence of Western society the result of centuries of colonialism and foreign occupation which “benevolently assimilated” its citizens into a belief system that debased the local cultures while exalting those of the West?

Obviously it takes two to tango — but, if you’ve ever taken ballroom-dancing lessons, you know that the dance depends on a very rigidly-defined power relationship between dancers. The notion of the Asian fetish is similarly built upon a unequal balance of power, in which one party has license to define the other, while simultaneously being regarded as a benevolent benefactor for having done so.

Yes, Asian women participate in the sytem. But Asian women didn’t create the system.

[I feel the need, at this point, to make a distinction between Asian women (as in: from Asia), and Asian American women, as my commenters seemed to be confused about the difference. Everything I have thus far described pertains the former.]

Now, as for why Asian-Americans date white guys: I wish I could say that it’s simple, that — duh — there are a lot of them. Caucasians do outnumber Asian Americans by over 200 million. But it really isn’t so simple…. And that really isn’t the right question. Instead of asking why so many AsAm women date white men, we should be asking why so few AsAm women date AsAm guys. I know a lot of Asian American women who, admittedly, prefer not to date Asian men because they think that
they are “effeminate” or “too short” (never mind that we are, on average, even shorter). And I just want to say that this preference (or lack thereof) is not based on the  objective or substantive observations about the masculinity or physique of Asian men, but rather is based on the way in which American (i.e. white) society has stereotyped Asian men
since the mid-1800s (read: relegating them to jobs traditionally held by women and then condemning them for holding jobs meant for women, etc.). Taking this into consideration, the apparent AsAm preference for white guys doesn’t seem to be grounded in a sexual objectification of white guys, but actually seems to be underpinned by a socially conditioned aversion to Asian men. Funny how we get all bent out of shape about being objectified based on western perceptions of our race but have no problem discriminating against our male counterparts on the same basis.That’s right ladies: If you say you don’t date Asian guys because they’re less than (or date white guys because they are, by comparison, more than)…well, you’ve just bought into over a century of racism and anti-Asian sentiment, and are perpetuating it in your own life on a daily basis.

Obviously the Asian Fetish exists, and obviously it isn’t singularly perpetuated by old white guys. Asian/AsAm women definitely play a part — but our part doesn’t have anything to do with a white man fetish, as some of my commenters have suggested. Rather, our part in perpetuating the Asian Fetish is grounded in our desexualization of Asian/AsAm men, as doing so 1) reinforces white men’s position of sexual power, and 2) bolsters the asymetrical power dynamic between white men and women of color.

Asian Girls and the Guys Who Fetishize Them

In Hyphen, News Round-Up., assholes, women on February 12, 2009 at 4:05 pm

[Originally posted at Hyphen on February 11, 2009]

That Asian Fetish Myth thing is making news again…though this time no one’s debunking it.

Jaemin Kim has a piece up examining the dangerous implications of the “Asian Fetish,” in which she shrewdly links media representations of interracial dating with sexual violence against Asian women.  It’s a must-read if you hate seeing Asian women portrayed as the exclusive purview of middle-aged, balding white men and/or hentai-watching computer geeks.

The Onion also recently published a piece on this topic, albeit with a much simpler objective: a lampoon of the fetishizers themselves. In an article titled “Asian Teen Has Sweaty Middle-Aged Man Fetish,” the Onion attempts to put a satirical spin on the Asian Fetish Myth. But, while the premise has potential (even if the target is an easy one), the execution is less than consummate.

Here’s an excerpt:

At first glance, 17-year-old Misaki Nakajima seems like any other shy and submissive Japanese schoolgirl. She loves shopping, text messaging, and the color pink. But beneath her wholesome exterior lies a wicked secret: Misaki Nakajima is consumed by sexual fantasies involving sweaty, middle-aged American men.

“I can’t explain it,” said Nakajima, dressed in a pleated miniskirt and pure white knee socks. “There’s just something about American men who are at least twice my age and nearly three times my body weight that totally drives me wild.”

Sure, we get the punchline — how clever to point out the absurdity of “balding Midwesterners who carry most of their weight in their stomach” entertaining some strange sense of entitlement over women so obviously out of their league.

But for a parody of pervy old white men, we sure don’t get much of the pervy old white men… Instead, we get a pretty intense collection of hyper-sexual descriptions of 17-year-old Misaki’s miniskirt and “alabaster” skin. In fact, after a few paragraphs expounding on the bizarre sexual fantasies of this “virgin nymph,” the article starts to read less like a parody and more like the beginning of Asian-fetish erotica written specifically for “balding Midwesterners who carry most of their weight in their stomach.”

Maybe the Onion writers just can’t keep track of their own punchlines anymore…or maybe this fetishized image of the submissive Asian woman is so pervasive that even satire intended to criticize it becomes, itself, a source of the objectification.

I can just imagine what Jaemin would say about this, given the way her article takes other journalists to task for their borderline racist (and undeniably reductive) representations of Asian women and the men who date them.

Thoughts?

Obama Champions Equal Pay

In Hyphen, obama, politics on February 12, 2009 at 6:03 am

[Originally published at Hyphen on February 4, 2009]

After eight years of disappointment, my nihilistic veneer is cracking. It’s been less than two weeks since Obama’s inauguration but he’s already signed executive orders to close Guantanomano, seal CIA detention centers worldwide, end torture, institute transparency at the highest level of government, and repeal the Global Gag Rule — in effect, making the world a better place. Who knew that pen-wielding could have such superheroic implications? (says the journalist).

Last week, our new pres kept up his hyper-progressive momentum, with the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill that restores individuals’ ability to challenge unequal pay.

Upon signing the bill, Obama said:

“I sign this bill for my daughters, and all those who will come after us, because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams and they have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could have imagined.”

I found the reference to his daughters particularly moving since black women are one of the lowest paid demographics in the United States, second only to Latino women — which just emphasizes the point that this new law isn’t singularly a flashpoint in women’s history, but a stepping stone for all minority groups in this country.

cpswom2007.jpg

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

I don’t mean to underplay the significance of gender, however. After all, Asian Americans may be the highest paid demographic in the United States (and that’s across occupations, not just in math and science, people), but Asian American women still earn significantly less than their male counterparts — a fact that I have a hard time rationalizing, considering that, for the last 20 years, more women than men having been earning college degrees.

I guess even model minority status doesn’t trump patriarchy.

In any event, I’m finding myself getting incrementally less pessimistic about the state of the world every day that Obama is in office. Let’s hope that he keeps this up, and continues making our country a safe place for people of all demographics.

Good Friday

In News Round-Up., assholes, choice, obama, politics, women on January 23, 2009 at 5:42 pm

The Democrats are making my week (and I can’t help but feel a little smug about it, given how many people I know who refused to vote for him because “what difference does it make who’s in the white house?”).

Not only has Obama signed executive orders banning torture, and closing Guantanomo and CIA detention centers abroad  [read Amnesty Intl's Perspective on this], he’s also moved to increase government transparency and ethics.

He is also expected to repeal the Global Gag Rule (a policy that has long crippled health providers across the world, by denying U.S. governemnt funding to NGOs that provide abortion services or counseling) TODAY!! [Take a look at the UN's perspective on my the Global Gag Rule must be repealed].

The Senate hasn’t failed us either, passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a landslide yesterday, 61-36. The bill restores women’s ability to challenge unequal pay. It’s worth noting that every single Republican woman on the Senate voted FOR the bill; just more proof that, regardless of political party, women usually do what’s best for men – and men, regardless of political party, shouldn’t be making decisions about women’s issues.

But my joy over the nation’s new leadership is, unfortunately, tempered by my disgust at Arizona’s [Oh AZ, when will you cease to disappoint?!]:

  • Kyl and McCain, of course, voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  • Now that our beloved Janet Napolitano has left us for the Department of Homeland Security, Republican lawmakers are trying to roll back university funding provided by her while she was governor – meaning that, after the huge budget hit that ASU took a couple of months ago, we are looking at even larger one [read President Crow's statement] that will likely lay off thousands more employees (undoubtedly including myself), raise tuition and fees dramatically, and maybe even close one of our campuses. [More handiwork of Russell Pearce, mastermind behind last year's attempt to cripple public education in Arizona, Senate Bill 1108].

Two steps forward, one step back, huh?

Good Done Anywhere…

In Activism., Philippines, economic justice, identity, privilege on January 2, 2009 at 3:29 am

Almost as soon as I landed in Manila, I was struck – not by how the landscape has itself changed (though it has)– but how different my perception of it has changed since my last arrival, nearly 10 years ago. At that time, I was sixteen, mourning my father’s recent death, grudgingly supporting my mother in her decision to move back home and be with “family.” Back then, as we drove through the streets of Angeles City, where we made our home every few years, the city seemed unbelievably gray: volcanic ash covered the roads and ground and buildings, and the buildings themselves seemed depressingly dilapidated, mildewed, unpainted or peeling. Only after a few days did I begin seeing color. This time, however, the color was everywhere and immediate – the gray was still there, but I had to look for it, by peering behind throngs of people on the street and brightly hued jeepneys beeping loudly, beyond the rainbow colored-umbrellas of street vendors and the students clad in green, blue and red school uniforms (colors I and my friends had worn and the sight of which made my stomach flutter with nostalgia). During this visit, everything seemed totally different than it had been growing up, only I know it’s exactly the same; I’m the one who has changed.

When I left the Philippines 7 years ago, aged 18 – with nothing but one suitcase, fifty dollars in my wallet and my 16 year old brother in tow – I did so believing that I had no choice; believing as we all did then that these seven thousand and one hundred islands held nothing for me – no opportunity, no chance for education, success, or dignity without western intervention. I didn’t think about it at the time but I left, like my mother had 19 years earlier, certain that my one-way ticket to the States was a golden ticket to a promising future. The difference between my mother’s journey and my own, however, is that hers was fraught with hope, lacking even the presumption of promise, while my journey I regarded as my due.

Over the last seven years all of my high school friends, excepting two, made similar journeys – to California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tokyo and London – looking for similar opportunities that we were taught only existed outside of the world into which our parents were born. We are different than other Filipin@ migrants, however, whose search for Opportunity included a chance to bolster the Philippine economy by contributing to the steady stream of remittances that keeps it afloat. No, unlike them, we were born into privilege. Not the privilege of nice cars or fancy clothes or any other such luxuries recognizable to and validated by western eyes. Rather, we were born into a privilege of color and class – mestiz@s whose mothers may have had dubious origins but whose fathers were American, Australian, Jewish and thereby somehow noble – despite their unscrupulousness and even lack of cold hard wealth.

All in all, we were a rag-tag bunch whose families had no real social standing but enjoyed the benefits of being foreigners in a society that loves imports. This had its pros as well as its cons, one of the latter of which being that one of us were ever really appreciated or accepted in our schools or among our peers, who in turns admired and resented our otherness. Our real privilege was our freedom of movement, which 98 percent of us exercised the moment we enjoyed the freedom of age. Our inability to fit in, paired with the prospect of these impending freedoms, instilled in most of us a sense that we were meant for better things – entitled to better things, in fact and, driven by this belief, we moved away and became part of that minority of migrants who are motivated not by the prospect of sustaining their island-rooted and impoverished families, but by their own sense of self-importance.

Only two of my friends are still living in the Philippines and during this visit I discover that they are probably more successful than our friends who left; one is an actor slash model with three films under his belt, and the other manages a JP Morgan Chase call center where he makes more than three times what I make in Phoenix.
That’s not say that I haven’t had my own share of successes; in fact, I returned home with tangible proof of these successes and every intention of sharing them: my newly printed business card, brochures for the poverty alleviation non-profit that I co-founded earlier this year, pictures of my activist work with Women Beyond Borders, articles I had published about various human rights issues I care about…Wouldn’t everyone be proud of me!
Well, I wouldn’t really know…because, shortly after arriving in my mother’s small town, tucked away in the mountainous Bicol peninsula nine hours away from Manila, I decided never to share these “successes” with anyone in my family.

Seeing before my eyes what my memory had failed to recognize, I was immediately reminded that, within a family pushing 100 members, I am one of only seven who live abroad…and of those seven, I am the only one who doesn’t send money back to support my extensive, and impoverished, family. I smiled sheepishly when people began asking me what I had brought them from the States, ashamed to tell them that I had brought nothing, because my income in the States is meager, at best. How would they accept this, knowing that all of our family who lives abroad are able to send money, and bring gifts of clothes and food and other practical necessities? If I told them that my job doesn’t pay too much, they would ask me why I don’t get a job that does, or why I’m still a student after 6 years – and what would I say? That the reason I don’t have a full time job and the reason that it’s taken me a long time to finish school, is that I spend forty hours a week working for no pay, doing activism?

How do you tell your family who, for Christmas, receive one package of cotton panties each because it’s the most luxurious item they can afford to give, who work as maids if they are fortunate enough to work at all, whose children die of treatable illnesses, some of whom have no running water, and all of whom dream that one day they can send even one of their children out of the country to work (it doesn’t matter doing what) so that their entire family can for once experience the security of a steady income – how do you tell them that the reason you don’t send money, and haven’t brought gifts (not even panties), is that you spend all your time and money trying to “end injustice” elsewhere in the world? How do you tell your family living in poverty – or rather, how can you tell them, that earlier this year you founded a non-profit committed to alleviating poverty in Mexico, that you spend all your time and energy and money helping Mexican families whose quality of life is greater than many of your own family members?

You can’t. You don’t.

I just told them that I’m a student, that I’ll graduate in May, and that I don’t know what I’ll be doing after that but that when I come back, I will be in a better position (to contribute) than I am now. I spent most of the hundred dollars that I had brought with me on gifts for my cousins (though I did buy some cheap presents for my friends in the States), and I gave the rest to my mother (who didn’t fill anyone in on the details that i left out).

How did I end up in this place? My mother has never ever asked me for money; on the contrary, she has sacrificed everything to help me achieve my goals. But do I really need to be asked? I may have been one of the privileged few who migrate out of self-interest rather than familial obligation, but my obligations swiftly changed after re-rooting in Arizona and experiencing culture shock for the first time.

While I had lived in both in the States and in the Philippines for extended periods of time, for some reason yet unknown to me, my last trip to the States seemed to me like the only, in that I felt I was experiencing the wonders of western life for the first time. At 18 years of age, I stood in a supermarket in North Phoenix, stupidly awed by the cleanliness, the diversity and quality of products…In the car, I stared out the window, wondering at the perfectly painted traffic lines, the coordination of intersections, and absolute absence of litter. And when I met up with my States-side friends, I found myself utterly befuddled by their vanity. All of them were white, sported wild, streaky hair colors and proudly wore thrift-store clothes that didn’t quite fit – a demonstration, I suppose, of their lack of vanity. They chain-smoked and drove around town in cars their parents had paid for, with no destination and nothing particular to do, listening to Fugazi and bitterly indulging in the fact that everyone else they knew was shallow, or that no one even knew what the IMF was or bothered to care about the harm it was inflicting on poor people in Thailand (the only country they knew to be South-east Asian; they hadn’t placed the Philippines yet). I drove around, and I listened, and I didn’t say much for a while and then, rather abruptly, I turned away from it all, and everyone all, in disgust.

I may have come back to the States expecting to do well for myself, but after looking at my old friends and realizing what I was, and what I could become again, I changed everything. I became obsessed with the most apparent inequities between our countries, though I hadn’t yet learned to think critically about the root of these inequalities; instead I, like the majority of my migrant Filipin@ fellows, regarded money as the key. With money, I could go back to the Philippines and build schools, or send my cousins and nieces and nephews to school, or start a clinic, or some other socially responsible enterprise. Driven by the desire to improve my mother’s homeland, I turned to activism, and remained devout since the day I converted.

…For some reason or other, though, I never quite got around to fixing the social ills of Philippine society. I got around to helping a lot of other societies, however. At 20, I started Women Beyond Borders and raised tens of thousands of dollars for women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico, and the Navajo nation…but never the Philippines. When I was an opinion columnist, I wrote article after article about women’s rights and border issues and the middle east…but nothing about the Philippines. This last year, I co-founded a poverty alleviation nonprofit…that benefits Mexico, thousands of miles away from the Philippines. And I didn’t even get around to coming back to the Philippines again until a few weeks ago…after an absence of seven years.

Why the disconnect? I never forgot about the Philippines; it was always on my to-do list; I was sure I’d get to it eventually, when I’m older, when I have more money, right after I’m done helping Afghanistan and Pakistan and Mexico and every other country in the world. I’d get around to it….right?

Yet it wasn’t until I became aware of the work of Pinay scholar Melinda de Jesus that I realized I had veered from my original path, first moral obligation, and resolved to return to the Philippines if even for only a visit. Prompted by de Jesus’s ideas about decolonization, however, I realized that my visit had to be more than just a visit [see my September entry, “Decolonizing me”]

I started to both remember and discover myself…a process that continued – accelerated, even – this December while I was in the Philippines. While there, I met activists and organizers working to alleviate poverty in the country, support fair trade, and pass legislation that would help farmers and promote food security….I met an opinion columnist who follows insurgent groups in the islands…I met an award-winning director who produces a documentary television series that puts a human face on the Filipin@ experience on a weekly basis….I reconnected with old friends who demonstrated to me that “Opportunity” is not synonymous with “Abroad”….and I spent quality time with family whose quality of life is in no way improving as a result of my “successes.”

And I was reminded of something one of my professors once said, referring to Americans: “As a culture, we privilege the work that we do over the family that we do it for.” By that standard, I am more an American than I would have ever hoped to be.

I always fancied that I didn’t have a home; moving around so much, not fitting in anywhere, it leads you to believe that you belong nowhere and everywhere at the same time. Only now, as I sit here on this airplane, flying over the Pacific, away from the seven thousand and one hundred islands that I lived upon for half my life, and towards the continent that I lived on for the other half…only now do I realize that I had a home all along. I guess you do have to leave it, in order to find it.

When I landed in Honolulu for my layover, I had lunch with my best friend since childhood, who is also a Filipina, who knows me inside and out. When I told her all of this, she just smiled and said, “I wondered when you’d come around.”

I used to think, “Good done anywhere is good done everywhere.” But guess what, Maya Angelou? You were wrong. Good done anywhere is NOT good done everywhere. Not when “anywhere” is somewhere you’re not supposed to be. And not if you, like me, have a moral obligation to a land, to a home, to a family that you have neglected in your tireless pursuit of justice for others.

Fair Trade and Hunger Strikes: My Day in Manila

In Activism., Las Otras Hermanas, Philippines, economic justice, politics, women on December 24, 2008 at 8:27 am

Mabuhay! I’m in the Phils for a couple of weeks visiting my family for the holidays- and frantically trying to collect some interviews for a paper I’m writing on alternatives to current Philippine trade policy. Because I’m only gonna be here for a short time, I only had one day to spend in Manila for visiting relevant organizations. Fortunately I had a contact from Advocate for Philippine Fair Trade, Inc (APFTI), who freed up his whole day to take me around the city to meet with different groups.

The APFTI staff was wonderfully welcoming. Besides taking the morning to tell me about their programs and projects, they ordered in lunch for us, and spent the afternoon visiting fair trade businesses in Manila with me.
APFTI shares a space with another similar organization called Filipinas Fair Trade Ventures (FFTV). While APFTI provides small-scale producers and businesses with empowerment trainings, product development, market facilitation and coaching, FFTV works on constructing a network of fair trade businesses and organizations in the Philippines.

We met up with the Community Relations Officer from Rags to Riches, an org that is really similar to LOH in many ways – not only was it started with a grant from a social entrepreneurship competition, it’s managing committee consists completely of people under 25 and are less than a year old too! They have partnered with a group of nanays (mothers) from a slum in Quezon City who weave rugs from scrap cloth, and are working to form the women into a cooperative, develop more marketable products using the same recycled materials and weaving technique, and they market and sell the products so the nanays end up getting about a 100 % increase in income. Most of the nanays work from home, but the group we visited works together in an alleys between their houses. Upon some encouragement, I attempted to weave a rug but my work didn’t meet their strict quality control standards :o )

The two youngest nanays from Rags to Riches cut scrap cloth and weave a rug.

The two youngest nanays from Rags to Riches cut scrap cloth and weave a rug.

One of the nanays teaches Joy (from APFTI) how to weave.

One of the nanays teaches Joy (from APFTI) how to weave.

Next we visited a group of women living in the same area who make beads from old newspapers and magazines. Thanks to APFTI, they are now connected to buyers from all over the world and fill orders for fair trade retailers like 10,000 villages. When we visited them, the 25 women were filling an order for 30,000 decorative bottles wrapped in their paper beads — meaning that each woman has to make 40 bottles per day to meet their deadline. They work out of their homes, as well, with their children nearby.

This woman is from Daet, the same town my mom is from. Here, she's gluing strings of beads she made to a glass bottle that will be shipped to a retailer in the Netherlands.

This woman is from Daet, the same town my mom is from. Here, she's gluing strings of beads she made to a glass bottle that will be shipped to a retailer in the Netherlands.

As we drove around the city, we passed by the House of Representatives where farmers and activist groups were protesting the end of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, which has redistributed farm lands from the government and land-holding elite to small farmers in an effort to alleviate poverty and ensure food security in the country. The protesters were hunger striking at the time I was there (many hadn’t eaten anything for as long as 18 days) because the program was ending before all tenable lands had been redistributed. In addition, a joint resolution that had been introduced into Congress with the intention of “extending” CARP actually privileges wealthy land owners by giving them the option of redistributing their land or not.

Protestors in front of the house of representatives

Protestors in front of the house of representatives

Two days after I left Manila, the House had passed the unjust Joint Resolution 19 despite the hunger strike and pressure from progressive lawmakers who promptly issued a statement saying:

We have decided not to be a party to the landlord-dominated House of Representatives’ pretension and deception of the Filipino peasantry and the people in extending the bogus Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). [...] This sham joint resolution further strengthens the landlords’ monopoly and control over vast tracts of agricultural lands in the country and will surely lead to the massive eviction of peasants and land-grabbing in the countryside.

It will also open the floodgates to the proliferation of various non-land distribution schemes like the Stock Distribution Option in Hacienda Luisita and the corporative scheme in the Cojuangco-controlled lands in Negros.

We call on the Filipino peasantry to intensify the struggle for genuine land reform in the countryside, in the parliament of the streets, and in Congress.

Junk the pro-landlord and bogus CARP!

Expose and oppose the anti-peasant Joint Resolution extending CARP for six months!

Struggle for genuine agrarian reform! Enact House Bill 3059!

Read more about this at Manila Indymedia.

I have a few more groups to try and visit when I’m back in Manila on Dec. 29 – hopefully some people will be there despite the holidays!

What we have at stake: Why you MUST vote!

In Activism., Feminism, obama, politics, women on November 4, 2008 at 7:07 pm

In the weeks leading up to this day, I’ve heard a lot of people proudly announce that they will abstain from voting because both candidates are rich/Christian/out of touch — or because So-and-So’s campaign manager is affiliated with some corporate villain or because neither candidate is taking a progressive enough stance on a single issue, or just because people think that – regardless of who’s in office – their lives won’t be affected.

And every time I hear it, I’m newly saddened and offended. Because while *I* have a problem with the fact that both candidates are rich/Christian/out of touch/affiliated with so-and-so/and not progressive enough on a lot of issues I care about — *I* also have a lot at stake personally and politically, depending on who’s in office.

Knowing that, it seems to me that those who say they have nothing at stake are not so much making a statement about their politics, as much as a statement about their privilege.

As a woman, an ethnic minority, a student, a low-income citizen, here are just a few of the things I have at stake:

•    As a woman, I need and use more health care than men do, but lack insurance that covers my needs – ALL of my needs, including birth control and other reproductive health coverage. Even on ASU’s discount health program, my (unpaid) student health fees are at about $900 right now as a result of birth control, HPV vaccinations, women wellness exams, colposcopies and testing – all standard, frequent procedures for women.

•    As a woman, I make up part of the U.S. Labor Bureau’s statistic states that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men…and yet I see laws protecting against pay discrimination being weakened and my ability to challenge sexual harassment and other job discrimination being threatened.

•    I also see men of color earning significantly less than white men for comparable work – that’s fact: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t02.htm
•    As a student and low-income citizen, I have seen millionaires get a whopping tax cut of over $130,000 this year while funds were cut for student loans and Medicaid. I’ve seen my financial aid, in the way of federal grants, decrease.

•    As a woman, I have seen my right to determine whether/when/how I should have a child be chipped away slowly.

•    I see women – and specifically women of color – disproportionately underrepresented in Congress, in local governments, in the legal system…this is troubling because time has shown us that women –regardless of political party – are more likely to be progressive on women’s issues than even very liberal men.

I’m sure if everyone took a minute to think about it, they could generate a list very similar to this one, specific to what they personally have at stake here.

ALL of these issues can be addressed within the current system we have, however corrupt or unjust (or lamentably unsocialist) it is. These are all things that have a huge impact on my life and the lives of those around me, and they are all things that our elected officials have the power to change — and have changed in decades past. This isn’t about anarchy, or romanticized revolution or even exalted idealism. It’s about what we deserve, what our fellows deserve, in all of our everyday lives. Revolution can come later. Right now, let’s just try to make sure that people who are here now – those who were born here and those who came here seeking new opportunities are taken care of.

And to those privileged few who still maintain that they are unaffected by politics: The moment when you see your own rights comprised is a really bad time to figure out you had something at stake all along. Own your privilege. Vote for the candidate who is more likely to ensure that everyone else has the same rights you already enjoy!!!

Vote Obama!

House Place

In Fiction., memory on October 15, 2008 at 10:10 pm

I walked in my father’s footsteps when I was 23. With my brother and my sister, I slid through a highway-side gate made of wire and entered a wood. We were looking for a well, for a giant tree – all that would be left to mark the House Place. In a clearing we found an elm, big enough to be the one, and they marched around, looking for the well.

I stood in the chill.

It was fall, and the sun was setting and all of the leaves – orange already – glowed like fire, suffusing the clearing with an amber spray of light that made e v e r y t h i n g . slow. Under my feet and all around me, the fallen foliage flickered like rust, flaked like rust, as they trudged. The tree we found twisted at the trunk, hunched over, face away from me, its bare limbs brittle and trembling – or licking? at the air that darkened, moment by moment, around us. We didn’t find the well, and we didn’t find the House Place, but we thought, or maybe only imagined, that we were close.

What’s a “fair” wage in Juarez, Mexico?

In Activism., Juarez, economic justice on October 8, 2008 at 8:29 pm

We (LOH) have spent the last several months researching and debating with one another about what constitutes a “fair” wage in Juarez. It’s tricky, sensitive stuff – but must be determined if we’re to move forward with our Income Generation Program, which would pay cooperative members a living wage to produce socially conscious clothing (the proceeds of which would benefit their community).

This past weekend we headed back to Juarez to finally have this wage discussion with the women of the cooperative…Vero had suggested last month that we get together and, as group, participate in a cost-of-living workshop, the outcome of which would inform our discussion about wages.

At the handicraft center, Vero had us list out our goals for the workshop:
- determine the cost of living a decent, productive life in Juarez and in Phoenix
- compare income inequalities between our two cities
- determine a starting figure for the wage discussion

…Then we spent two intensive hours breaking down all of our living expenses, from food and shelter to education and beer — and figured out what our daily cost of living was. We did the same for our income, then we split into two groups (U.S. and Mexico) and averaged our daily incomes and expenses.

The way our different groups approached the exercise was interesting. We (the U.S. group) made incredibly detailed, itemized lists of everything we spend, including luxury items and recreation costs, and still came up spending slightly less than we make. The Mexico group, on the other hand, factored in just those things they would need to live a “decent” life: 3 meals a day, rent, utilities, transportation, healthcare, and education for their children – their cost of living did not reflect luxury items or recreation costs and, moreover, described what they need to live, rather than what they are actually currently capable of spending.

At the end, the U.S. group had determined that the average income between us ( a group of working college students who factor financial aid into our income) was $77.77 per day, while our cost of living was $68.20 per day…and our household size, for the most part was one.

Outcome of the cost of living workshop.

Outcome of the cost of living workshop.

Written up on the white board, these numbers contrasted starkly with those of the women of the cooperative. We knew that many of them made between $5 and $7 per day working 10-12 hour days in the maquiladoras – which is still higher than the Mexican minimum wage of about $4 a day, but definitely not enough to get by on. After the workshop, we realized just how far this money goes (or rather, doesn’t), as the women’s cost of living was around $30 a day for households sized about 5 members, on average.

Get that? Income=$5, Living Cost=$30.

A cooperative member's pay stub.

A cooperative member's pay stub

So how does that play out in reality? What gets cut when a family doesn’t have enough money to cover its basic expenses? Education, usually…healthcare, utilities, food…things a family shouldn’t have to give up when there people living just across a fabricated border who are spending three times that much money individually…

The co-op members’ determined cost of living, then, was the starting point for our discussion on wages. A fair wage, Vero offered, was one that allowed these women to live a decent life. In this local context, that wage had to be at or above the $30 per day that they need in order to give their families that decent life. By those standards, then, a “fair “ wage is a living wage.

We then determined that this wage that they were proposing (which came out to about $4 per hour) was about 750 percent higher than the Mexican minimum wage, and 98 percent higher than the non-poverty. Hmmm.

Given that, they were pretty happy to hear that, based on the research we had done (fair wage calculator, Economist Intelligence Unit country reports, El Paso Regional Economic Development Corporation figures), we were prepared to offer $5 per hour as a starting point – a figure that comes out to be over 900 percent higher than the Mexican minimum wage, and about 150 percent higher than the non-poverty wage.

Happy solution, huh? Well, doesn’t really feel that way.

It’s easy to look at these numbers scrawled on a white board and feel provoked by the extent of the economic inequality there…but more is required of us than recognition followed by a short-term visceral response. We must ask ourselves, and each other, why it is this way? Easy, right? Because it’s the United States – the richest country in the word – and because it’s Mexico – even, still, a developing country.

But that’s not it. The United States and Mexico didn’t hatch from an egg with economic inequalities inherent and fully formed. People – individuals, organizations, institutions – are responsible for creating and then fostering that inequality. And people – individuals, organizations, institutions – are responsible for correcting it.

At the end of our meeting with the cooperative, a few of the members made some comments, expressing their gratitude…which we all appreciated, I’m sure, but which made me slightly uncomfortable. After all, we (LOH, I mean) didn’t choose to be born in the States, and didn’t earn the chance to go to college and make good money and get financial aid and write grant proposals. And Vero and Vera and Laura and everyone else from the cooperative didn’t choose to be born in Mexico, nor did they do anything to deserve the economic inequalities with which they were born. As my dad used to say, we owe everything to the accident of birth.

Here’s some interesting info….Something like 20 percent of the world’s population owns 90 percent of the world’s wealth; stated differently – 80 percent of the world’s population shares only 10 percent of the world’s wealth. Newsflash: There isn’t an infinite amount of money and resources in the world. Even if that 80 percent of our population worked round the clock in an effort to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps (undoubtedly most do this anyway), they still wouldn’t get anywhere as long as that top 20 percent kept hoarding the money it already had.

So…does that mean that retaining wealth- or the very act of being wealthy – is immoral, because that privilege unjustly deprives others of opportunity? Uh…YEAH.

The crux of the matter is this: wealth redistribution whether on a large scale or on the small scale that we’re doing it on, ought to be the norm. We have a responsibility to correct these structural inequalities that we were socialized to believe were natural – if for no other reason than the ignoble recognition that Fortune could have dealt our cards differently; that we could have been born in poverty while others enjoyed our current luxuries.

Vegetarianism in the Blogosphere

In Activism., assholes, vegetarianism on August 5, 2008 at 8:46 pm

For some reason, everyone in the blogosphere has been writing about vegetarianism and animal cruelty lately and, not one to miss the band wagon, I’m going to, as well.

Worth mentioning are Ezra Klein’s two pieces on the environmental benefits of vegetarianism and one on animal cruelty, Megan McArdle’s post on morality and animal welfare, and Nicholas Kristoff’s column against animal cruelty.

Most interesting about these pieces are the reader comments…Klein received nary an ill word for his two lengthy posts advocating an ecologically-justified reduction in meat consumption, while McArdle’s deliberately non-judgmental entry on why she’s a vegan generated a mile-long roll of comments calling her judgmental, self-righteous and self-aggrandizing [this is actually an improvement, I think; being the only female blogger at the Atlantic, her entries usually generate stacks of comments calling her "retarded"]. Kristoff’s column, which condemned animal cruelty and factory farming from the standpoint of a meat-eater, generated so many and such a diverse array of comments that his blog ran a follow-up re-cap of the best ones. While some readers identified with his stance, many called him a hypocrite, a specist and “gratuitously glib” for lines like,

“So I’ll enjoy the barbecues this summer, but I’ll also know that every hamburger patty has a back story, and that every tin of goose liver pâté could tell its own rich tale of love and loyalty.”

While I think that Kristoff, himself, would probably admit to being a hypocrite, a specist and maybe even “gratuitously glib,” I have a problem with judgments that create or foster a hierarchy of ideological commitment. Kristoff eats meat….does that mean he can’t speak out against or care deeply about the inhumane conditions of factory farms?

I encounter those kinds of judgments a lot, day to day, but – ironically, more often from meat-eaters than other vegetarians. I’ve known so many meat-eaters who get a perverse joy from pointing out that my skittle addiction means I’m a bad vegetarian (or not one at all), or that vegetarians who eat fish are the worst kind of hypocrites on the face of the planet. Never mind the absurdity of passing judgment on someone else for doing something that your own ideology upholds as morally permissible.

Such blatantly irrational judgments seem to imply that if you’re not perfect then you don’t deserve to have ideals. It’s kinda like atheists telling Christians they’re gonna go to hell for having premarital sex; fyi – it’s the not job of atheists to hold Christians to Christian standards, and its not the job of meat-eaters to hold vegetarians to vegetarian standards.

It seems to me that the apparent hypocrisy of being a less-than-perfect vegetarian or an animal-conscious meat-eater is far outweighed by the environmental and health benefits of reducing global meat consumption.

It’s funny – I meet a lot more meat-eaters who lecture me on the benefits of meat than I do vegetarians who lecture meat-eaters on the rights of animals. But why do they care? It’s like a pre-emptive strike: judge before being judged…which makes me wonder why some folks assume that a person whose lifestyle embodies a particular moral ideology is somehow predisposed to passing judgment on others.

McArdle, for example, explicitly states several times in her blog entry that she doesn’t judge others for eating meat. And yet her comments roll is filled with readers calling her judgmental and self-righteous – admittedly, in many cases, simply because she is vocal about her dietary habits:

“What individuals choose to eat is of no concern to me. Why they choose to eat what they eat is of no concern to me. However, when they cross the line into proselytizing (as vegans in particular seem wont to do) then my Scooby-Doo ears prick up.” -Stewie

“So you just like to preen but won’t judge because of time constraints. I feel better already.” – The Phantom Menace

“The problem I have with your veg-blogging, and that I imagine others may as well, is your insistence that you’re not being preachy and strident, deployed to cover up the fact that you’re being preachy and strident.” -NAL

Generally, I don’t care if others eat meat, though I am incredibly appreciative when my meat-eating friends  share a vegetarian meals with me. But after reading scores of comments like this, I’ve decided to momentarily abandon my own usually non-judgmental stance on vegetarianism to do some of my own strident preaching, preening and proselytizing. So, a few highlights from Klein, McArdle and Kristoff about why veg is better:

Klein (quoting the PB&J Campaign):

Each time you have a plant-based lunch like a PB&J you’ll reduce your carbon footprint by the equivalent of 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions over an average animal-based lunch like a hamburger, a tuna sandwich, grilled cheese, or chicken nuggets. For dinner you save 2.8 pounds and for breakfast 2.0 pounds of emissions.

Those 2.5 pounds of emissions at lunch are about forty percent of the greenhouse gas emissions you’d save driving around for the day in a hybrid instead of a standard sedan.

McArdle:

I’d like people to know that if you are thinking about animal welfare, being a vegetarian or a vegan is nowhere near as hard as you think it is–believe me, I never thought when I tried veganism for Lent that I’d be able to stick with it, but it’s surprisingly easy to keep up with.

Kristoff:

The law punishes teenage boys who tie up and abuse a stray cat. So why allow industrialists to run factory farms that keep pigs almost all their lives in tiny pens that are barely bigger than they are?

Defining what is cruel is, of course, extraordinarily difficult. But penning pigs or veal calves so tightly that they cannot turn around seems to cross that line.

More broadly, the tide of history is moving toward the protection of animal rights, and the brutal conditions in which they are sometimes now raised will eventually be banned. Someday, vegetarianism may even be the norm.

…And some oldies but goodies:

“I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.” – Leonardo da Vinci

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” – Albert Einstein

“But for the sake of some little mouthful of meat, we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been
born into the world to enjoy.” – Seneca

“My refusing to eat meat occasioned an inconveniency, and I have been frequently chided for my singularity. But my light repast allows for greater progress, for greater clearness of head and quicker comprehension.” – Benjamin Franklin

Summer Sound Bites Benefiting LOH and WBB’s Juarez Projects!

In Activism., Juarez, Las Otras Hermanas, Women Beyond Borders, vegetarianism on July 30, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Community, Privilege, and other things we forget

In Juarez, Las Otras Hermanas, privilege on July 30, 2008 at 10:53 pm

We spent the past weekend in Juarez visiting with the women’s co-op with which Las Otras Hermanas (LOH) has partnered.

[For those of you who don't know, LOH is the fair trade non-profit we're starting in an effort to foster economic and community development. In Juarez, we're working with ALDEA, a small community organization  that has created a handicraft center for the women in the community.]

We planned to spend Saturday and Sunday with ALDEA, while we reserved Friday night for tweaking our business plan, but things went slightly off course when a huge division within the group nearly dissolved the organization.

Evidently, two of the four people comprising our managing committee had some serious concerns with the organization, mostly rooted in a lack of trust in other members, and communication difficulties.  It seems that one member of the organization was convinced that we had lost sight of our goal, and had interpreted our decision to spend the last few weeks solely on our business plan as a sign of our lack of commitment to ALDEA. Another member felt undervalued. One person thought another had too much personal ambition, another person thought someone lacked commitment, and everyone seemed very upset about the fact that, during meetings, I militantly refuse to deviate from the agenda.  Everyone felt disillusioned. So we ALL came out with our problems, and reservations and worries and spent six hours hashing out our differences in an effort to try and find a common ground (and convince one member not to leave the organization).

But while we walked away from that meeting feeling a little bit better, and having created some communication guidelines that should help us keep the peace, I nevertheless felt like something was still seriously wrong, something was still missing.

Why were we having all of these problems within LOH when we all worked together so well within Women Beyond Borders? LOH was born from WBB; they can’t be that different, I thought.

The next day we trudged into rainy Juarez, which we found terribly flooded – so much so, in fact, that Vero (our contact from Mexico Solidarity Network) wasn’t able to pick us up at the border as planned because she couldn’t leave her house. Consequently, we spent the morning wandering around the city, wading through streets, until the waters lowered enough to allow Vero to pick us up.

Cassie, Andrea, Vero, Me, and Charis at a restaurant in Pronaf, where Vero picked us up after the rain.

Flooded streets. This was *after* the water had gone down!

On the way to the handicraft center, Vero gave us another tour of the industrial parks, intermittently cursing the flooded streets which nearly stalled our van. Along the sides of the roads, rows of stalled cars were abandoned or being pushed through the water, while some young people took to boogey-boarding in between them. You see, these floods are one consequence of the city’s lack of infrastructure, Vero said.

At the handicraft center, we were delighted to find that a bright mural now covered one side of the building. It had been painted by some neighborhood kids, we learned, who were starting a community art project: they’re painting walls in the neighborhood in an effort to preserve and express their culture, and themselves – using the color and design scheme of the mural we painted last March!

As we sat outside of the handicraft center, someone suggested starting the meeting by going around in a circle and listing one thing each of us likes about ALDEA and one thing each of us likes about LOH. Though a lot of wonderful things were said, I only remember two – because upon hearing them, I immediately realized what we (LOH) had forgotten.

Antonio, one of the founding members of ALDEA, an incredible person.

Antonio, one of the founding members of ALDEA, an incredible person.

Vero, Laura and her children sitting outside of the handicraft center before the meeting.

Antonio said, “I like ALDEA because, as myself, I can do nothing. But as a community, we can do everything.” Then Vera added, “This organization is about families, and because it’s about families, we’ve become a family.”

And I realized that LOH’s problem wasn’t about a failure to prioritize ALDEA or solely about poor communication, but about our failure to create and foster a sense of community within LOH.

That night at the motel, I told our group what I thought: that the pressure to not fail, to be professional, to fit in with the excessively corporate tone of Edson and Skysong - combined with the added stress of our petty squabbles and personality differences had a created standard at LOH that dictated the complete division of the personal from the professional. When conflicts arose, for example, our mantra became “Just let it go; You don’t have to be friends to work together.”

Shameful.

Maybe if we were a different kind of organization – one that only cared about the bottom line – we could succeed with that line of thinking. But how could be honestly claim to advocate for ALDEA, commit to their vision, and prioritize their needs, if we don’t espouse the same values that they do?

It wasn’t always that way. In Women Beyond Borders, one-third of our mission is about fostering sisterhood and supporting each other just as much as we strive to support women elsewhere. We appointed a Wellness Chair to maintain the general well-being of members by recognizing milestones, remembering birthdays, and planning social events to alleviate stress and reduce activist burnout. We co-wrote Principles of Unity, for crying out loud! But, somehow, those commitments and values had not carried over into LOH.

So I told the girls that I don’t believe LOH can succeed unless we change that tone and change our strategy and that, instead of committing to LOH or solely committing to ALDEA, we *have* to commit to each other. We should be a family, like Women Beyond Borders is a family, and like ALDEA is a family. And you don’t walk away from your family.

LOH may fail for many reasons – maybe our business plan won’t work, or maybe we won’t be able to market the products successfully enough – but if it fails, it can’t fail because we couldn’t get along or because we didn’t try.

Edson gave us $20,000 of “learning money.” The program knows we may fail, and probably expects many of us to – it’s the learning that’s important, they think. While the members of the cooperative were unanimously deciding to give up forty percent of their already meager earnings to help develop their community, we were getting $20,000 of learning money. That’s privilege. We didn’t earn that, and we don’t deserve that. But we got that. The women of the co-op earn the money they make, and they deserve a lot more than they get.

The four of us often play around about how oppressed we are, but we are excessively privileged. Not only because of the money, but because we (even for a second) felt entitled to entertain the idea of quitting, simply because we didn’t get along. Because at the end of the day, we leave Juarez’s flooded streets for a dry motel 6 in El Paso. Because at the end of the weekend, we come back to Phoenix, go back to our on-campus jobs, open our macbooks, and write blog entries about privilege. We are so privileged.

So we decided to change things. To start caring more about and committing to each other, committing to building a community within LOH that ALDEA wouldn’t be ashamed to partner with.

Decolonizing Me

In Feminism, Philippines, identity on July 22, 2008 at 2:20 am

This December, I’ll be visiting my family in the Philippines for the first time in seven years. I’m hoping to view the country with new eyes.

I’ve always felt pretty aware of my prejudicial notions about Filipino culture, society, people — and only mildly guilty for entertaining them. Growing up, I learned to regard the Philippines with a kind of benign contempt, always cognizant of its shortcomings, and therefore ever appreciative of the opportunities afforded me by American society.  But even as I got older and began to question these notions, privately testing their validity, I only managed to exchange one set of prejudices for another.  When my parents told me as a child, for example, that Filipinos had no culture before the Spanish came, I accepted that as fact; as a precocious teenager struggling to be objective and politically correct, however, I rejected this idea in favor of one that seemed less harmful (but was certainly no less prejudicial): Of course the Philippines had a rich culture before the Spanish came; they just don’t anymore.

Similarly, as a child I somehow concluded that Filipina women wanted so desperately to be white and western because they were, themselves, inferior; as a teenager I exchanged that view for one which regarded Filipinas as helpless victims of colonization. While the latter was an improvement, I was still very much an unwitting ethnocentrist.

Years of college education and life experience helped me out a bit but even as lately as a few weeks ago, I persisted in regarding the Philippines as an unfortunate, post-colonial society with little to offer me – and I persisted in regarding myself as apart from that society — uniquely positioned to judge them as an objective bystander.

And then, in a last ditch attempt to learn a little something about Filipin@ culture before my trip, I went to the library and checked out everything I could carry on the Philippines. The volume on top: Melinda L. de Jesus’s book, Pinay Power: Peminist Critical Theory, a collection of essays written by Filipina-American (pinay) women on identity and Filipina feminism (peminism).

[To illustrate another one of my long-standing prejudices, my reaction to discovering this book was, “Filipinas know what feminism is?!”]

Skimming through the introduction, I lingered on this passage which, in a few sentences, seemed to so perfectly and eloquently sum up a personal experience that I had never thought about critically, let alone articulated intelligently:

I’m about nine years old, and I’m sitting in the back of my family’s Ford LTD station wagon…I am suddenly aware of how our car moves through space and time…Then I notice the nothingness left in our car’s wake – how space and time rush in to swallow up where our car has been, every second of its motion devoured, leaving not one tracing….Somehow I connect this sense of motion and simultaneous erasure to my family’s history – how we operate in the very American “perpetual present,” eschewing any link to our Filipino past. I learn to forget that my parents have accents, that they speak a language I don’t know—a language they did not teach me. I learn than it’s better to be “here” than “back home,” that bad stuff happened during “the war.” And because my parents have so many dreams for my American future, I learn to distance myself from my history. When asked, I say, “My parents are from the Philippines, but I was born here.” So this is the American dream – living in the perpetual present, moving through life without a past, swallowed whole, invisible, but unable to deny the lingering ache of absence…

I devoured this book. [In another illustration of my long-standing prejudice, I was so surprised at how articulate were the native Filipina authors in this  volume, that I checked to see if it was a translation. It wasn’t.]

I identified with the author who grew up in the same city I did, ironically drinking up her descriptions of an arid, ashy landscape that previously only seemed a nuisance to me. I sympathized with the author whose father was  white soldier and whose mother was a dainty Filipina entertainer. I saw my experience validated in completely new ways.

Of course I have Filipino friends in the States, and American and Mestiz@ friends in the Philippines, most of whom shared a similar experience to mine. But we also all analyzed our experienced in the same, ignorant way, sharing the notion that Filipino society was kind of backwards, and that the U.S. was the place to be. As an adult, intellectually, I told myself that these were unfounded prejudices, that the Philippines suffered from the same post-colonial experience that I recognized, intellectualized, and accepted in other cultures – but my rational mind could never seem to completely overtake my early indoctrination.

My father, a retired Air Force techsergeant, preferred the Philippines for our family because he found its relatively conservative culture conducive to raising children – especially girls. My mother, a Filipina who had “married up” (i.e. married white) in an effort to “marry out,” preferred the States. As a result, we moved back and forth a lot.

But while my time, my life, was divided up between two countries, cultures, and races, my loyalties were relatively straightforward – growing up, I always felt “American” and, therefore, implicitly white.

Only in the Philippines, though, was I ever regarded as such.

In the States, I’m Mexican, generally; Native American when I wear my hair in two long braids; Chinese when I wear my hair in two cartoonish buns on top of my head; Hawaiian when I’m tan; Inuit when my labeler is particularly creative; and, once, even Jewish.

In the Philippines, I’m “white” by skin color and social class, “mestiza” by race, and “American” by nationality/(presumed) depravity.

In either context: something of an Other – familiar with both places but at home in neither.

But while my identity was, in large part, determined by my location, my developing prejudices were not and, ultimately, they weighed heavier on the side of privilege. Informed by father’s light-hearted lampooning of Mom’s accent and his outspoken support of “benevolent assimilation” policies – as well as Mom’s staunch refusal to teach us her native languages, I learned (among other enlightened things) that while Filipinos were a hospitable people, they nevertheless lacked culture, initiative, and essentially owed their “progress” to the influence and involvement of the West.

At first these ideas meant nothing to me, living in the U.S., as I did. But in elementary school in the Philippines, my experience seemed to validate them. For instance, when I came home feeling discouraged and ostracized because my classes were taught in a language I didn’t understand, my father criticized the anti-colonial movement that sought to replace English with Tagalog in schools – “why would these people want to move backwards? ” When I made my first friend, another Mestiza girl who was raised in the Philippines by her single mother and spoke Tagalog as a first language, my own mother disparaged her for being the daughter of a prostitute.

In this way, I learned that there was shame in my mother’s roots, and nobility in her desire to “rise above.” My father’s roots, along with his ideas and his talk and his color, I accepted — we all accepted — as normative.

Sadly, frustratingly, remarkably, these essays were the first critical evaluation of my experience that I had ever encountered. And sadly, frustratingly, remarkably, without these essays I had been unable to recognize or articulate my own situation. And yet even this moment of realization was documented within these pages:

“Once I could name my shame and recognize its constructed origins,” writes mestiza Melinda M. Pierce, “—recognize that the skeletons in my closet did not belong to me alone—I could reject internalized notions of superiority and inferiority, sort out my confusion, and find constructive methods for channeling my anger into proactive work.”

It would be an understatement to say that this little book prompted me to confront my own internalized prejudices; as I said, I think I’ve always been aware of them, even as I vacillated between acceptance and revolt. It would also be an understatement to say it prompted me to view the Philippines in a different light. In fact, essay after essay, voice after voice, prompted me to view myself in a different light — to regard myself, not as one privileged to stand apart from a postcolonial society, but as an inevitable, unconscious member of that self-same society.

Katrina Donation Ignores Extreme Poverty

In Afghanistan, RAWA, The State Press on June 25, 2008 at 11:48 pm

Published in the State Press on September 14, 2005.

The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, pledged $100,000 dollars on behalf of his country for Hurricane Katrina disaster relief last week – an impressive number from a country currently $8 billion in debt.

The contribution is even more impressive when one considers a teacher’s annual salary in Afghanistan (which incidentally has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world) is only $600.

Afghanistan’s American ambassador responded to the gesture by praising Afghanistan’s “compassion and generosity.” Given the consistently unmet needs of the Afghani people, however, perhaps that compassion and generosity is a tad misplaced.

The 53 percent of Afghans living below the poverty line could certainly benefit from such compassion and generosity, as could the hundreds of thousands of Afghans displaced by bombardment and warfare – forces just as devastating as a hurricane.

That’s not to say the country hasn’t been struck by its fair share of natural disasters.

The U.N. reports that, in the last six years, an earthquake killed 1000 people, and disastrous flooding followed a drought affecting millions. And to top it off, there are still those pesky social problems – acid burnings, rape and the ever-prevalent forced marriages.

So, how can a country provide relief for the disasters of Afghans when, according to the U.N., it generates less than half as much revenue as it spends and is donating $100,000 to aid the richest country in the world?

Maybe Karzai figures we’ll be giving it back in no time anyway.

The donation, ironically made on behalf of the starving Afghan people, has received some criticism. The Revolutionary Afghan Women’s Association (RAWA) responded to Karzai’s actions on its Web site, stating, “While hundreds of thousands of Afghans are facing starvation … and Mr. Karzai and his government frequently call for help from other countries, this kind of donation is worth laughing [at].”

But, with the scant amount of media coverage Afghanistan receives, it’s probably pretty easy to indulge in the fantasy that Afghanistan, after the Taliban, is Eden with active landmines.

Humanitarian organizations repeatedly report on the lack of improvement in Afghanistan. But the ongoing suffering of the Afghan people is too old to be news and too invisible to be history.

If nothing else, Karzai’s donation (whether hypocrisy or a gesture of good will) should remind us of our own responsibility to a nation whose fate was irrevocably altered in our name, if not by our own decree.

The number of Afghan civilians killed, injured and otherwise affected by U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, both before the Taliban’s rise and after its fall, is comparable to the devastating effects of a Katrina or a tsunami.

So when you make your $10, $50 or $100 contribution to the Red Cross for Hurricane Katrina relief, send another $20 to the women of RAWA. They’ll use it to buy school supplies for about 100 kids. And if you’re really feeling generous, throw in another five, you know, for food.

Misunderstanding Sexual Exploitation

In Feminism, The State Press, assholes on June 25, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Published in the State Press on September 26, 2005.

ASU women have received a lot of press lately — so much so, in fact, the University should seriously consider recognizing their extraordinary efforts at bringing attention to the school.

After all, what other academic powerhouse can say it holds the record for having the most students featured in Playboy’s Pac-10 college issue? Yale? Nope. Harvard? Don’t think so.

This is our baby.

Between nonconsensual appearances on Web sites such as PalmWalk.com and ambitious appearances in bikini calendars and sordid magazines, ASU’s women have set a new precedent for women’s achievement this fall.

Not only did they earn ASU the title of “the hottest place on earth” but they’ve also made a powerful statement about women’s liberty and freedom of sexual expression — and that is, they don’t know the meaning of either.

There is a big difference between “sexual expression” and sexual exploitation, though the women of ASU (and the people who like to look at them) dutifully fail to recognize this.

It is possible they haven’t had the opportunity to notice the difference. In the media frenzy that always accompanies the debate over women’s bodies, it seems that only the wrong questions are ever asked.

In the whole Palm Walk debacle, for example, at issue was the legality of posting pictures of women on the Internet without their permission — not necessarily that women’s bodies were being used for the selfish and unethical entertainment of college students with too much time on their hands.

The creator of the site, marketing senior Thomas McCarthy, even told The State Press last week that “from a utilitarian [sic] perspective … PalmWalk.com is morally just.”

For those who haven’t taken Philosophy 101, utilitarianism is the idea that “all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.”

So, in McCarthy’s head, it seems like taking photographs of women (with or without their permission), then posting them online next to the words “fork me,” and finally rating them according to their attractiveness is morally just because it is brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.

Here’s a relevant question no one’s asked: Does it bring greater happiness to the women photographed or men who have never had to worry about the risks of wearing a skirt?

Either way, it brings spectacular attention to ASU. And many students seem to feel that’s a good thing. After all, anything that brings attention to the school will help it make money, whether that’s women posing next to hamburger coupons in the Tempe12 bikini calendar or with paint for clothes in Playboy.

And if that’s the case, does that make President Crow their pimp?

More unsettling than the idea of a university profiting from the misuse of its students’ images, however, is the fact that the women posing for these publications seem oblivious to the absurdity of their situation.

Rachelle Pfeifer, who posed for the Tempe12 calendar, told The State Press last week that the calendar’s models were not selected “based on looks, but how you present yourself.”

What she didn’t mention was that the women “presented” themselves at pool parties that served as “open casting calls,” as the creators of Tempe12 promotions told The State Press.

Nevertheless, such publications are mostly accepted and generally enjoyed — justified by the idea that participating models are willing and free.

So why do they do it? Money?

No, that’s for the men who snap the photos and print the pages.

Fame?

Nope. For every Pam Anderson, there’s a university full of rejects.

Of course, there’s the age-old idea that only insecure women need that kind of validation. But these days, insecurity has gotten so pretty, it’s no longer recognizable anyway.

Frankly, nobody cares what’s in it for women, why women do it or even who these women are. Men who question the system aren’t men, and women who do are jealous.

Maybe that’s why only the wrong questions are asked.

But whatever the reason, one thing should be made clear. However you wish to exploit yourself or others, please leave ASU out of it.

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of students don’t pose for bikini calendars or take creepy pictures of preoccupied women. And when these students get their engineering, business or liberal arts degrees, they don’t want their diplomas inscribed with the words “check out Miss July.”

Beyond Surface Immigration Issues

In Juarez, The State Press on June 25, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Published in the State Press on November 28, 2005.

With President Bush in town to discuss his plan to curb illegal immigration, perhaps the time is right to press him on border issues of a different kind — like how the U.S. is responsible for fueling the illegal immigration it’s working so hard to control.

While Bush reclines at the Biltmore for a day, pondering an issue lawmakers can’t agree on, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans will end shifts in border sweatshops owned by Fortune 500 companies (according to Amnesty and Corpwatch), with a few dollars pay to show for it.

One might expect that the corporations controlling America would bring some progress to Mexico. But instead, they bring, at best, countless underpaid jobs and, at worst, a dangerous atmosphere of hostility against women.

In Juarez, Mexico, for example, over 300 young women and girls have been raped, tortured and murdered on their way to and from work at these factories. Although theories abound, no one really knows who is responsible for these crimes, which remain largely uninvestigated despite pleas and protests from grieving families.

The 80 Fortune 500 companies that run factories in Juarez are not directly responsible for raping and mutilating these hundreds of women. But they are responsible for creating an environment that fosters such vicious crimes.

Their practice of hiring female workers who can be paid less than men has redefined masculinity in Juarez. It’s a city where men, traditionally the breadwinners, are largely unemployed. When a teenage girl is suddenly responsible for supporting her family in an intensely patriarchal society, she risks garnering the hostility of men in her community. Her femininity and sexuality come into question.

Though this is a byproduct of industrialization and not exclusively the fault of American-run factories, these businesses still have a responsibility to protect their female workers.

Instead, most of these factories run 24 hours a day, meaning that women who don’t earn enough to take a cab must walk or hitchhike to work in the dark. Only Alcoa, a company that produces aluminum, provides monitored transportation for its workers, according to Amnesty International.

Apparently, most of these companies don’t feel the need to protect their workers in the same way. The president of Electrocomponentes de Mexico, which produces parts for General Electric, even told Mexican Labor News and Analysis that they “have been consistent with the other plants in our area as far as offering competitive wages and benefits, we offer sports teams and that sort of thing. We feel we treat our employees very well.”

But not well enough to ensure safe transportation for Irma Rosales, a 13-year-old employee who was raped and suffocated with a plastic bag on her way home from work.

Under such conditions, who wouldn’t want to cross the border to safely make $5.15 an hour instead of risking one’s life to earn $4 a day?

Although Mexico’s president, Vicente Fox, has done little to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice, it isn’t beyond the scope of President Bush or local lawmakers. In fact, California Rep. Hilda Solis and New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman introduced a House and Senate concurrent resolution expressing congressional concern and proposing a set of actions to deal with the feminicide.

With the president in town and bringing national attention to local border issues, it is the perfect time to write to local congressional representatives urging them to cosponsor the resolution.

And if you attend any of the numerous protests staged today, speak against the giant corporations who breed the causes of illegal immigration: poverty, poor quality of life and unsafe communities.

People still don’t understand Roe v. Wade 34 years later

In Feminism, The State Press, choice on June 25, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Published in the State Press on Tuesday, January 23, 2007

With yesterday marking the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the groundbreaking judicial opinion that changed the landscape of women’s reproductive rights in America, many popular areas of protest probably found their own landscape slightly changed: colored with pro-choicers loudly celebrating a landmark decision, and littered with equally idealistic pro-lifers hissing provocative words like “baby killer” in their confettied wake.

But amid all of this self-righteous clamor, one word in particular will repeatedly arise as the center of all our abortion debates this week: “personhood,” that favorite fallback of all pro-lifers, which will surely be squawked ad nauseam by either side — a cacophony as obnoxious, incessant and pointless as the fake bird sounds on Mill Avenue.

While religious ideology compels the pro-life crowd to argue that fetuses, as citizens, have a right to life, the pro-life crowd compels pro-choicers to argue that fetuses aren’t people.

This is followed by a volley of pseudo-scientific facts coupled with inane metaphors about life and freedom that is, at the very least, entertaining to the passers-by but, ultimately, a very poor use of Hayden Lawn.

It’s hard to believe that after 34 years, people are still hung up on an argument that the Supreme Court itself decided was irrelevant at the time of their landmark decision way back in 1973.

But as often as debaters talk about the case, whether touting or criticizing it, few seem to know very much about the particulars of the judicial decision.

The Supreme Court Justices didn’t overlook the issue of personhood when they made their decision. Among other things, they were concerned about when a life begins, and whether fetuses have, or should have rights.

But ultimately they decided that they “need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” because they felt it wasn’t their place to speculate on something that doctors, philosophers and theologians couldn’t agree upon.

That’s right – the flustered folks facing off on Hayden Lawn aren’t the only ones who can’t agree on this issue – far more educated and intelligent people can’t either.

The justices eventually came to the conclusion that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the legal sense” and therefore, would not be considered as such just because legislators favoring a particular theory of life try to override a woman’s reproductive rights.

So why is there still so much focus on “personhood,” and not on the other countless (and more valid) points of disagreement regarding the abortion debate?

Because, despite the fact that everyone seems to have an opinion on abortion (formed carefully and thoughtfully, no doubt, through many years of study and deliberation), few know very much about it: its practice, its history, its consequences or its benefits, and especially its legislation.

Personhood is an easy argument for the ignorant to adopt because there is no answer to it. And, circular debates are a great way to avoid talking about more tangible issues, like the disastrous failure of abstinence-only programs in schools, the pro-life movement’s hostile war on sex (both safe and non), and the younger pro-choice generation’s failure to articulate its own stance.

Then again, it’s rarely ever been a match of wits as these two groups duke it out for possession of the American woman’s body — the pro-lifers resorting to ugly pictures of allegedly aborted fetuses and the pro-choicers sticking to the tried and true tradition of catchy picket-line chants, such as the ever clever “Keep your rosaries / off my ovaries!”

It would be refreshing if, after 34 years, both sides dropped the gimmicks and instead focused their creativity and passion into educating the public about the issue at hand — and, in doing so, actually learn a little something themselves about the issue that they spend so much time arguing about.

No Woman is Free Until All Women are Free

In Press., Women Beyond Borders on June 25, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Excerpt from article by The State Press on Women Beyond Borders.

Bad bad pictures of our members

Women Beyond Borders is a student organization at ASU that works with small women’s organizations around the world to raise awareness of violence against women.

The group was started at ASU in 2005. The group also raises awareness about issues such as global poverty, education and health.

Women Beyond Borders supports working against the culture of violence that allows for women to be abused and murdered. Creative writing senior Catherine Traywick is one of the co-founders of the organization at ASU.

Traywick says she thought there needed to be a student organization at ASU geared toward international women’s issues. She says she thinks international women’s issues are a worthy cause to take on and stems from her personal experience growing up in the Philippines.

“I came to ASU for college and saw the differences between what we have here and (in the Philippines) and it helped me realize that there are so many resources here,” she says.

When Traywick came to ASU, she joined Amnesty International. But her passion and calling is in international women’s issues.

“Being part of Women Beyond is satisfying and fulfilling on a lot of different levels,” she says. “I want to do it for the rest of my life.”

Since 1993, 430 women and girls have been murdered in Juarez, Mexico, not including the number of women reported missing. The city is located across the border from El Paso, Texas.

Many of these victims have been raped, beaten to death and mutilated. Autopsies have revealed some women were tortured for days before being killed, while many are still missing.

It is unknown who is responsible for these murders. The local authorities are not taking the proper measures to prevent such violent acts from occurring.

Women Beyond Borders at ASU supports ALDEA, an organization that provides opportunities for women and families to develop the handicraft center. The group provides funding toward prevention and intervention programs.

Read the entire article here.

Make-Belief

In Fiction., memory on June 25, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Sometimes I think it was make-belief. That I never saw any ruffled petals peaking out of any open mouth, bracketed by the sweet, red parentheses of a slow, wide yawn. Maybe I imagined that we both imagined that we saw the same: A blooming white carnation, a little pink….I remember it so vividly that I have to remind myself that carnations don’t grow in December, and that flowers don’t grow out of mouths.

…Know how I know your secrets? When you were sleeping, when things were good, I climbed into your insides and went through your stuff. I tidied things up in there, dusted and polished and filed away all of those little things you didn’t want me to know and I didn’t breathe a word about it, and you woke refreshed.

But no more imaginary housekeeping for me. I know that exes, no matter how little, are still too big to fit into old lovers’ sleeping heads. Let’s just pretend it was all pretend, so we can imagine that it’s springtime now, instead of knowing that it’s winter.

Night-Blooming Jasmine

In Fiction., memory on June 25, 2008 at 11:24 pm

On the day that it happened, my mother cursed him. She clawed his face and marshaled her hatred into a blow that fell like a sledgehammer, thick and heavy, straight over his forehead, knocking him backwards into the street. From the ground he stared up at her tiny, eighty-pound frame and wondered at her strength, a strange red welt already forming at the top of his brows — and then he ran away, quickly, before she had time to muster up for another blow, and nobody went after him.

I was fifteen on that day, on the afternoon that he ran away from my mother and I, later, ran away from his. Mine gave me a word for what had happened, though she didn’t say the word aloud, even in Tagalog, but the volume of her silence was enough to imply a thing or two, and in a moment she had established, mother to daughter, that what had happened, had been done–passive voice, object: me. But only later, after curses had flown, and after he had fallen, and after the look of shock on his face had fleetingly betrayed something not quite like guilt, but not quite like innocence, did I know that she was right.

On that day, before she had noticed the thin, straight streak of dark that stained the inside of my left leg, or the bit of red, obscene against my bright white sock, which had fallen like a tear drop from the sore spot between my legs – before this, and her screams, and that irrevocable curse, I had thought the act was something like love…:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” />

When I told this to my mother, she slapped me, and I grimaced to smell his saliva dried to my lips. The sting she put into my cheek with that slap impressed upon me a measure of shame that felt acutely deserved, and I was disgraced to know the sloppiness of his kisses, and the experience of his lips, as late as that afternoon, forming a seal around my open mouth, sucking like he needed my air to survive. Why did I think of this then, and wonder if she knew? If she smelled him? Even after wiping my mouth with a handkerchief, his smell always lingered at the corners of my lips, or the cleft of my chin, for hours afterward – and did she notice? Did she know that, sometimes, when I chewed my pen in class, the smell of the drying pencap reminded me of him?

My mother drew me a bath, and my aunts fussed around me, the Younger unbuttoning my dress blouse and the Older reaching for the hook of my skirt, all of them causing the blood to beat in my face because none had seen me thus exposed since early childhood. After my mother’s slap, the attention felt warm as well as shameful and I couldn’t help wondering if my mother recognized my body, though it had grown long and thin, or whether this was merely a half-grown stranger trembling on her bathmat. She didn’t answer my curious gaze, only motioned for me to step out of my shoes, which I did, gingerly, and in doing spied a crushed jasmine flower peeking out from the inside of the left one. It would have fallen in earlier that afternoon when I’d stepped out of my shoes at the door of his house, respectful of the fact that his mother was compulsive about keeping the floors clean. I always removed them when I arrived, placing them neatly to the right of the threshold, toes pointing away from the door, so I could step right into them when I left at dusk, the scent of just-blooming jasmine wafting in through the bedroom window always my cue. Now I dreaded that little flower, and hoped that my mother hadn’t noticed it, afraid as I was that its pretty perfume, pulsing out from within that discarded mary-jane, would beat a confession out of me.

But no one said a word, and as I entered the tub on cherry-painted tip-toes I kept silent as well, though I felt my secret throb a little when the scalding water rushed between my slightly parted legs, and I couldn’t help imagining the water entering me from down there, filling me up from where I had been split, until I was warm and heavy around the middle. I thought: before today I had owned no concept of being filled.

My mother washed my hair with ungentle hands, while the other two turned out my panties to remark on the various fluids that had pooled and mingled and dried there. Cringing, I looked away, peering into the gently lapping water where I saw, somewhere between my eyes and its surface, the image of a crumpled white t-shirt, shiny and red and casually thrown onto a clean floor and I didn’t know how to feel about that. The image faded like an opening curtain, showing me my legs, which tinted the water a dirty tawny color, and I noticed my own reflection projected over them and over the water and, looking at myself, I thought I looked pretty well for someone in my condition.

By now I was getting used to the idea of what had happened to me or, at least, this new connotation of what had happened to me, or what I still sort of thought I had done.

They helped me up and dried my hair, but asked me no questions, which I was glad of, because I didn’t know how I would tell them that I had been going to his house after school for weeks, letting him kiss and touch me, occasionally undress me, driving him mad with my inconsistent boundaries such that I only had myself to blame for this.

Then they put me to bed, though I wasn’t tired, and went into the other room where they sat very quietly, as though waiting for something to happen. I was waiting too, for the sound of the television to whirr to life in the next room, buzzing just loudly enough for me to make my escape, unnoticed. But all I heard was the click of my mother’s heel as she slowly, deliberately tapped her foot against the bare tile floor, click-clack, over and over, keeping time for something that I didn’t understand, but which I found oddly foreboding in its calm. I should have known then how this would end, and for what these three so patiently waited.

But young girls don’t have the luxury of foresight, especially ones who fancy themselves loved, and so I slipped out of bed, locked my bedroom door from the inside, and climbed out of my window.

Tricycle fare to his house would have cost next to nothing, and would have been well worth it at such an hour, but I decided to walk despite the darkness and mostly unlit streets, because tonight I wasn’t frightened. Before that day, I would have been, but now I wasn’t. I walked. I thought: I did it. I’ve done it. It was hard to fathom, largely because I didn’t feel any different, any more a woman or any less respectable, regardless of how often I reminded myself of my altered condition.

I passed the sari-sari store on my right, closed now for the night but with the lantern still on and conveniently lighting the street just to the point where I would turn left, onto Don Bonifacio—his street would be the next on the right. As I closed in on my destination, still feeling rather unchanged and un-new and painfully familiar to myself, I reassured myself that it had happened, and tried to remember everything about what it was, what had actually happened, sometimes remembering it from a third person point-of-view (myself on my back on the blanket, his left forearm pressing down on my chest), sometimes remembering it in a slideshow of senses (the black of his hair as it fell forward, the smell of pen-caps, the shockingly shrill sound of my own voice as the woolen blanket scratched my back and the palms of my balled fists), and sometimes replaying only the after (standing on the curb outside, in my school uniform, swishing my skirt to dry the moisture on my thighs, while he held my hand and waited for me to finish my Coke, sucked with a straw straight out of the glass bottle.

By the time I reached his block, nervous excitement was swirling around in my belly, erupting occasionally out of my feet, into an occasionally skip past the house with the broken glass shards jutting from the top of a cinder block fence, and past the house with the gate of iron spikes, and past the house with no fence at all and nothing worth stealing either, and on and on until, at last, I arrived at the house with the short, red, spiked gate, crank windows instead of frosted plantation panes and, of course, the tree blooming jasmine. And there, on my last skip, I stepped backwards out of my shoes, leaving them neatly to the right of the threshold, toes pointing away from the door, beneath the jasmine flowers, and I went in.

He told me my mother was crazy, and I kissed the welt on his forehead and smoothed his scratched cheeks with my palms.

I told him it hadn’t been so bad, what we’d done together, and he agreed, petting me sweetly and lowering me back onto the bed where (it now seemed like ages ago) he had already lowered me once today, despite the jasmine’s cue.

For a minute today, he said in dialect, and kissed me, I thought you were going to hit me. And, remembering how one feeble protest had been answered with a sharp twinge between my legs, I thought: almost. But though my fists had released the blanket beneath me, and had threatened to push him away with a violence that surprised us both, they were ultimately unwilling to do harm, and had merely hovered for a moment, then clutched at his billowing shirt, neither pulling him closer nor pushing him away, straining to be indecisive – just long enough, I had thought, until it’s over. And then my pelvis had split, or seemed to, down the middle, like a piece of firewood cracked and divided in half by a bolo knife and it hadn’t lasted long: one gasp, one sob, one full thrust and then he had gasped too, pulling out just in time to squirt pearly beads of white onto my thigh. Afterwards, he had rested his head peacefully on my chest and, remembering this, I said to him now: I could never hit you.

He searched my face for a moment and then, taking my hand in his, kissed my forehead. He asked me if it felt alright and I nodded, wincing just a little, when he entered. This time I wouldn’t protest, and I buried my face in the pillow, careful to make no sound, and with every push and pull, I thought with incredulity: I’m doing it. I can’t believe I’m doing it. And, as his thrusts became quicker and deeper (sometimes a straight shot in and sometimes awkwardly and uncomfortably to the left) I thought that this man and woman didn’t fit together very well at all. We weren’t, as a friend had described it, like a puzzle piece. My legs were tired and my pelvis hurt and it didn’t feel like anything that was down there, belonged down there. He didn’t fit, and he felt like a bowel movement.

And then a gasp, a sob, one more thrust and then the palm of a woman’s hand cracked loudly against the side of his head and he yelped, pulling out, taking the rough, woolen blanket with him, so that I lay face-up, naked, and split-legged beneath the glare of a woman that I had never met but whom I knew, instinctively, to be compulsive about keeping her floors clean.

And then she gave me a word for what I had done, and screamed it plainly, even in Tagalog, the clap of her palm against my face stamping the exclamation point at the end of her condemnation. She reached for my hair, then, with a meticulously manicured claw, but I rolled off the other side of the bed before she could reach me and, grabbing my shawl, ran naked down the hall, through the sitting room and out the front door where the tidy placement of my shoes contributed to the speed of my departure. I pulled the shawl around me just as I squeezed through the front gate, and then I paused, panting, when I realized that she wasn’t following me, and stopped fully when I realized that he wasn’t either.

And then I stood there for a moment, smelling the jasmine blossoms, now fainter than they had been the first time I left his house that day, and I felt my cheek still stinging from his mother’s slap, sharper than the first mother’s slap I had received that day, and could only think: But I was raped. I sat on the curb in the dark, beside the empty coke bottle that I had abandoned earlier, and grew thirsty watching it glint tauntingly in the light of a nearby streetlamp, such that I could almost taste the syrup on my tongue, but not quite — not over the taste of saliva that was drying at the corners of my lips. I picked it up and, just then, I was overwhelmed by an inexplicable hatred for that silly glass bottle, and I wanted to curse it, claw it, marshal my hatred into a blow that would fall like a sledgehammer, thick and heavy, right over its spout, crushing it into dust on the asphalt.

And then I spun around, flinging it towards that house with all the strength that shame can muster, and then I watched it connect — sharply, loudly — with his unsuspecting head. It was over in a moment: one swing, one gasp, one sob, and then his head cracked, just to the right of my mother’s welt, and above his mother’s slap, in a place that was only mine: the spot where his black hair had fallen forward in an earlier moment of violence mistaken for passion. He crumpled almost soundlessly to the asphalt, fragments of glass raining down around him and I watched, arm still raised and figure trembling as I stood, suspended in the dark by the streetlamp’s spray of light, on a night now devoid of even the faintest scent of jasmine.