Posted on Monday, January 2, 2012 by s.e. smith
One of the most insidious and commonly repeated tropes about mental illness is that people can bootstrap their way out of it; they just need to ‘try harder’ and ‘stop moaning’ and they’ll magically get better, even if this defies all known knowledge of neurochemistry, human emotion, and psychiatry. There’s tremendous pressure on people with mental illness to ‘snap out of it’ and a common belief that we will do so if we want to…so obviously, if we’re still mentally ill, we don’t want to get better.
The military has been struggling for some time with a growing suicide rate among veterans and soldiers, along with general mental health problems in the military community. Stress of participating in extended military conflict tends to put people at risk of, or exacerbate, mental health conditions. While aware of this, the military hasn’t figured out an effective way to deal with it. Perhaps because the most effective way to deal with it is to take soldiers out of combat, which isn’t being presented as a viable option.
Trying to find a way to address the rising rates of mental health problems, and the negative public associations that come along with it, the military has cast about for a variety of solutions. The latest is a real doozy. Welcome the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Programme, which aims to change everything for military mental health both by assessing soldiers more fully when they join the military and providing them with discussions about mental health issues as part of their training.
In theory, this might seem like a good idea, but of course the execution is something very, very different. It’s boostrapping supreme, as the poster child of the programme illustrates, and before we go on, be advised that this article, and what I am about to quote, have a strong content warning for rape. (Continued)
Posted on Friday, December 30, 2011 by Emily Manuel
The end of the year brings, as we know, many many lists. But you should read mine anyway.
1. Nicki Minaj – “Super Bass”
Minaj’s consummate craftsmanship as an artist—in image, flow and production choices—makes her nearly anachronistic among contemporary hiphop acts. Originally thrown onto last year’s Pink Friday as a bonus track, “Super Bass” . The constant minute shifts in intonation showcase Minaj as one of the year’s most compelling personalities, sounding like no-one else around. “Somebody please tell him who the eff I is…” as if it could be anyone else but Nicki Minaj.
2. Bon Iver – “Calgary”
Bon Iver is one of many in a lineage of similar-sounding male songwriters. With his sexy beard and flannel shirts revealing just a hint of chest hair, Iver has built quite a fanbase, drawn to his good looks and sultry crooning. Despite his narrow focus on men’s issues, Iver somehow overcomes the limitations of his sex and triumphantly pulls together an anthem for all of us.
(Continued)
Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2011 by Flavia Dzodan
I. “My feminism will be intersectional” redux
I set myself up for failure. I know. I like big, unachievable goals that I will, all on my own, conquer. Because I am a sucker for failed end of the year balances. Because when this time of the year rolls by, I sit and ponder on what I have not yet achieved. To that purpose, I start every year with some big, unattainable resolution. For 2011, I had set two such objectives (probably to ensure failure at least on one account), and it seems I managed to fall through on both: I did not succeed in making anti racism a mainstream component of Western feminism and I failed at defeating racism as an institutionalized practice in The Netherlands. And it hasn’t been through lack of trying, that much I can tell.
Now, leaving snark aside, I would say that, as both a writer and an activist, those are my main two goals. Not half joking hyperbolic new year resolutions but the kind of issues I center every day when I decide what I am going to write about. These are also the issues I try to bring forth in every political meeting I attend. Selfishly so, perhaps. As a Non Western foreign woman living in The Netherlands, I find both issues to be very personal and very political. I am a feminist, even though I struggle with some of the most damning aspects of mainstream feminism. Even though I sometimes angrily express my disappointment, I still claim the label. Perhaps because I grew up in an environment where such label was subjected to disgust, derision or contempt. Because I was socialized to believe that feminism was alienating and only the realm of “sluts” and “man hating” women. So, one day, I decided that’s what I was. Probably because it was one of the most offensive labels I could inflict on my reactionary surroundings. To me, the label preceded the politics. It took me years to learn the more theoretical aspects of feminism (which I don’t even know as well as people who learned them in a more structured manner). I read Sartre way before I even knew who de Beauvoir was. Back home, when I was a student, we didn’t have “women’s studies”, at least not in the institutions I frequented. If such a thing existed (and I am sure it did), it was certainly not mainstream. Post dictatorship Argentina was not exactly a progressive place prone to discussions of equality or gender matters. It took a couple of decades for these topics to take a center stage. But I digress.
(Continued)
Posted on Monday, December 26, 2011 by s.e. smith
Last year, I covered the Deportation by Default report issued by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. The report highlighted significant problems in the US immigration system with regards to mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and intellectually disabled detainees. The study found that up to 15% of immigration detainees had disabilities that impaired their understanding of the proceedings against them, yet were often in a position where they were forced to represent themselves in immigration court.
Because immigration is treated as a civil matter, detainees do not have a right to court-appointed attorneys. They can pursue counsel for assistance in court, but the court doesn’t need to provide it, or any other assistance. They also, of course, need to pay for that counsel if they want to secure attorneys to assist them with immigration proceedings, and a good immigration lawyer can be quite expensive. For disabled detainees who don’t even fully understand why they were in detention or what is happening to them, this creates an extremely unjust situation. Some judges aren’t sure what to do with detainees who are clearly legally incompetent to represent themselves, and as a result, disabled detainees can be mired in the system for years.
In cases that do proceed to court, deportation orders may be issued in a case that is really just a mockery of ‘justice.’ People are deported because they don’t understand what is happening and can’t defend themselves, even when they are in the United States legally, and in some cases are US citizens. They are deported even if it means returning to a situation where they may be subjected to torture, torment, and abuse, all because they have no legal representation to help them navigate a system that is deeply, deeply confusing.
(Continued)
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2011 by s.e. smith
I want to expand a bit on Flavia’s recent post discussing the Foxnewsification of the Internet and ideas about ‘all points of view being valuable’ and needing to be aired on blogs. Discussions like this inevitably bring up cries of ‘free speech’ from people who apparently don’t understand how free speech works; as was pointed out, a comment section is more like a letters to the editor page. It is thoughtfully curated by staff who read all the letters, consider them, and decide which should be published.
Those letters may well include opposing views, as well as expansions upon the discussion or more topical letters. Newspapers are not accused of violating free speech rights when they decline to publish letters to the editor; The New York Times, for example, didn’t violate my rights when they declined to publish an op-ed I recently submitted. Likewise, the comment sections on blogs, on online newspaper articles, and in other areas of the Internet, are not free speech zones. Because they are published by private entities, not governments, and we have no obligation to publish all views. You have a right to speak: That doesn’t create a correlating obligation to publish. (If it did, imagine how much bad poetry would clutter The New Yorker.)
(Continued)
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 by Flavia Dzodan
Yesterday was a tragic day in Europe. Death and violence have swept the continent in two episodes that might, at first hand, seem unrelated.
In the Belgian city of Liège, a man threw hand grenades and opened fire on the crowd at the city center’s Christmas market, killing four and injuring more than 100 (of which seven are reported to be in serious condition). He then turned the gun to himself and committed suicide. The Guardian reports:
A convicted gun fanatic threw hand grenades and opened fire on a square bustling with Christmas shoppers in the centre of the Belgian city of Liège, killing five people, including himself, and wounding at least 122, some critically.
Hours after failing to show up for police questions about his preoccupation with guns, the 33-year-old unleashed a lunchtime attack on Place Saint Lambert, which was hosting a Christmas market that attracts 1.5 million visitors a year.
Last night, King Albert II and Queen Paola visited Liège, a tough, post-industrial city in the east of the country, which was in a state of shock after the attack.[…]
The gunman was named as Nordine Amrani, a 33-year-old Liègeois who was known to be a “gun freak”, according to the police. He was given a jail term of almost five years after police officers raided his metal workshop three years ago and found a dozen firearms, including an AK-47 machine-gun, and 9,500 gun parts. He was also found guilty of drug dealing after cultivating 2,800 marijuana plants.
(Continued)
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 by Garland Grey
[This is a guest post from John Wenz. Trigger warning for rape culture, victim-blaming.]
Last week, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board released a series of anti-binge drinking advertisements. There is one aimed at men, the background of which is an image of the flashing lights of a police car. In a descending list, you have “Punches … In a Fight … Call the Cops … In cuffs … Arrested … See What Could Happen When Your Friends Drink Too Much.” Because if there’s one thing that drunk dudes do it’s fight and get arrested for battery charges, am I right? Of course there is a female companion ad. It is a graphic image of a woman’s legs on a tile floor, teal underwear around her ankles. It reads “His place … wasted … bathroom … passed out … date rape … See What Could Happen When Your Friends Drink Too Much.”
These advertisements are part of a campaign for ControlTonight.com, which tries to get people to watch what they drink and how much. The site itself is set up in with a few vignette stories on timelines, tracking the night as it progresses. Though the offending story has since been removed from the site, it went as follows: “Anne’s” story begins at 3:19 a.m., saying “Sexual Assault: That’s what Anne’s attorney will call it a month from now. She said no, but he kept going. And now, your friend is on his bathroom floor, bruised and victimized.” And then it goes back to the beginning of the night, and the skeevy work perv who works with “Anne,” and says “This isn’t Anne’s fault. The man raping her is a pig and a criminal. But Anne was too drunk to make clear decisions and went home with him anyway. Now, half passed out, she’s being forced to have sex, and she’s powerless to stop it.”
Which is certainly sending conflicting signals. “This isn’t Anne’s fault, but …” But it is?
(Continued)
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 by s.e. smith
TLC has a new reality show running called All-American Muslim, following the lives of several Muslim households in Dearborn, Michigan. The critical response has mostly pointed out how bland and ordinary it is; gosh, Muslim families really are just like everyone else! In an era where reality shows are mostly about flashy displays of wealth and power, following average, ordinary families is kind of groundbreaking:
In fact, most of the show’s stars seem to have been cast for their exemplary civic and cultural pride. In their bios on TLC’s Web site, the characters’ families are called “prominent” in Dearborn, or “pillars” — old-fashioned words that seek to describe what’s at stake here. In the Jaafar family, husband and father Mike is a deputy sheriff; wife and mother Angela is a consultant; they juggle a busy life raising four young kids. Within five minutes of meeting them, you want to be them. (source)
TLC assumes that many viewers are probably ignorant about Islam and the lives of Muslim families, in a country where Islam has been cast as a demon and Muslims are figures of terror. As such, the show heavily stresses the prosaic and ordinary lives of the families involved. Few positive depictions of Muslims can be found in pop culture, let alone reality television, and so this one sticks out.
(Continued)
Posted on Thursday, December 8, 2011 by Flavia Dzodan
Every morning I wake up and I have a little ritual going. First I am met by the generally cheerful dog and cats. Then I pee. Then I get a cup of coffee and sit in front of my computer. I scan my inboxes (yes plural, as a long term mail user I have ten or so, each for a different purpose and some barely in use anymore but still added to my mail client). I then check if anything came up on my Twitter stream and I almost immediately follow up by clicking refresh on the comments of this very site. I know I am going to be the first one of our editorial team to do so for the day, mostly because of time differences (being in Europe I get to be up earlier than my US counterparts). This little routine I have going is not always followed to the T as there are days I need to get ready for meetings or what have you and I skip some steps or just grab a cup of coffee and run. In general, you can say that 5 out of 7 days I’ll be doing all of the above.
For the past two or three weeks every morning, my rather inconsequential routine is greeted with a series of comments left by the same dude. This dude, let’s call him “MatrixMansplainer” as he likes to identify himself with oh so witty and original Matrix references visits this site every day to let us know how wrong we are. He seems to have a preference for Sady’s posts and particularly, he seems keen on rehashing arguments about certain books that Sady disliked. One would expect that this MatrixMansplainer would have realized, after so many weeks, that his comments are not welcome since I have systematically trashed them. However, just like his choice of monikers denotes a serious lack of originality (really? Who self identifies with Matrix references at this point?!), I would say that this Chicago dweller also lacks in self awareness as anyone with an ounce of it would have taken a clue and, you know, discontinued their behavior.
(Continued)
Posted on Monday, December 5, 2011 by s.e. smith
This marks the second week of a conference in Durban to discuss climate change, a topic that remains contentious on the global stage. There’s considerable tension between Western nations and the Global South on the subject, and this time, African leaders came prepared, pledging to ‘speak with one voice‘ at the meeting. Many people in positions of dominance didn’t like what they had to say, which is a telling sign that it needed to be said.
One issue highlighted in connection with the conference was the attachment of bullying clauses to international aid and development packages:
Murray Worthy, of the World Development Movement, said: “The US, UK and EU are using the same strong-arm tactics to bribe developing countries that we saw at Copenhagen. Abandoning their previous commitments to provide finance to help developing countries deal with climate change, they are now saying finance will only be available to countries that agree to a new deal that effectively abandons the Kyoto treaty.”
These tactics include sneaky measures like coming to backroom deals and then presenting countries with finished packages and a demand to sign on the dotted line or risk losing it all, creating an untenable situation for them; take the aid and the burden that comes with it, or reject it and endanger themselves.
Nations like the US want to turn away from the Kyoto Protocol to a new framework, and are willing to stop at nothing to get there. Flavia brought up similar tactics in her discussion on the IMF, and these tricks continue; the West agrees to provide ‘aid,’ but only at a very high price, and is perfectly willing to withhold assistance, even for problems it causes, if the ‘beneficiaries’ of that aid aren’t willing to accept the compromises that come with it. This is bullying, and the West doesn’t like to hear that.
(Continued)
