Richard White Piquette was a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy who worked in the Twin County Correctional Facility, the jail in downtown L.A.
Then why did he, according to the Los Angeles Times recently, build an automatic assault rifle? In addition to manufacturing the Noveske Rifleworks N–4 .223-caliber rifle with an eight-inch barrel (never mind that federal law requires that the barrel be at least 16 inches), he possessed a shotgun that had been stolen from the Sheriff’s Department and three assault weapons banned in California. He has plead guilty to all of these.
Excuse me if I’m being terribly naive, but I thought law enforcement officers were supposed to discourage and stop crime, not engage in crime. I thought peace officers were supposed to keep the peace, not disturb it.
The L.A County Sheriff’s Department is well-known for such behavior by its officers and is under investigation by various agencies. Officers have been found to form tattooed cliques or gangs in the jails and beat inmates, harass and intimidate African-American and other minority tenants during Section 8 housing inspections in Lancaster and injure each other in a fight at the department’s Christmas party a few years ago. Piquette’s was the first plea agreement by one of 20 sheriff’s officials charged or indicted since December.
Again, at the risk of being terribly naive, I ask, why is this even an issue? Why are police officers criminals? Police corruption is nothing new, for sure, but it is no less disturbing, no less alarming.
Piquette’s attorney, Ronald Hedding, describes his client as “a good man” and, interestingly enough, adds that he believes that it is common practice for sheriff’s deputies to have weapons like the ones Piquette had. As if by way of explanation, he said, “A lot of these criminals are carrying these types of weapons on the streets.”
Like that makes it all okay. Or are “these criminals” the officers?
I once knew a guy who did a brief stint working for campus security at the colleges here in Claremont, and what he told me about the job really fits here. He said that the people working for the department, even though they were only pseudo officers, “really like putting on their black boots and acting tough.” He said they liked being tough, if not bad, and getting away with it.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Church and state
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is bad enough.
“It’s an opportunity to find other normal people here.”
I suppose it’s nice to think that Mazya, quoted in the Los Angeles Times while at a folk concert, might consider a guy like me, out shirtless in bib overalls and wearing mismatched high-tops with rainbow laces, to be “normal.” But it isn’t so nice that she is implying some of her fellow Jewish citizens in Israel aren’t “normal” because of their beliefs.
As the article explains, Mazya is one of many secular Jewish Israelis who are not happy with ultra-Orthodox laws and regulations. These laws strictly regulate what, if any, theaters, shops and other public places can be open on the Sabbath, the Jewish day of rest. They are enforced especially in such places as Jerusalem, where there are more religious people.
Mazya was speaking in Tel Aviv, where there are far fewer religious people and more bars and clubs. But many people are tired of having to drive there for some fun on Friday evening. At a protest on a recent Friday evening at a shuttered Jerusalem cinema, people chanted, “Wake up, Jerusalem! Nonreligious people are equal too!”
On the other hand, there are people like Daniel Katzenstein, an ultra-Orthodox father of nine who moved to Jerusalem from Brooklyn and who says, “When I see a Jewish person in a car on the Sabbath, it hurts me. Any threat to my lifestyle I am going to protest.”
No doubt Mazya would say he isn’t “normal.” And as the Times continues, “In recent years, crowds of ultra-Orthodox men have burned down bus shelters featuring images of scantily clad women and have sought to stop construction of a mixed-gender swimming pool. When the owners of Café Bezalel, famous for its mimosas, decided to open for Saturday brunch this year, diners were confronted by ultra-Orthodoxy protesters chanting, ‘Shabbat’ - ‘Sabbath.’”
What a mess! It is sad and alarming that Daniel is “hurt” and feels threatened by his fellow Jewish citizens going out drinking and dancing on Friday nights. I feel bad that, if I was a Jewish Israeli, he would probably be seriously offended by my clothing or lack thereof. But it is all the worse when laws not only encourages but enforces his beliefs.
This is the great wisdom of the system of government we have in this country, separating church and state. It always surprises me to hear that America is one of the most religious countries, with many more people attending services than in, say, Europe, where there are magnificent churches everywhere you look. And we do have our spats - sometimes quite bitter ones - over abortion, same-sex marriage and the like, with people being offended, hurt and sometimes worse. But because of the First Amendment, government can’t get involved in religion, and no one belief can be favored or enforced.
Yes, there are people who would love and are trying hard to see this changed, but, God willing, it won’t be.
“It’s an opportunity to find other normal people here.”
I suppose it’s nice to think that Mazya, quoted in the Los Angeles Times while at a folk concert, might consider a guy like me, out shirtless in bib overalls and wearing mismatched high-tops with rainbow laces, to be “normal.” But it isn’t so nice that she is implying some of her fellow Jewish citizens in Israel aren’t “normal” because of their beliefs.
As the article explains, Mazya is one of many secular Jewish Israelis who are not happy with ultra-Orthodox laws and regulations. These laws strictly regulate what, if any, theaters, shops and other public places can be open on the Sabbath, the Jewish day of rest. They are enforced especially in such places as Jerusalem, where there are more religious people.
Mazya was speaking in Tel Aviv, where there are far fewer religious people and more bars and clubs. But many people are tired of having to drive there for some fun on Friday evening. At a protest on a recent Friday evening at a shuttered Jerusalem cinema, people chanted, “Wake up, Jerusalem! Nonreligious people are equal too!”
On the other hand, there are people like Daniel Katzenstein, an ultra-Orthodox father of nine who moved to Jerusalem from Brooklyn and who says, “When I see a Jewish person in a car on the Sabbath, it hurts me. Any threat to my lifestyle I am going to protest.”
No doubt Mazya would say he isn’t “normal.” And as the Times continues, “In recent years, crowds of ultra-Orthodox men have burned down bus shelters featuring images of scantily clad women and have sought to stop construction of a mixed-gender swimming pool. When the owners of Café Bezalel, famous for its mimosas, decided to open for Saturday brunch this year, diners were confronted by ultra-Orthodoxy protesters chanting, ‘Shabbat’ - ‘Sabbath.’”
What a mess! It is sad and alarming that Daniel is “hurt” and feels threatened by his fellow Jewish citizens going out drinking and dancing on Friday nights. I feel bad that, if I was a Jewish Israeli, he would probably be seriously offended by my clothing or lack thereof. But it is all the worse when laws not only encourages but enforces his beliefs.
This is the great wisdom of the system of government we have in this country, separating church and state. It always surprises me to hear that America is one of the most religious countries, with many more people attending services than in, say, Europe, where there are magnificent churches everywhere you look. And we do have our spats - sometimes quite bitter ones - over abortion, same-sex marriage and the like, with people being offended, hurt and sometimes worse. But because of the First Amendment, government can’t get involved in religion, and no one belief can be favored or enforced.
Yes, there are people who would love and are trying hard to see this changed, but, God willing, it won’t be.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
God save us from the NRA - if it isn't too late
Guns in churches are “dangerous, and it’s bad theology.”
This isn’t a line from Mamet or Voltaire or Sartre. It isn’t from Dr. Seuss. This isn’t from a sharp satire of the nature of organized religion or absurdist tale warning of the proliferation of guns.
If only it was.
This is a statement from a spokesman from for Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, quoted in the Los Angeles Times last week, in reaction to a bill passed by the Georgia legislator that would, among other things, allow licensed gun owners to take weapons into houses of worship if the church allows it, into bars unless the owner objects, into airports up to screening areas and into government buildings except past security checkpoints, as wall as permit schools to arm staff members.
Critics call the bill, officially named the Safe Carry Protection Act, the “guns everywhere bill,” and the National Rifle Association is just fine with that, crowing that its passage is a “historic victory for the Second Amendment.” Governor Nathan Deal, who has an A rating from the NRA and is up for reelection, is expected to sign it, making it go into effect July 1. The bill was also supported by his Democratic opponent, state Senator Jason Carter, who is, of all things, former President Carter’s grandson.
Never mind that police are concerned, with Garden City Police Chief David Lyons saying, “We’re going to go to Hooters now expecting that everybody in there has a gun.” Never mind that “opponents say they shudder at the thought of armed citizens attending city council meetings, at which emotions run high.” (Not to mention bars.)
Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, points out that this bill would make Georgia the 27th state to allow licensed gun owners to take bring weapons into bars. Moreover, after the Connecticut school massacre and other high profile shootings, many states, instead of clamping down on guns, are taking the NRA’s advice and expanding their gun laws. Public support for stricter gun laws dropped to 31% from 38% a year earlier, shortly after the Connecticut school shooting, and Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively about the politics surrounding guns, points out that the Georgia legislation “shows how strong the NRA is in some parts of the country. They’ve defeated so many gun laws that ending bans on guns in bars and churches is all that left.”
(It is interesting to note that, while Catholic and Episcopalian bishops appear to be against allowing guns in their churches, “Georgia Baptists,” according to Georgia Baptist Convention public affairs representative Mike Griffin, “are not saying they’re for or against weapons being in churches. What they’re saying is churches should have the right to determine if they choose to have weapons.”)
Meanwhile, there was an article in the Times late last year about how the Columbine High School shootings still cast a shadow 15 years later, with many schools having drills, like those for earthquakes and nuclear attacks, to prepare for gunfire. One mother, Kay Cates, was quoted as saying, “It struck me that this is now just a part of him life. I think about how my children are going to grow up and think this is a normal part of school.” She said this after her 10-year-old son answered her question about what he had done at school one day by answering with a shrug, “We did math. We did reading. We did a lock-down.”
God help us. That is, if God hasn’t been taken in - bought out - by the NRA.
This isn’t a line from Mamet or Voltaire or Sartre. It isn’t from Dr. Seuss. This isn’t from a sharp satire of the nature of organized religion or absurdist tale warning of the proliferation of guns.
If only it was.
This is a statement from a spokesman from for Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, quoted in the Los Angeles Times last week, in reaction to a bill passed by the Georgia legislator that would, among other things, allow licensed gun owners to take weapons into houses of worship if the church allows it, into bars unless the owner objects, into airports up to screening areas and into government buildings except past security checkpoints, as wall as permit schools to arm staff members.
Critics call the bill, officially named the Safe Carry Protection Act, the “guns everywhere bill,” and the National Rifle Association is just fine with that, crowing that its passage is a “historic victory for the Second Amendment.” Governor Nathan Deal, who has an A rating from the NRA and is up for reelection, is expected to sign it, making it go into effect July 1. The bill was also supported by his Democratic opponent, state Senator Jason Carter, who is, of all things, former President Carter’s grandson.
Never mind that police are concerned, with Garden City Police Chief David Lyons saying, “We’re going to go to Hooters now expecting that everybody in there has a gun.” Never mind that “opponents say they shudder at the thought of armed citizens attending city council meetings, at which emotions run high.” (Not to mention bars.)
Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, points out that this bill would make Georgia the 27th state to allow licensed gun owners to take bring weapons into bars. Moreover, after the Connecticut school massacre and other high profile shootings, many states, instead of clamping down on guns, are taking the NRA’s advice and expanding their gun laws. Public support for stricter gun laws dropped to 31% from 38% a year earlier, shortly after the Connecticut school shooting, and Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has written extensively about the politics surrounding guns, points out that the Georgia legislation “shows how strong the NRA is in some parts of the country. They’ve defeated so many gun laws that ending bans on guns in bars and churches is all that left.”
(It is interesting to note that, while Catholic and Episcopalian bishops appear to be against allowing guns in their churches, “Georgia Baptists,” according to Georgia Baptist Convention public affairs representative Mike Griffin, “are not saying they’re for or against weapons being in churches. What they’re saying is churches should have the right to determine if they choose to have weapons.”)
Meanwhile, there was an article in the Times late last year about how the Columbine High School shootings still cast a shadow 15 years later, with many schools having drills, like those for earthquakes and nuclear attacks, to prepare for gunfire. One mother, Kay Cates, was quoted as saying, “It struck me that this is now just a part of him life. I think about how my children are going to grow up and think this is a normal part of school.” She said this after her 10-year-old son answered her question about what he had done at school one day by answering with a shrug, “We did math. We did reading. We did a lock-down.”
God help us. That is, if God hasn’t been taken in - bought out - by the NRA.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Park-ed outside
Yes, it is good that Los Angeles will be getting more parks, or parklets, as well as more plazas and bike parking. And it’s great that this will be done relatively quickly, without much of the bureaucracy that can take months and cost a considerable amount, and that each project will have a year-long trial period. Through a program called “People St,” operated through the city’s Department of Transportation, community groups can apply to convert a piece of city street into a parklet, a plaza or bike parking for a year without going through the lengthy and expensive process of getting approval from multiple city departments, a process that often involves hiring an architect and maybe a permit expediter for thousands of dollars. If a project is successful, the community can then work toward making it permanent.
The applicants would provide furnishings and daily maintenance, and the transportation department has preapproved designs and will direct traffic analysis by city staff. Projects approved in the first round can be installed by November - “lightning speed for City Hall,” according to a Los Angeles Times editorial.
The Times all but gushes over the plan, rightfully saying that it will “make L.A more friendly to walkers and bicyclists and...create a more vibrant street culture” and “injects a sense of experimentation and community leadership into the city’s decision-making process.” Concluding with the sentence “It’s too early to declare a new day at City Hall, but this could be a model for L.A, and a good one,” the editorial is titled “Let 100 parklets bloom.”
I totally agree with all this, for sure - I’m all for green spaces and places and processes that promote community, not using cars, etc. - but I’m wondering if these parklets will count as the parks that convicted and registered sexual offenders cannot live near. I’m wondering if this will he used as another way to restrict where these people who have served their time in prison can live and to drive them out of the community (making them more estranged, probably homeless and likelier to commit crime again).
Why didn’t the Times editorial bring this up, especially when the paper had an article a couple years ago about small parks popping up in areas around the city with the explicit purpose of not letting convicted sexual offenders live there? Did the Times, in its understandable enthusiasm, forget this?
The applicants would provide furnishings and daily maintenance, and the transportation department has preapproved designs and will direct traffic analysis by city staff. Projects approved in the first round can be installed by November - “lightning speed for City Hall,” according to a Los Angeles Times editorial.
The Times all but gushes over the plan, rightfully saying that it will “make L.A more friendly to walkers and bicyclists and...create a more vibrant street culture” and “injects a sense of experimentation and community leadership into the city’s decision-making process.” Concluding with the sentence “It’s too early to declare a new day at City Hall, but this could be a model for L.A, and a good one,” the editorial is titled “Let 100 parklets bloom.”
I totally agree with all this, for sure - I’m all for green spaces and places and processes that promote community, not using cars, etc. - but I’m wondering if these parklets will count as the parks that convicted and registered sexual offenders cannot live near. I’m wondering if this will he used as another way to restrict where these people who have served their time in prison can live and to drive them out of the community (making them more estranged, probably homeless and likelier to commit crime again).
Why didn’t the Times editorial bring this up, especially when the paper had an article a couple years ago about small parks popping up in areas around the city with the explicit purpose of not letting convicted sexual offenders live there? Did the Times, in its understandable enthusiasm, forget this?
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
An irresponsible message?
“Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the sheets.”
As funny and clever as it is, I’m not at all sure this is smart advertising.
It is more like a provocation, more like fuel on the flames.
I have to admit that I don’t keep up on a lot of blogs and online chatter, but I’m surprised I haven’t heard an outcry over this ad in Colorado (of all places) promoting Obamacare and featuring a woman showing off her birth control pills and eyeing a man next to her. This ad was mentioned in a recent Los Angeles Times article about the blitz of advertising aimed at getting people - especially young, healthy people - to sign up for the new affordable, often subsidized health insurance before this year’s enrollment deadline at the end of this month.
This ad may attract young, healthy people. It’s fun and sexy and makes health insurance look not only not threatening but pretty attractive. The ad will also, it seems to me, attract the wrath of conservatives who are already riled up enough over the new health insurance law (and who have major institutes in Colorado).
To them, this ad no doubt promotes sex - free sex, sex for fun, sex without responsibility. To the conservatives, this is surely an ad for sex. It is an ad for irresponsibility. What’s more, as the conservatives would see it, it is promoting sex and irresponsibility paid for by the government with public funds.
I have seen this same argument in letters in the paper from people griping about the provision in the new law allowing young people to stay on their parents’ policy until they are 26. As I have written here, they claim that this encourages young people to be irresponsible and even to be “coddled.” There has also been people like Rush Limbaugh saying things like woman who advocate government-funded contraceptives want to be publicly funded whores.
As the whore comment shows, things get particularly touchy and explosive for the conservatives when it comes to sex. They can’t stand the idea of people having sex just for pleasure and fun, for anything other than procreation - and then to be paid for with the pain of child birth and the burden of child-raising (why they’re also against abortion). Indeed, I have long felt that this is why there is considerable anti-gay sentiment among conservatives. To them, gay sex is sex without responsibility. In some corners, there was glee in the early days of AIDS when it was called “the gay plague.” And now, gay marriage and gay adoption is even more confounding and crazy-making for these folks.
The Times article also mentions Luis Garcia, a 23-year-old Santa Ana resident who hasn’t seen any of the ads and only heard from friends that there’s some sort of penalty for not signing up for insurance. He wasn’t aware of any deadline to enroll but, with recently losing his job, says, “I’m interested.”
I want to ask what rock he has been hiding under. I also wonder how many more are like him and hope that these ads reach them. But I’m not sure if the “between the sheets” ad is the right one to do it.
As funny and clever as it is, I’m not at all sure this is smart advertising.
It is more like a provocation, more like fuel on the flames.
I have to admit that I don’t keep up on a lot of blogs and online chatter, but I’m surprised I haven’t heard an outcry over this ad in Colorado (of all places) promoting Obamacare and featuring a woman showing off her birth control pills and eyeing a man next to her. This ad was mentioned in a recent Los Angeles Times article about the blitz of advertising aimed at getting people - especially young, healthy people - to sign up for the new affordable, often subsidized health insurance before this year’s enrollment deadline at the end of this month.
This ad may attract young, healthy people. It’s fun and sexy and makes health insurance look not only not threatening but pretty attractive. The ad will also, it seems to me, attract the wrath of conservatives who are already riled up enough over the new health insurance law (and who have major institutes in Colorado).
To them, this ad no doubt promotes sex - free sex, sex for fun, sex without responsibility. To the conservatives, this is surely an ad for sex. It is an ad for irresponsibility. What’s more, as the conservatives would see it, it is promoting sex and irresponsibility paid for by the government with public funds.
I have seen this same argument in letters in the paper from people griping about the provision in the new law allowing young people to stay on their parents’ policy until they are 26. As I have written here, they claim that this encourages young people to be irresponsible and even to be “coddled.” There has also been people like Rush Limbaugh saying things like woman who advocate government-funded contraceptives want to be publicly funded whores.
As the whore comment shows, things get particularly touchy and explosive for the conservatives when it comes to sex. They can’t stand the idea of people having sex just for pleasure and fun, for anything other than procreation - and then to be paid for with the pain of child birth and the burden of child-raising (why they’re also against abortion). Indeed, I have long felt that this is why there is considerable anti-gay sentiment among conservatives. To them, gay sex is sex without responsibility. In some corners, there was glee in the early days of AIDS when it was called “the gay plague.” And now, gay marriage and gay adoption is even more confounding and crazy-making for these folks.
The Times article also mentions Luis Garcia, a 23-year-old Santa Ana resident who hasn’t seen any of the ads and only heard from friends that there’s some sort of penalty for not signing up for insurance. He wasn’t aware of any deadline to enroll but, with recently losing his job, says, “I’m interested.”
I want to ask what rock he has been hiding under. I also wonder how many more are like him and hope that these ads reach them. But I’m not sure if the “between the sheets” ad is the right one to do it.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Life-long learning
Again, there’s lots to be said for living in Claremont. Here’s my Claremont Courier column from a couple weeks ago.
PERFORMING A LESSON IN EQUALITY
Last Friday was February 14. That meant it was Valentine’s Day. It meant a day of celebrating love and romance. It meant long-stemmed roses and romantic dinners for two, red and pink cards and secret and not-so-secret admirers. The day was about sweet candies and sweet nothings.
The day was also about women and girls getting raped and abused. It also meant women in Africa, the Middle East and other places having their genitalia mutilated, their legs and arms pulled out from their sockets, their faces burned with acid. It was also a day for all the women who don’t get candy and sweet nothings but who get cut, tortured and damaged - because they are women.
Last Friday, February 14, was also about the 1 in 3 American women who are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes and about the 300,000 female students at colleges and universities in the U.S who are raped and harassed each year.
That’s because February 14 is also V Day, a day to remember, support and stand for women and girls who have been and are victims of violence. It was a reminder on Valentine’s Day that all is not sweets and red roses for far too many women and girls, simply because they are women and girls and not only in far-off countries.
All this should have particular resonance in Claremont, with all of its colleges and its significant population of maturing students for most of the year, and it was indeed appropriate that all this was part of Eve Ensler’s message when she spoke at the Atheneum at Claremont McKenna College early this month. Ms. Ensler should know about all this; she started V Day 15 years ago.
That was a few years after she wrote The Vagina Monologues in 1996. The Vagina Monologues is arguably what Ms. Ensler is most known for, with the series of monologues celebrating femininity having been performed by hundreds of famous actresses and countless college students over the years.
Many of the performances and readings of this seminal work have taken place on or around V Day, no doubt pleasing Ms. Ensler, who is recognized as an activist as well as a playwright, performer and author. At the after-lunch talk, coming on the heels of the publication of her newest book, In the Body of the World: A Memoir, she talked about her work as an activist, using her writing and her connections in the theater world to raise awareness of and get support to women and girls who have been abused and violated.
This work has included going to Africa to sit with and hold women who were bloodied and wounded, if not broken, by gender violence. It has included raising funds, often through performances of The Vagina Monologues, for hospitals that help these women.
Furthermore, this work, as Ms. Ensler shared with the large audience at C.M.C, stemmed from being abused as a child and was boosted by a frightening and painful bout with cancer. She noted that, when one’s body has been violated and hurt, it is all too easy to separate not only from oneself but also from others and their pain and that this work has been her effort to fight this.
But it definitely hasn’t been all pain and work for Ms. Ensler. She spoke of being thrilled about how people reacted to The Vagina Monologues and then rallied behind V Day. She talked about how happy she is that there are places like House of Ruth and Crossroads here and about how excited she is about her recent project, One Billion Rising, getting people around the world to dance and march on V Day. Her presentation ended with a remarkably moving short video featuring a montage of images from last year’s One Billion Rising (check it out on YouTube).
There is still work to be done. Ms. Ensler acknowledged this in answering a question from a young woman who said she is bothered by men like Troy Perry and Jackson Katz, who have both spoken at the colleges in recent years and have perfectly good intentions, saying that violence against women is a men’s problem, with men needing to stand up and speak out against it. She agreed that this is a “human problem” and that the notion of a “woman’s problem” and a “men’s problem,” although all too natural, might not be helpful.
When Ms. Ensler began her talk, she asked if there were any “vagina activists” in the audience. There was a big cheer from the many women present. When she asked if there were “supporters of vagina activists,” there was weak applause from the men scattered among the tables.
“Come on!” Ms. Ensler chided. “We have some work to do.”
When it comes to men and women, things are still out of balance. Indeed, I noticed I was the only man waiting in the line to get in after lunch. (Two other guys came in later.) I also noticed, while waiting in the line, a young woman wearing a tee shirt saying “I (heart) my vagina.” Yes, it was provocative, but I wondered how much more provocative, if not crazy and obscene, if a man wore a tee shirt that said, “I (heart) my penis.”
PERFORMING A LESSON IN EQUALITY
Last Friday was February 14. That meant it was Valentine’s Day. It meant a day of celebrating love and romance. It meant long-stemmed roses and romantic dinners for two, red and pink cards and secret and not-so-secret admirers. The day was about sweet candies and sweet nothings.
The day was also about women and girls getting raped and abused. It also meant women in Africa, the Middle East and other places having their genitalia mutilated, their legs and arms pulled out from their sockets, their faces burned with acid. It was also a day for all the women who don’t get candy and sweet nothings but who get cut, tortured and damaged - because they are women.
Last Friday, February 14, was also about the 1 in 3 American women who are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes and about the 300,000 female students at colleges and universities in the U.S who are raped and harassed each year.
That’s because February 14 is also V Day, a day to remember, support and stand for women and girls who have been and are victims of violence. It was a reminder on Valentine’s Day that all is not sweets and red roses for far too many women and girls, simply because they are women and girls and not only in far-off countries.
All this should have particular resonance in Claremont, with all of its colleges and its significant population of maturing students for most of the year, and it was indeed appropriate that all this was part of Eve Ensler’s message when she spoke at the Atheneum at Claremont McKenna College early this month. Ms. Ensler should know about all this; she started V Day 15 years ago.
That was a few years after she wrote The Vagina Monologues in 1996. The Vagina Monologues is arguably what Ms. Ensler is most known for, with the series of monologues celebrating femininity having been performed by hundreds of famous actresses and countless college students over the years.
Many of the performances and readings of this seminal work have taken place on or around V Day, no doubt pleasing Ms. Ensler, who is recognized as an activist as well as a playwright, performer and author. At the after-lunch talk, coming on the heels of the publication of her newest book, In the Body of the World: A Memoir, she talked about her work as an activist, using her writing and her connections in the theater world to raise awareness of and get support to women and girls who have been abused and violated.
This work has included going to Africa to sit with and hold women who were bloodied and wounded, if not broken, by gender violence. It has included raising funds, often through performances of The Vagina Monologues, for hospitals that help these women.
Furthermore, this work, as Ms. Ensler shared with the large audience at C.M.C, stemmed from being abused as a child and was boosted by a frightening and painful bout with cancer. She noted that, when one’s body has been violated and hurt, it is all too easy to separate not only from oneself but also from others and their pain and that this work has been her effort to fight this.
But it definitely hasn’t been all pain and work for Ms. Ensler. She spoke of being thrilled about how people reacted to The Vagina Monologues and then rallied behind V Day. She talked about how happy she is that there are places like House of Ruth and Crossroads here and about how excited she is about her recent project, One Billion Rising, getting people around the world to dance and march on V Day. Her presentation ended with a remarkably moving short video featuring a montage of images from last year’s One Billion Rising (check it out on YouTube).
There is still work to be done. Ms. Ensler acknowledged this in answering a question from a young woman who said she is bothered by men like Troy Perry and Jackson Katz, who have both spoken at the colleges in recent years and have perfectly good intentions, saying that violence against women is a men’s problem, with men needing to stand up and speak out against it. She agreed that this is a “human problem” and that the notion of a “woman’s problem” and a “men’s problem,” although all too natural, might not be helpful.
When Ms. Ensler began her talk, she asked if there were any “vagina activists” in the audience. There was a big cheer from the many women present. When she asked if there were “supporters of vagina activists,” there was weak applause from the men scattered among the tables.
“Come on!” Ms. Ensler chided. “We have some work to do.”
When it comes to men and women, things are still out of balance. Indeed, I noticed I was the only man waiting in the line to get in after lunch. (Two other guys came in later.) I also noticed, while waiting in the line, a young woman wearing a tee shirt saying “I (heart) my vagina.” Yes, it was provocative, but I wondered how much more provocative, if not crazy and obscene, if a man wore a tee shirt that said, “I (heart) my penis.”
Friday, February 21, 2014
On the other side
I recently had the experience of what it must be like for a stranger hearing my speech. What was most eye-opening and startling were the strong feelings it evoked in me.
I was at a weekend gathering, and the keynote talk was given by someone who, like me, has impaired speech stemming from Cerebral Palsy. There was no speech device used, and no one repeated what was said. (The text of the address was widely distributed after the weekend.) Although the speaker’s speech isn’t as impaired as mine and although I had understood and conversed with the speaker at other gatherings, there were large sections of the talk I couldn’t make out.
Much to my surprise, I found myself feeling quite angry. Not just sad and confused, lost, but downright mad. In a case of sharp irony, with the talk being about inclusivity, I felt excluded - and I felt that the speaker was excluding me. (Let me be clear: I am not naming names, because my purpose here is not to blame, and I was able to read the text of the talk later. My purpose here is to reflect on how I felt.)
I felt that I have always tried hard to make sure people understand what I say - having people repeat what I say, using speech devices, etc. - and here the speaker was not seeing to it that I understood what was said. A bit later, I thought that, rather than sitting there feeling excluded and angry, I should have spoken up. I should have asked for someone to repeat what was said. Or maybe I should have asked for one of the few copies of the talk handed out for those who were “hard of hearing or non-English speaking” (which I’m not).
But it wasn’t and isn’t that simple. I may have been rude if I had spoken up. After all, no one else spoke up. Was I the only one having difficulty? Or were the others wanting to not be rude?
And how does this all fit in with the theory, which I subscribe to more and more, that disability is a societal issue, a problem for society to deal with, providing more easily obtained services and accommodations, etc., rather than a problem for the individual to handle? Does it go with the idea that disability is hard because society makes it hard - or that society makes disability harder?
If society did indeed take on the responsibility of accommodating the disabled, making disability less hard, if not not hard, perhaps it would be more my responsibility to understand what the speaker was saying. Perhaps I would have been trained, as I have been in arithmetic and grammar, to have the skills and the patience to do so. Perhaps I wouldn’t have to make so much of an effort to make sure that people understand what I’m saying.
I want to add, as an aside, that the weekend involved flying and that I couldn’t help noticing again that, ironically enough, the Transportation Security Agency has gone out of its way to accommodate those in wheelchairs, with a separate area and agent for the pat-down. I thought it was pretty funny when the agent did a very thorough job of checking me and my chair out on my trip home in my Jesus-hippie overalls with the “Another hippie for peace” patch.
I was at a weekend gathering, and the keynote talk was given by someone who, like me, has impaired speech stemming from Cerebral Palsy. There was no speech device used, and no one repeated what was said. (The text of the address was widely distributed after the weekend.) Although the speaker’s speech isn’t as impaired as mine and although I had understood and conversed with the speaker at other gatherings, there were large sections of the talk I couldn’t make out.
Much to my surprise, I found myself feeling quite angry. Not just sad and confused, lost, but downright mad. In a case of sharp irony, with the talk being about inclusivity, I felt excluded - and I felt that the speaker was excluding me. (Let me be clear: I am not naming names, because my purpose here is not to blame, and I was able to read the text of the talk later. My purpose here is to reflect on how I felt.)
I felt that I have always tried hard to make sure people understand what I say - having people repeat what I say, using speech devices, etc. - and here the speaker was not seeing to it that I understood what was said. A bit later, I thought that, rather than sitting there feeling excluded and angry, I should have spoken up. I should have asked for someone to repeat what was said. Or maybe I should have asked for one of the few copies of the talk handed out for those who were “hard of hearing or non-English speaking” (which I’m not).
But it wasn’t and isn’t that simple. I may have been rude if I had spoken up. After all, no one else spoke up. Was I the only one having difficulty? Or were the others wanting to not be rude?
And how does this all fit in with the theory, which I subscribe to more and more, that disability is a societal issue, a problem for society to deal with, providing more easily obtained services and accommodations, etc., rather than a problem for the individual to handle? Does it go with the idea that disability is hard because society makes it hard - or that society makes disability harder?
If society did indeed take on the responsibility of accommodating the disabled, making disability less hard, if not not hard, perhaps it would be more my responsibility to understand what the speaker was saying. Perhaps I would have been trained, as I have been in arithmetic and grammar, to have the skills and the patience to do so. Perhaps I wouldn’t have to make so much of an effort to make sure that people understand what I’m saying.
I want to add, as an aside, that the weekend involved flying and that I couldn’t help noticing again that, ironically enough, the Transportation Security Agency has gone out of its way to accommodate those in wheelchairs, with a separate area and agent for the pat-down. I thought it was pretty funny when the agent did a very thorough job of checking me and my chair out on my trip home in my Jesus-hippie overalls with the “Another hippie for peace” patch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)