graduated from the school of hard knocks.
been a journeyman for almost 20 years.
I'm a peace-loving fighter who never backs down. Never.
I'm not easily intimidated.
Compassion is a virtue, no matter what the Repugnicans say.
Life is a beautiful struggle.
I am thankful for where I am and the gifts I've been given.
And every day above ground is a good one.
Through Jaundiced Eyes: How the Media View Organized Labor
It's good to be back home! I've had the honor of spending the past few days in Chicago representing my union at a conference. There were many fine speakers, and the brother- and sisterhood I found there was amazing! Much love and respect to the good sisters and brothers of Minneapolis and St. Paul!!! Anyway....
One of the fine speakers was Dr. William J. Puette, author of Through Jaundiced Eyes: How the Media View Organized Labor. He found that anti-union attitudes are strikingly consistent, even though labor history and/or education is rarely taught at the elementary or secondary level. His students already arrive with preconceived notions about unions, and have little to no actual knowledge of labor history (as shown by their answers on a test). The students who hold anti-union views believe that unions: are un-american, are ruining the country, are too powerful, are no longer needed, have "bosses" that are corrupt, have "bosses" that are overpaid, are greedy and selfish, protect bad workers and are always going on strike. Hmm. Where could they possibly be getting these ideas?
Ever heard the term "media bias"? Film, television (news and dramas), newspapers, cartoons...all emphasize different facets of anti-labor bias, but together present a unified portrait of the evils of "Big Labor". In fact, that's a popular loaded term, "Big Labor"; often used in opposition to "small business" (which is used many times without regard to the actual size or income of the business! He presented an example of one of Hawai'i's airlines referring to themselves as a "small business"...not exactly a mom-and-pop operation, no?). Typecasting, caricatures, and stereotypes are trotted out on a regular basis to emphasize bias, not challenge it. Subliminal messages are given through images and placement (and size) of articles in print media.
Film tends to emphasize violence in relation to unions. Especially mob violence (which could be, and will be, its own topic on this blog!). It's telling that Jimmy Hoffa is still the best-known labor figure. Fictional images of working-class men with ballbats and ax-handles are given more space than real news footage of police attacking nonviolent, unarmed labor demonstrators with plastic bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and batons. Movies also highlight strikes (in reality, 99.3% of labor negotiations are handled without a strike), corruption (again, cue up the Godfather theme), and greed (greed?! CEO pay, anyone?!!).
Print media utilizes liberal use of subliminal messaging, images and verbal bias. Contrast "labor boss" with "corporate executive" (or official, spokesman, etc.). But it fits nicely with "Mafia boss". During negotiations, labor "demands", employers "ask for concessions" or "make an offer". Employers "resist", in order to "seek higher profits"; when union members seek an increase in wages to keep up with the cost of living, or an increase in health benefits, words like "lust" and "greed" are used. When labor leaders are featured, they tend to have their age listed right after their name...like criminals do in the police beat section. In fact, Dr. Puette kept track of labor articles during the writing of his book; thirty percent of the time, labor articles were on the same page as the police beat. He even showed an example where the labor news was embedded in the arrest records, although there was no tie-in at all! There was another example of a magazine article on organized crime in Hawai'i; the graphics featured different areas of organized crime (prostitution, drugs, etc.....and "labor racketeering"). There was no mention of labor in the article, as there were no charges of labor racketeering!
Visual images are important. Labor leaders are not only referred to as "labor bosses"; they are almost universally presented as large, heavyset, broad-shouldered men (the better to beat you up with, my child! Sorry, been reading too much "Little Red Riding Hood" over here). Pictures shown are unflattering, and with scowls instead of smiles. Contrast that with photos of business leaders...clean-cut, smiling, average-sized. If a labor official does not fit the image, well...the photo isn't shown! Dr. Puette's union president was referred to as a "union boss" in an article during negotiations, but because her petite, slight build did not match the aggressive terminology of "boss", her photo was not published. Newspapers often use photos of picket lines, even of informational pickets, and inflammatory headlines for labor articles; when negotiations are resolved (again, 99.3% with no strike, let alone no violence!), it gets a small blurb in the back of the paper. There is no regular labor beat in today's newspapers. The Chamber of Commerce, traditionally hostile to unions, is used as a news source. Graphics are increasingly employed in an attempt to compete with USA Today; an example of the "Union Boss" puppetmaster pulling strings, a la The Godfather was the visual headline in one magazine article. And of course, no image of a union leader is complete without the standard-issue large cigar clamped between the teeth!
Television reiterates these images, and tends to emphasize the pettiness and "foolish goals" of unions. Take for example, a 1993 episode of the Simpsons, which featured Homer Simpson as the president of the International Brotherhood of Jazz Dancers, Pastry Chefs, and Nuclear Technicians. This animation hauled out all the old, tired negative stereotypes, from sicilians being synonymous with the Mob (Homer was referred to as "the Kingpin" after his election), to beer-swilling, not-too-bright union members. Interestingly enough, this was released after an unsuccessful 1991 attempt by U.S. animators of the Simpsons to organize; this particular animation was done in Korea.
Which brings up another point...global union density rates. Media images feature large union "bosses" and cartoons of big muscle to highlight how powerful unions supposedly are in the U.S. Here's an actual breakdown of the percentages of union membership in various countries:
80% Denmark
70% Belgium
44% Italy
43% Germany
31% Canada
28% England
26% Australia
26% Japan
25% Spain
19% South Korea
17% Taiwan
13% U.S.A.
Labor is a political party just about everywhere besides the U.S. So, who's kidding who about labor and power?
The rise of corporate media coincides with the decrease in pro-labor voices in media. Around the turn of the century, most newspapers were locally owned, and each had its own philosophy; there were diverse opinions, and working people had advocates. There was accountability to the community. Those days are long gone...in print, in television, in radio. In 1996, Clear Channel owned 40 radio stations; after 1996's deregulation, they now own 1200 radio stations. (Quality and variety of music played on radio did a swan dive, and that's another topic for another time...in the meantime you can google "Greg Tate" for good articles on radio apartheid).
What can we as union members do? For starters, we can monitor the media, and offer critiques. We can point out media bias to our children. We can develop contacts within the media; it's harder to demonize real human beings as opposed to nameless masses. We can provide leadership training to our members so they can be more media-savvy when called upon for photo-ops and interviews. We can provide contrasting images of our membership to counter the stereotypes. We can support the labor press that does exist; give it a greater audience. We can develop our own PR. We can use pro-labor cartoonists. We can do even more....but we can't ignore the impact of the media. We do so at our own risk.
I've been actively running my mouth in the comments section of this blog, on a couple of posts on housekeeping, here and here.
I've also been reading The Hidden Cost of Being African-American by Thomas Shapiro. (For an insight into this book, go here). I'm just getting into the book, but am enjoying Shapiro's method of presenting detailed family portraits. Most of the families presented are from the St. Louis area, so the details especially resonate with me (I wonder if he'll bring up the peculiar St. Louis habit of asking "where'd you go to school?" They mean high school; and that's shorthand for putting you on the socioeconomic scale. Pizza Hut did a successful run of television ads in the St. Louis area around 10 years ago poking fun at that and other St. Louis customs, as well as the pronouciation of the letter "R".) It's an easy read, and in the introduction the author explains his methodology as a way of expanding on the issues brought up in his earlier book, Black Wealth/White Wealth. Readers of Nickled and Dimed will find this book familiar, but Shapiro lets the people speak for themselves.
Life has intruded on blogging in a big way right now, but I hope to come back soon, because I'm still thinking on those housekeeping threads, and that book. The discussions are related. They bring to mind thoughts of power relationships, sexism and gender roles, barriers, mobility and access, hopes and dreams, and unconscious patterns of behavior. And of course, hidden costs. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, speaking of hidden costs, check out Michael Ventura's latest column. His "Letters at 3AM" column is permanently blogrolled in the Bedda! section. Enjoy.
This month's Atlantic Monthly has a blurb on the up-side of no-fault divorce. A recent study examined the impact of divorce law on family violence since 1969, and found that states permitting unilateral, "no-fault" divorce saw female suicide rates decline by around 20 percent over a twenty-year period (male suicide rates remained constant). It also found a correlation with large declines in domestic violence: male-on-female abuse dropped by 36 percent over ten years, female-on-male abuse dropped by 24 percent, and the number of women murdered by their husbands dropped by around ten percent. The authors argue not that people are using no-fault divorce to escape abusive marriages, but that the presence of an easier path to divorce has changed the bargaining landscape---that when people can leave abusive partners, spouses may be less likely to be abusive.
Having been in an abusive marriage, I don't necessarily agree with the authors; I'm inclined to think abusers don't change their behavior (and I'm sure there are studies out there that demonstrate patterns of serial abuse). At the same time, when I read these statistics, I couldn't help but smile at the obviousness of it! My no-fault divorce occurred in 1993, the result of just not being able to take it anymore. I grew up, like many people, believing that divorce was wrong, divorce was a cop-out, divorce was the result of not-working-hard-enough, divorce meant failure. Like the proverbial frog in boiling water, I lived through behavior that escalated finally into a murder attempt after I filed for divorce. Personally, I credit the "no-fault" divorce as the reason why another attempt to kill me didn't happen....he was given an "out" too....abuse did not show up on the divorce decree, and he considered that a plus. For myself, I felt that I'd'a had a helluva time trying to "prove" abuse, since I had not been severely injured (the stereotype of the abused female as always having been beaten to within an inch of her life....as if the rest of us are supposed to tolerate occasional slaps, punches and kicks...roll with the punches literally, at it were). Even if he had never escalated into physical abuse, I still felt I had a fundamental human right not to be married--legally tied--to an alcoholic who refused to work and spewed an incessant barrage of verbal abuse and insults during the moments when he wasn't asleep! Because of my conditioning, I put up with it. I put up with it until I realized it was killing me. No-fault divorce literally saved my life.
Yet, practically all the culture-war conservatives demonize no-fault divorce as one of the watershed causes of the "destruction of the family", preferring not to recognize that some "families" are already destroyed. A marriage certificate does not make or necessarily reflect an intact family. In reality, the divorce rates in the U.S. have been climbing since after the Civil War, more so during the twentieth century, until peaking in the late 1970's....as this article, which also cites the above study, shows. Much literature on divorce shows a statistical jump in the late 1970s during the advent of no-fault, with the numbers dropping off after the "pent-up need" fell off.
I'm skeptical about conservative froth over divorce. After all, it's hardly anything new. Philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote on the increase of divorce back in the 1920's, attributing it to the rise in education and opportunities for women, and to the natural human tendency to look at "the grass being greener" in a heterogeneous society. The Atlantic Monthly offers an article entitled, "Are Americans Polygamous?", which decried the 600 percent increase in divorce and declared marriage a "monumental failure". The year of the article? 1947. Meanwhile, we're still treated to periodic lamentations on divorce and how it's supposedly destroying society. My grandmothers say the same arguments were bandied about in their day. Life goes on. Divorce isn't pleasant, but it's a damn sight better than a miserable marriage. Those who advocate making divorce more difficult are either unaware of what the conseqences will be, or just don't give a damn, because they have resources that will protect them from having to suffer those consequences, should the need arise in their lives.
XX Blog has another interesting, albeit problematic article entitled "Is the Veil Evil?" Earlier, at both feministe and XX Blog, anotherarticle entitled "The Choice" appeared; the choice being moral relativism or intervention with regards to women's rights in muslim and other patriarchal, but nonwestern countries.
Are these the only choices....allowing gross violations of human rights under the guise of cultural relativism vs. crusading by the west, ostensibly on behalf of downtrodden muslimas? There has been another recent spate of "where are the women bloggers" posts; I find the "where are the voices of muslim women" posts to be of similar content and style. I dunno, maybe it's the biblical analogy about motes vs. beams in one's eyeballs that's rubbing me the wrong way....
I'm a charter subscriber to World Pulse Magazine, a periodical that focuses on women and children's rights from a global perspective, and is not only chock-full of the kind of information usually passed over in mainstream western media, but has plenty of links at the end of their articles for further reading. Through them, I've learned of many fine organizations dedicated to furthering the opportunities, rights, and potential of women. One of the maddening traits of mainstream media is the insistence on portraying women, especially so-called third world women, as passive and voiceless victims. When no media space is given to the leaders, organizations, and coalitions of active women struggling for women's rights, it becomes easier to believe that they don't exist. This is not the case.
Tostan, an NGO based in Senegal (the word means "breakthrough" in Wolof), believes that female genital mutilation (FGM) will be eradicated in Senegal within the next two to five years. How? Founder and Director Molly Melching explains that Tostan:
initially set out to educate women in basic health and human rights issues. Instructors used song, dance and theater as teaching methods because most women in Senegal have little formal schooling. Tostan students learned the basics of hygiene, preventative health care, problem-solving and democracy. In more advanced classes, women were taught writing, reading, and arithmetic with direct applications such as writing newspaper articles and campaign speeches.
"Tostan respects all cultures equally." Melching stated. "We never said, 'That's bad. Stop it.' We made absolutely sure there was never any negative mention of female genital cutting in any of these classes, but we did explain certain health factors, and many women did come to understand that their chronic pain, for example, was actually linked to the cutting they'd had as a child." The women themselves began to question the practice. In 1997, a group of women in Malicounda Bambara (pop. 3000) made a written public declaration that they would no longer cut girls or women. More than 1,140 communities have followed suit. It seems that Tostan has an effective model to follow and learn from.
The premiere issue of World Pulse also has an article entitled "Iraq: A Way Forward" which features interviews with three iraqi women's rights activists: Nazaneen Rashid, founder of Kurdish Women's Action Against Honor Killing and author of Caged Birds: Women in Post-Saddam Iraq, Zainab Salbi, founder of Women for Women International, and Houzan Mahmoud, Editor-in-Chief of Equal Rights Now!, the paper of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq. According to Ms. Rashid:
Media is interested only in talking about bloodshed rather than what has been done or what the NGOs are doing in Iraq. There are few reports about women and children. I have hardly heard about women experts, women participating in economic development, the education system, domestic violence, honor crimes, or the rise of fundamentalist religious groups. Every day I hear about a U.S. soldier being killed. But I haven't heard news about replacement of iraqi personal law with sharia law, which undermines women's rights....
Housan Mahmoud is more blunt:
The reality is very different from what has been reflected in the western media. Shortly after the fall of the regime, the borders were opened for many different groups to enter Iraq and impose their politics on people, and in particular on women.....Meanwhile, the media is giving the impression that iraqi women are all devoted muslims and are veiled...
The article goes on to discuss the various problems in Iraq, and groups (many founded and led by women) that are working to solve them. Links offered include:
It's clear there is no shortage of feminist voices in the muslim world. We're just not hearing them. There is no choice between ignoring/doing nothing about the conditions of women in islamic countries and aggressively forcing westernism on muslim women (I wonder....would that entail changing current iraqi law that entitles women to six months paid maternity leave, and the option for six more months of unpaid leave, to the U.S. model of nothing? Just wondering....). The struggles of women around the world aren't so different....we have our fundamentalists here too. Our methods for achieving equality aren't so different either. Our task is to stand in solidarity with our global sisters, and agitate for change---not just there, but here as well. We in the U.S. are hardly the be-all and end-all of feminism; we have at least as much to learn as we have to teach.
Ever since reading Limbo by Alfred Lubrano, I've wanted to do a post on old-school labor values. "Old school" is a phrase I hear a lot of in my local. It's a phrase I've heard all my life. I always knew that whatever I did or became in my life, I wanted to be "old school". I consider it an honor to be described as such.
What are old school labor values?
your fate is inextricably tied up with that of your family and your community
"family" is not limited to the nuclear family. "family" means extended family as well
you have an obligation to your ancestors and your descendents
life is struggle; viva la lucha!
hard work is noble. your work is a part of you. take pride in it
you have intrinsic worth as a human being. you are not what you own. you are what "they can't take away from you." what do you really own anyway? you own what you take with you when you die--your good name, your reputation, your respect. what people remember of you, what they say of you when standing around your casket--that's yours.
remember where you came from; remember who you are
you have the right to reap the benefits of what you sow. if a job is worth doing, it's worth paying someone a living wage to do it. to pay a sub-living wage is to deny a person his or her human dignity. one should not have to have their hand out for charity at the end of the work week.
pretentiousness is a cardinal sin (or at least, worth ridicule!)
justice. good should be rewarded and evil should be punished
consistency counts. hypocrisy is also a cardinal sin (and worth contempt)
your word is your bond. say what you mean, mean what you say
action speaks louder than words. your actions show what you really believe
old people are to be respected. one should have a lot of contact with one's elders
thankfulness. gratitude for the gifts one has been given and the simple pleasures in life
along with these, I would add:
if you didn't earn it through your own effort, you don't deserve it.
there is a natural disrespect for laziness, but the brunt of this attitude is really directed at the silver spoon set; slackers are despised, but less so than the aristocracy.
women and men deserve equal status as human beings.
this is probably controversial, but this is a statement that bears consideration. There is a myth that working-class men are more sexist than the "middle class" (really, upper middle class, since folks one paycheck away from being on the skids will merrily refer to themselves as "middle class"). Without getting into a long discussion on "what constitutes sexism", which several long posts couldn't do justice, I hold that working-class men are less sexist than their middle class counterparts. And not just due to necessity. Maybe it's because I just got done reading The Da Vinci Code, but I think this is a vestige of dare-I-say-it? pagan beliefs. Or maybe it's the way my sicilian ancestors practice catholicism. Or maybe because one of my family names is Pagano. But women have never been devalued in the ancient "pagan" (meaning, peasant; i.e., the ancient working class) way of knowing. Carnivale is still celebrated, the Day of the Dead is still celebrated, and working class men still respect women. Viva these traditions!!
personal responsibility is necessary. you gotta take the bad with the good. you earn respect by enduring hardships and meeting obligations. but along with this, your community has an obligation to you. the social contract works both ways.
"One for all and all for one." Empires fall when this idea is abandoned. If enough people---a critical mass---are abandoned, ultimately you are abandoning yourself. The old school recognizes a mutual responsibility.
Over at Cobb,(and yes, his politics drive me crazy. however, he has excellent taste in music, and though I try, really try to stifle my inherent Hi Fidelity tendencies, a part of me can't help but think someone with good taste in music can't be all bad.) this post directed me to a very interesting article here. This is a book I'll be checking out at my earliest convenience (translation: when the overtime is through! I've already got a backlog of reading!).
This was right on point, and I am interested in what this book has to say. Often, when we are presented with illustrations of what "making it" is supposed to be in this country, they end up being simplistic renditions of "got a job, got a paycheck, everyone lives happily ever after" and it just ain't so, Joe. Real privilege means never having to go without a safety valve...a little something to relieve the pressure. Having a hefty inheritance, well-to-do parents who pay for their grandbabies private school tuition, or no college loans to pay off because one's parents were able to foot the whole bill, goes a long way towards creating an income gap that isn't being bridged---not because people aren't working hard and tuggin' on those bootstraps, but because the bootstraps aren't long enough to lace. Check out the article.
It raised a lot of food for thought in me. The Ackerman family in particular, with their easy dismissal of "trashy" relatives....yeah, yeah, I know what they're talking about. But. I can't help but think about self-fulfilling prophecy, and how it relates to children. My parents weren't really involved in my education; they knew I was a smart girl, and they figured my cream would rise to the top. When my parents saw me, they saw a tomboy/bookworm with an aptitude for language. My teachers at the various grade schools in various cities pretty much expected me to be a Jersey-Girl-in-training....just waiting for the big hair and gum-snapping attitude to come into full blossom. Nothing remotely academic was expected of me, so it always came as a great surprise when I blew the lid off the standardized tests...especially when I defied the stereotype of females not having visual-spatial ability. Then I would be placed into the "gifted" group. This taught me an important lesson at an early age, namely, "meritocracy, my culu!" The "gifted" group consisted not of talented children, but the progeny of the cities' wannabe movers-and-shakers, the petit-bourgeosie (the real movers-and-shakers had their kids in private school, of course). After school, back at the apartment complex, most of the other parents wouldn't let their kids play with me...some because I was "mexican" (yes, these people could not locate Sicily on a map, even though some of their fathers probably served there in WWII), and some because my father was an alcoholic. So, having been regarded as "trashy" as a child, it does not sit well with me when I hear adults copping out on children---even their own flesh and blood---with the self-fulfilling prophecy of "oh, they'll never amount to much anyway..." (there'll be more on this in the next post.....)
I also couldn't help noticing Vivian Arrora's statement, "Maybe I might meet a millionaire or somethin', you know, but I doubt that very seriously..." It struck me, because I have heard this statement many times in my life; it's a strategy that is offered up in U.S. culture to women. Prince Charming as not-just-for-little girls. Financial problems? Nothing the "right man" (meaning, one with a bulging wallet) can't solve! Better hurry girl, before you lose your looks! Or get any older! Bah.
What about the other way to "meet the millionaire", that of finding a mentor....an advocate...someone to help open doors? Class segregation/stratification seems to be increasing. How often do you really deal with someone of a different social class...face-to-face? How often do those in a position to mentor, offer to mentor someone different from themselves? Being in a male-dominated field, all my mentors have been men....but few of those who could have been mentors chose to be. Almost all the white males in my local find mentors, and develop strong friendships in their apprentice classes. This was not my experience, as most of the men are not comfortable getting too close to a woman.....and if and when they do, the inevitable "they're sleeping together" rumors crop up. It's a barrier. This single woman doesn't get invited golfing, fishing, canoeing, shooting pool, skeet-shooting, hunting, bowling, or any other activities with co-workers even when wives will be present. The allies I have found in the trades were almost always older men, who saw their daughters in me, and were too old to give a damn if anyone was passing rumors. But I still feel the barrier, and it does have an effect at layoff time. After all, it's hard to lay off a friend....but someone you don't know all that well? (it's too late in the evening, and I'm just too damn tired to discuss sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, and the halo effect right now; let's just leave this example as food for thought, hm?)
I wonder if the book will have anything to say on human capital...that is, the effect of families, community, and access to institutions through means other than just money? I left work an hour early today, and missed two hours of potential overtime because my daughter developed a fever, and I have no other relatives (the usual suspects, in this case) in this area who could help out. This scenario is played out all across the city, all across the nation....especially with the sandwich generation, those caring for ailing parents as well as children. Having a safety net of people can be as important as having financial assets....having a helping hand can give one the means to obtain assets (ex: trading babysitting with a sister while attending night school). The social fabric was rent wide and deep, and pieceing it back together is going to take some time, effort, and yes, money. Let's start with some recognition of how far we have to go, no?
