Women As Bodies: Climate Change Legislation Edition

Hi! I'm all into the environment and stuff. I want to help enact climate change legislation! I have womanly parts, and I'm not into the ladies. Want to know how to not encourage my pursuit of a better world? This video!

Wow, is that bad. You know what this reminds me of? A post I wrote just around this time last year! I'll just quote myself, kay?

It is demonstrably for the man's pleasure in these adverts; and it is more of a bartering system, a tit-for-tat, than it is an actual expression of healthy sexuality. And that is deeply problematic. Women have the right for their sexuality to be their own; men have the right to not be treated like brainless sexaholics.

And here we are again, this time with models stripping for climate legislation. So, let's revisit this in a little bit more detail, shall we?

Ahem. Women and women's bodies are not bartering tools to get men to do good deeds. This is because women and women's bodies are, primarily, for women. To live in. And reducing a woman's (or even these specific women's) contribution to how hot she can make the guys, actually, more than a little sexist. In fact, it is a lot sexist. As is the implication that the way to make guys do something like focus on climate change legislation (or, as in the last post, voting for Obama) isn't through reasoned discussion or facts but by the chance to see some naked ladies. Because it suggests that (a) a woman's only power rests in her ability to sex up a man and get him to do what she wants, and (b) men are animals controlled by their libidos.

But there are some other problems with it; those are that the men are the actors. Men are the ones responsible for getting climate change legislation passed and done (and I say "men", because I very much doubt the masterminds behind the ad thought about lesbian response). Women are cast in the role of encouraging men to do good and fight the good fight, and then reward the great Climate Change Heros with some nudity.

But I can act. I can act, I can write letters, I can call my representatives in Congress, I can write letters to my local newspaper, I can write blog posts, and I can do all of those things while Being A Girl. And a lot of the girls I know can do all of those things while Being Girls as well. And this ad? Doesn't touch on that. It doesn't encourage any female action other than the getting naked bit. Maybe it is assuming those models have already written their letters. And yet, nada is mentioned about that possibility. Nada is mentioned about encouraging other women to write letters, to agitate for change. And what a way to cut 51 percent of the population out of a larger part of the solution than just being the body worth doing something to see.

Quiz Time!

Courtesy of Newsweek:

Take your Brain For A Spin (Don't Cheat!)

1) How many presidents achieved the rank of general or higher?

A. 2                                                                C. 5

B. 3                                                                D. 7

2) Cindy McCain is heiress to a beer distributor best known for which product?

A. Budweiser                                                C. Miller

B. Coors                                                        D. Pabst Blue Ribbon

3) Which country has the cheapest gas in the world?

A. Iran                                                           C. The United States

B. Russia                                                       D. Venezuela

4) Out of every 10 people surveyed by Journalism.org, how many said the Internet is a critical source of information?

A. 3                                                                C. 8

B. 6                                                                D. 9

5) Which of the following contains the most calories?

A. Alcohol                                                      C. Protein

B. Carbohydrates                                           D. Fat

6) Approximately how many Americans live within one mile of an official Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site?

A. 500,000                                                    C. 5 million

B. 1 million                                                    D. 11 million

7) Between 1980 and 2006, how many weather-related disasters caused more than $1 billion in damage at the time of the event?

A. 9                                                                 C. 47

B. 15                                                               D. 70

8) Which was the first national park in the United States?

A. Grand Canyon                                          C. Yellowstone

B. Mount Rainier                                           D. Yosemite

9) Which is the top-grossing documentary ever?

A. Fahrenheit 9/11                                        C. Madonna: Truth or Dare

B. An Inconvenient Truth                             D. March of the Penguins

10) Franchise movies dominate the box office; the highest grossing films for each of the past 10 years have all been a part of one. Which series has the highest world-wide gross?

A. Harry Potter                                             C. The Lord of the Rings

B. Indiana Jones                                           D. Star Wars

Answers in comments section!

WALL•E is Wondrous

Some time after Toy Story, Toy Story 2, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Finding Nemo, critics stopped beginning (or ending) their reviews with the question of when Pixar would get it wrong, when Pixar would stumble, or when Pixar would lose that magical quality that allows it to continually put out hit after ingenious and lovable hit. Like Anton Ego, Pixar has reduced film reviewers to simply fans; instead of contemptuously wondering when it would end, they began to wonder how much farther Pixar could go. And with good reason. WALL•E, the newest Pixar creation, does nothing to fall off course. It tackles more, and succeeds in every possible way.

It is a "G" rated children's movie that encompasses everything from politics to environmentalism to the nature of love, and yet doesn't feel preachy or as if it is imparting a lesson from on high. And it does so by, in the words of the New York Time reviewer AO Scott, acknowledging that "the paradox at the heart of "WALL•E is that the drive to invent new things and improve the olds ones -to buy and sell and make and collect- creates the potential for disaster and also the possible path away from it". It is the classic nature of a tragedy: that which is our greatest strength is our greatest weakness. At the beginning of WALL•E, we are presented with the end of the tragedy; after we have destroyed the planet and abandoned it. But it would not be a children's film -or at least not one released in conjunction with the Disney name- if it did not end in triumph.

The movie, though, does contain some fairly eery scenes and images. First up is, of course, the earth; covered in trash skyscrapers on the ground and surrounded by bits of space junk; our beautiful planet is thoroughly trashed. Massive dust storms threaten our hero and his pet cockroach. And it is utterly deserted. The most chilling Twilight episodes featured futures of this nature; as do the most frightening horror films, the ones where no one is left. And then there are the people, when we do find them. Doughy-fat and impossibly disengaged from their peers, these humans have lost the ability to walk. A scene that is both funny and alarming is one that shows what happens when one of them falls off of his hover-recliner. Unable to lift himself up, he lays helplessly for robot assistance; meanwhile, traffic is rerouted (and we may be able to take some lesson about traffic control away from this), and a robotic voice soothingly says, "Please remain stationary". Then there is what seems to be the degeneration of the education system, with youngsters being taught their ABCs via the Wal-Mart-esque corporation, here called Buy 'n Large, and the Captain not understanding how to work a book. And, of course, the robots. In a world that pulls from 2001: A Space Odyssey, the robots take orders from a long-ago given protocol.

Pixar has done what it has done in the past, and delivered a child's film with adult themes. The love story and the cuteness of WALL•E, his devotion to EVE, will keep kids engaged. As will the overall message of environmentalism and the indomitable spirit of humans -once it has been activated, of course. But for adults there is the repeated message of "Stay the course", used repeatedly by President Bush and echoed by BnL's CEO and the world's president. Pixar also highlights the wasteful laziness of consumer culture by having WALL•Rs, larger WALL•Es for the space ship, simply box up our junk and catapult it into space, and by having the continued message of the BnL Corporation be that Earth has become uninhabitable and not worth saving. It is the captain, educated by his computer as to the beauties of earth and dancing, and WALL•E and EVE and other rogue robots who champion the opposite message once hope of life has sprung up in the form of a tiny plant.

In the end, Pixar does what it does best. It makes WALL•E, EVE, M-O, and even the cockroach seem interminably human. It makes the humans that as well. And it cleverly references and alludes to other aspects of popular culture, like WALL•E's obsession with "Hello, Dolly". It has a philosophy beyond fun and hijinks, though there are plenty of those as well. And it focuses on the goodness that exists within us, even if it is sometimes subdued or atrophied. The humans of the future aren't evil; just ignorant. And Pixar manages to make going outside seem cooler than sitting home and playing with the Wii or Playstation, makes talking to the person next to you on the subway seem more fun than talking on a cellphone or listening to an iPod. It stretches the boundaries of what a child's film can be, what it can say, and what mediums it can encompass. In short, WALL•E succeeds in almost every way.

McCain=Bad Vote

Let me be clear: I genuinely like John McCain. He is a man of integrity, of passion and reason and strength. I do not think that a vote for McCain is a vote for what would essentially be a third Bush term. The two diverge on too many points, including but not limited to the environment and compromising with democrats in Congress. I admired him when he first appeared on The Daily Show, and earlier this year when he appeared on Ellen and engaged in a dialogue about gay rights. That sort of moxy and the ability to disagree with the other side with integrity and civility is why I admire the man. If he does win the presidential race in November, I won't end up bursting into tears. I could even be proud of him. That being said, I do vehemently believe that a vote for McCain would be a bad vote.

I'll start with the good. John McCain has a different view on environmental policy than many Republicans. His lifetime percentage with the League of Conservation Voters is "26 percent, compared with an average of 16 percent for all Republicans. As recently as 2004, when his rating for the 108th Congress reached 56 percent, the league endorsed him for re-election to the senate". He introduced the first bill ever to regulate carbon emissions in the United States with Democrat -kind of- Joe Lieberman (go Connecticut!) in 2003. At the same time, his environmental policy is nebulous; it is almost a foregone conclusion that he will not seek to go as far as the Democrats, and he is supportive of using nuclear power. Against other Republicans, he is a breath of fresh air. Against a different democrat or with different policies in regard to taxation or women's rights, and he would still be a viable candidate. But Obama has a lifetime percentage of 96 from the LCV, and he "aim[s] for a reduction of 80 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2050, which most scientists think is the minimum necessary to head off the worst effects of climate change". He also "set a target of 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 and 60 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2030". As admirable as McCain's environmental policy is, Obama blows him out of the water.

But McCain has an absolutely abysmal record when it comes to women's rights, and I'm not just talking about Roe v. Wade. In an attempt to garner some votes from women who had previously supported Hillary, McCain is attempting to soften his image and play to the frustration of some of Hillary's supporters over the sexism she met during her campaign. But if women vote for McCain out of exasperation over Hillary's treatment, they will essentially be cutting off their noses to spite their face. As with many Republicans, McCain believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. That is basically a given. But he also opposes efforts to ensure equal wages for equal work among men and women, he has voted against requiring healthcare plans to cover birth control, and voted against Medicaid funding for family planning for low-income families. And he voted against funding to prevent teen and unintended pregnancies. He garners a 0% rating from Planned Parenthood, and that is only because there is no negative percentiles on the scale.

McCain also opposes gay marriage, but I do respect his belief that it is a state rights issue and that he voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage. I also give him kudos for voting to expand the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation. And although I do think he would be more responsible about war in general than Bush and although I agree with McCain about the dangers of pulling out of Iraq too early, I am concerned with his statements that the terrorists are more afraid of him than of Obama. The lack of understanding from Republicans in general that many terrorists do not arbitrarily hate America for our freedom and values (though some do) and that we have increased hatred for America through many of our policies abroad is truly frightening. I do, however, deeply respect his opinion that the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center should be closed.

His view on taxes, which was "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of the middle-class Americans who need tax relief" in May 2001, now unfortunately mirror Bush's view on tax cuts. Given the recent downturn in economic development, and given the recession we experienced under Reagonomics, I would prefer to prime the pump rather than allowing the tax cuts to trickle down.

The problem with this year's primary season and this year's presidential race is that after having a dearth of decent candidates on both sides for years, we now have a plethora of viable and respectable and wonderful candidates. McCain pledges to run a clean campaign, and I would love for a Republican who does so to win political office. But Obama's views on women's rights, on the environment, on taxes and gay rights and our position in the world, are much more progressive than McCain's. And McCain is much more of a conservative than the media attests to in their portrayal of him as a maverick. We need real change in this country, and although McCain would inch us forward, Obama promises feet of progress.

Earth First

Gas prices have finally hit and surpassed four dollars on national average, and our president is going on his final European tour to remind everyone that we "are all too dependent on hydrocarbons" (and seriously, who would blame a European leader -any of them- for responding to that gem with a solid punch to Bush's nose?). So let's talk about energy, the crisis, and the affect the whole deal will have on our economy. First, I must say that I am incredibly angry that we Americans had to wait until gas prices became unbearable economically to have a majority of us -and our government- seriously consider alternative fuel sources. Prior to this, it was Willie Nelson riding around in an ethanol powered bus and Prius owners who seemed to actually be taking steps forward -and the Prius people were doing so partially because the car became synonymous with "cool". The rest of us? Well, we killed the electric car early on in that model's lifetime; and although many companies were paying lipservice to finding alternate fuel sources (I can't open my Newsweek without seeing bp advertising that "There's energy security in energy diversity"), it seemed more like a PR campaign than a real attempt at change. Kind of like Phillip Morris sponsoring anti-smoking campaigns. There just seemed to be something incredibly disingenuous about the whole thing.

We have been told for quite a while "we have reached our peak oil production and some oil geologists [believe] that 90 percent of the world's oilfields have been tapped". But America kept on gobbling up energy resources, kept on buying SUVs, and kept our collective head under a rock. Because as long as it wasn't affecting us economically right that second, then we could deny any validity to claims that it would adversely affect us in the future. We could believe that some solution would magically appear at the right moment without us having put money, time, or energy into finding it. And we are paying for our short-sighted idiocy: "When gasoline was selling closer to $1 at the start of the decade, American households were spending some $300 billion each year to drive their cars and heat and cool their homes. They are now spending some $700 billion a year on energy. Household gasoline bills in the coming year will rise about $100 billion -even if the national gas prices stay near $4 a gallon through 2008". And gas prices staying at $4 a gallon now seems unlikely.

Meanwhile, the gas prices "are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries" and are also responsible for the ingredients that make those meals becoming more and more expensive as well. What Americans forgot, or never learned, or didn't find relevant, is that "oil goes into making virtually everything, including steel, aluminum, plastics, rubber, fabrics, transportation ...and food. People don't generally associate food and petroleum, but petroleum is used to make fertilizers and in vehicles used for planting and harvesting, storage and processing, and the trip to the market for the final sale from the freezer in store to the freezer in a home". Great.

I can't blame everything on ordinary Americans' spending habits though; I can blame some of it on their voting habits. Republicans blocked even discussion of a tax bill aimed for oil companies who were making "unreasonable profits". By the way, Exxon made $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of this year. I can definitely see where taxing them -or even talking about taxing them- is a bad thing. And in the past, our government has apparently "created a disincentive for new technologies and new ideas" by doing things like "mandating that so much ethanol is made and that it has to come from corn sugar" thus diminishing the exploration of creative solutions. Doesn't that just take the biscuit?

Now Americans are finally getting into the swing of things, doing things like trading in their SUVs and carpooling to work, and possibly even thinking about buying a hybrid. We drove 11 billion less miles in March 2008 than in March 2007. And maybe -maybe- we've learned our lesson. Because if we had been investing in and investigating alternative fuel and energy options seriously, we probably would not have gotten to the point where food and gas prices are rising to the further detriment of our economy. If we had been serious about voting people into office who would have fought to have the automobile makers actually work toward more fuel efficient vehicles; who wouldn't have made "light trucks" exempt from such laws; or went after automobile companies who began designing other vehicles to fit the "light truck" definition in order to circumvent the regulations for higher fuel efficiency, we would be farther away from this position today. If we begin to cultivate a mindset recognizing how potential negative effects of our actions that may accumulate in our future are important to consider and work to prevent, maybe our current situation will not have been for naught. Unfortunately, I don't believe it has. I think we will do our best to get ourselves out of this situation in the short term, and then continue along with the mindset we have always embraced and has best been summed up by a bumper sticker my father had three cars ago: "Earth First: We'll Strip Mine The Other Planets Later".