AIDS Awareness Week: “Rent” Film Screening

This past week was Emory’s AIDS awareness week. On Wednesday night, I attended a screening of the film “Rent.” This film, directed by Christopher Columbus is based off of Jonathon Larson’s musical, “Rent,” which has been running on Broadway since 1996. For readers who are not familiar with the storyline, this film was selected to be screened during AIDS Awareness Week because four of the main characters (Angel, Collins, Roger, and Mimi) are HIV positive. The idea for the musical “Rent” was inspired by Puccini’s opera, “La Bohème.” In “La Bohème,” the characters are Parisian bohemians who are being affected by the tuberculosis epidemic. “Rent,” in contrast, is the story of struggling artists living in New York City who are confronted with AIDS.
One of the most powerful themes of the film was the seize-the-day attitude of many of the characters. Despite pitiful living conditions, the hardships of disease, as well as facing other social stigmas, the characters possess a great resilience to maintain a positive outlook on life. During one song the characters describe themselves as “people living with, not dying from disease.” This is one of my favorite lines in the movie because it reminds people of the importance to fight disease until the very last moment, and never surrender to despair. Often when addressing the subject of AIDS, academics and advocates alike resort to a grim and bleak outlook concerning the disease. The characters of “Rent” remind the audience that they have not died yet, and while still living there is still hope. The song, “No Day but Today” is probably the best example of how the characters strive to embrace life. Mimi, an exotic dancer with AIDS and a drug addiction sings, “There's only us, There's only this, Forget regret, Or life is your to miss, No other road, No other way, No day but today.” This line clearly demonstrates the perspective of living every day as if it was the last. I am particularly fond of this theme because it is relevant to a far greater demographic than just AIDS patients. Everyone could use an occasional reminder to cherish the importance of friendship and love, throw away the monotony of day-to-day life, and remain true to our ideals.
Another interesting aspect of the film is to see how the support network system for people with AIDS has evolved in the last two decades. The film shows a couple of scenes set in a life support group, one of the original support networks for people with AIDS. The characters assist one another in answering the questions “Will I lose my dignity? Will someone care? Will I wake tomorrow, from this nightmare?” The life support meeting is run on a very small scale; it takes place in a rundown public school building. Currently, the support networks for people who have been affected by AIDS are tremendous. Enormous support systems include The National AIDS Hotline (which exists in both Spanish and English), the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and People with AIDS Coalition of New York. There are research initiatives such as the American Foundation for AIDS research, advocacy initiatives such as ACT UP, and even a World AIDS Day, December 1st annually. It is quite clear that the number of people affected by this disease has risen at an unprecedented pace, and despite certain enduring social stigmas, AIDS is not just a disease for bohemians anymore.

Hymen Reconstruction

In previous classes we have talked about genital mutilation and our discussions have ranged from clitoridectomies, “corrective” surgery on intersex children, and how society usually doesn’t consider circumcision in this category. There has now been another type of mutilation that has been brought to my attention after reading the book In the Land of God and Man by Silvana Paternostro for my Latin American history class. In her book Paternostro, explores the suppression of Latin American women by a patriarchal society and the Catholic Church. The repression limits women to rigid gender roles and also controls how women use their bodies. In Latin American culture, for a man to marry a woman she must be a virgin. However women who have moved from their countries to countries with less rigid gender controls such as United States have thus had more freedom to have premarital sex. However, if they want to marry a Latin American man, they now have the problem of not being a virgin. The solution that many Latin American women have chosen is hymen reconstruction, which Paternostro found out about when she found a plastic surgery clinic advertising the procedure in the newspaper. The point of the reconstruction is so that the woman will bleed like she did the first time she had intercourse and thus verifies her virginity. For more information on the procedure you can go to the following website of a plastic surgery clinic in Argentina called Plenitas http://www.plenitas.com/treatments/hymen-surgery.asp. I found the website’s description of the results from the surgery very interesting. The website states “hymen reconstruction will allow you to have your next sexual intercourse as if you were a virgin, without worrying about failing to fulfill the cultural and religious expectations of your family or social group.”

The irony of the situation is that even though these women who have hymen reconstruction have emigrated from Latin America and are now free from direct suppression, they are still under the yoke of their country’s traditions. Why, though, are men so concerned with a woman’s virginity? I found that my TA’s answer to be very interesting. The answer he gave was due to the belief in honor which is tied to the social status of the family in a patriarchal society. An honorable family is one in which the father is the actual father of the children in the family instead of the woman’s children from previous men. By “protecting” a woman’s virginity then the family maintains its honor.

When Paternostro saw the ad she contacted a human rights group to tell them about the procedure so that they could report it. However, she was told that it wasn’t as serious as a clitoridectomies since those were forced on women whereas women were consenting to hymen reconstruction like they do for breast implants. Paternostro also spoke with a human rights lawyer who told her that since it did not harm the woman’s health and the woman was doing it voluntarily it would not be considered as bad as a clitoridectomy either. If this is true, can we call this procedure genital mutilation? I disagree after reading an article from 2006 titled “Reconstructing Virginity in Guatemala” by Hannah Roberts who reports that many Guatemalan women who undergo the procedure do not understand all the risks involved and that the surgery is done in poor conditions causing infections and other discomforts. Also the procedure is not just limited to Latin American women either. Many women around the world get the surgery to deceive their husbands on their wedding nights in order to escape the disapproval of their society.

Science in the Media

I was reading this article that my physics professor has assigned and it totally reminded me of some of our discussions earlier in the semester. It was pretty much about how the public tends to have more faith in science portrayed in the media than any other subject, and it went on to give several examples and reasoning for why this is so. First of all, the general public has less knowledge about science then it does about sports and politics, so when football and political affairs are in the media the public is more critical of the reporter and the broadcasting if the facts aren’t straight. Because less is known about the scientific world and the verbiage is very complicated and unfamiliar, people tend to put more trust in this area of reporting. As in sports for example, they believe a network or editor would not put an unknowledgeable person in charge of reporting an issue they do not understand. The article discussed scientific inventions that were reported to the public as tremendous advances, when in fact they were not because they defied all the laws of physics. However, these people in charge of these projects advertised tremendous progress and they audiences were enthralled. They got caught up in the hype and excitement and bought into these inventions. In one particular example he mentioned, the inventors sited “achieved, world-known, published physicists” as experts, when actually they were unknown physicists experimenting in the same field with little achievement. But when the public hears that experts are verifying these inventions they tend to trust it, whether it be true or not because they do not have the knowledge of the subject or means to verify the information they receive. The author said this was the biggest issue due to the fact that it misrepresented science to the public. Science is generally held as a trustworthy institution, and when “frauds” enter into it and misrepresent the facts, it could change the public’s perception of science, in a negative way.

The article also went on to show how companies and reputable institutions buy into the hype. The author gave an example on how NASA, an very trusted and influential organization, invested in one of the scientists inventions concerning producing extremely large amounts of energy using very little to begin with. He explained that companies do this because they usually do not have to put much capital into it, and if it works the payoff is huge. However, he questions the organizations that invest because some of the projects they are investing in have zero payoff, and companies are still investing. He goes on to claim that this could be fraud, portraying something to the public that isn’t true, and through careless research is “tricking” the public. I thought this article was really interesting because at the beginning of the semester we discussed in class how science does hold some sort of power over the public. The public generally believes what is portrayed in the media as truth, and this article shows this is true, but that when represented by frauds can lead to a negative impact on the scientific world and its perception in the public.

ignorance is bliss?

Piali made an interesting point in class on Monday that has really got me thinking. It wasn’t something incredibly novel, but hearing it out loud in words rather than just knowing it made a huge difference to me. The point I’m referring to was made in reference to her “The Office” clip. She said that even though we may not personally believe in certain stereotypes, we are always aware of them. I’ve been trying to decide if I think this awareness that we all have of stereotypes is a good thing or a bad thing; I think it could easily be argued either way. On one hand, being aware of stereotypes seems like it is the first step to moving beyond them. If we can acknowledge the ‘givens’, then we can work to move past them, adjust our thoughts and actions so that the common stereotype is not something we believe or represent. On the other hand, it seems like our awareness of these stereotypes is the exact thing that is perpetuating them. Children, for example, are often unaware of stereotypes. Perhaps it is this lack of awareness that allows them to see one another as equals without noticing differences. The earlier part of Ashley’s clip demonstrates the naivety of young children to prescribed gender roles: the girl and boy interact with one another without being aware that they are different. It is only when they become aware of these differences that they assume their stereotypical roles and poke fun at one another.
So again, the question I’m posing is, If we want to move past stereotyping, is it better to acknowledge their existence or be blind to them? I don’t want to think that it’s too late for us to change the function and prevalence of stereotypes in our society, but personally, I can’t help but think that maybe these stereotypes already play too big a role in society for us to lose awareness of them. Maybe it’s too late for us, but not for generations to come. Is it possible to raise our children to be unaware or the biases and generalizations that are so common in our society? And if it is, would it even make a difference?

Women vs Equality, How Important is the Wording?

I really found that today’s class discussion raised some really important questions and that the presentation on the Self-Defense Class answered many of the questions posed by the first presentation on the Emory Women’s Center. The first presentation raised a class discussion that posed two arguments or dilemmas. Why isn’t the Women’s Studies department called the Equality Studies department? Also, why isn’t the Women’s Center called the Equality Center? I am going to take my best shot at answering those two questions.

In order to do, the first reading that comes to mind, is The Invisible Knapsack, White Privilege. In our society, the white male has been given this privilege that he is unaware of in many instances and it is more or less a way of society. That is why I think it is crucial that we have a Women’s Studies department and a Women’s Center. I am all for equality, but to make a Equality Studies department, or a Male studies department, would just be like re-reading much of history in a way that we have been taught all of our lives. I feel that this class has really opened up my eyes to the once invisible privilege given to white males that is now very apparent to me. Also, another reason that Emory needs a Women’s Center is because women’s need a place. Yes, women have risen greatly in society over the decades, but there is still a male superiority that remains in our society. That Center will give women a safe haven, and a place that they have worked for. Men have had so many places available to them throughout history and I think it is time for women to have a place they can call their own.

The second presentation in class today, on the PE self-defense class really reinforced that fact that a Women’s Center is needed. I learned today that this class is taught from a view that males are superior, which is a view I have mentioned before. That fact that a handout describes serving food and beverages to resolve a disagreement is just comical to me. When learning a punch in class today we starting talking about when we as women do not feel safe or threatened. It was interesting to hear that other girls look under their cars at night before unlocking their doors, whereas none of the boys in the class claimed to perform such an act. That is one such example why a Center for Women is needed. There is still a difference between men and women in society today, and while people promote equality, people also need to realize that there is a physical inequality in many instances between males and females. The Center for Women can be a place for discussion about those topics and so much more.

Grocery Bags

Remember our discussion about how shoppers in Europe have to bring their own grocery bags? The concept is coming to the United States: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2007/11/26/lawrence.plastic.bag.ban.cnn

EDIT: Crap! I hate how blogger cuts URLs short.

Here's a new link to the same video: http://tinyurl.com/yuc6c8

Remedy for the Inuit

Anne Lucas chose an awfully bleak title for her discussion of the legal battles that the Inuit are undertaking. The fact that "there has been a growth of activity in the area of indigenous rights to cultural self-determination" has given me hope for the Inuit and other peoples. It shouldn't be taken for granted that they are taking action to secure the rights that they are entitled to, and I hope that they will keep seeking out ways to fight for themselves until there is a remedy. I stumbled upon the footage of Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who was mentioned at the end of "No Remedy for the Inuit" as a prominent activist, and chose it as my clip (sorry it was so long!) because it reminded me that people in a disadvantaged position are neither helpless nor hopeless. It's easy to forget that peoples like the Inuit already have a strong voice. We don't have to give them one, we just need to listen to it.

Cloutier spoke again at a hearing this past March: "Inuit activists hope a hearing on Arctic climate change by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will lead to reduced emissions and will help to protect the culture of the northern native people. "In the Arctic, things are happening first and fastest and it's a way of life that's being jeopardized here," said Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who submitted a petition for a hearing on how climate change infringes on Inuit human rights to the commission in 2005 on behalf of Inuit in Canada and Alaska. The commission, which is an arm of the Organization of American States, rejected Cloutier's request to rule on the rights violations caused specifically by U.S. emissions, deciding instead to hold a general hearing on March 1 to investigate the broad relationship between climate change and human rights. Officials at the Washington-based commission said it will be the body's first such hearing."
(http://www.unep.org/indigenous/pdfs/
Climatechange-and-Inuit-rights.pdf)

It's too soon to tell what the outcome of this particular hearing has been but, whatever it may be, thankfully people like Cloutier will never give up easily.