Coco the film

no punctuation or editing, just a riff of ideas bc i should document whats going on in a way that leaves an archive even wider. lots of folks dont want to talk about death or dying with me. or with anyone, let alone themselves.

these are just some thoughts on the film coco. more later as i think more on the film.

i saw coco the film the other day w a homegirl. we are both part of the tribe of motherless fly fat queer broads. we walked to the theater on a cold night in new orleans. both of us not up for too much action during the day and had stayed home among close friends. both of us had the holiday feelings coming up about our mommas.

now, i had seen a trailer a while ago and just remember it has a mexicanx child smiling. a month later when someone mentions the film to me i remember only this brown child, that it's a mexicanx film, the name coco i think is it the childs name or is it about food is it like the animated child version of magical realism a la like water for chocolate? i say yes lets go see the film!

i was so wrong. as they make you sit through a too long mini film about belle and her sister and cultural appropriate during the holidays and how the ancestors will burn that shit if you go knocking on doors asking folks their traditions then taking whatever you want for your own house so find your own traditions white people, they exist go dig them out of that box...

the film begins and its really beautiful. and its about dia de los muertos, death, dying, and homage.

it fucked us up!

i wasnt ready and it wasnt what i expected or thought and yo it was dos mucho. there is a theme of suicide as a possible understood outcome and that was a lot. yet how can you tell the collective story of a community and its belief and connects to death and the dead without including a representation of suicide? i dont think you can. also, you cant tell that story without including the children and babies that are dead too? they did! there was at least one child with a woman in the film who was dead.

i can see how those early anthropology writings of the 1970s that focused on the 'cultural values' of Latinx people (but really they were only talking about 'Mexicans' and not yet those living in what had become the US. That literature came later in other fields that flooded the 80s. Anyways, fatalism was def present. of course so was familialism.

rememory as toni morrison talks about it in beloved was also def present. i will have more to say on this.

Media Literacy At Work

cross posted from my Media Justice column

It’s been a while since I wrote about using media literacy skills, one important step towards understanding and creating media justice. I really enjoy this article by Elizabeth Thoman at the Center for Media Literacy as it outlines what media literacy is and its various components. As I wondered what to write about this week, I realized that I had been thinking about a segment I watched this weekend on 60 minutes. I’ve decided to share some of my questions and analysis to show how I use my media literacy skills to examine the media I’m consuming. One of the things I’d like to highlight is that different people experience the same media message differently and I know this may occur and I welcome it. So, if you have a different or other response to the media please share it! I wrote this article before writing this introduction, so there may be a more conversation style of writing below.

Did ya’ll see this past Sunday’s 60 Minutes? It had some interesting stories. One on a white supremacist militia leader who was murdered at close range by his 10 year old son (not on the rise of white supremacist militias). Another story was about the creators of South Park, but it was the first story about NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly speaking about what the NYPD have done since September 11th, 2001 to make the city “safer.” Here’s the entire segment to watch (sorry no transcript). I found myself using a lot of my media literacy skills and focusing on media justice at the same time. The story is called “Fighting Terrorism in New York City.”



It’s important for readers to know that when I watched this I was with a group of racially Black New Yorkers who ranged in age from mid-thirties to mid-sixties (I being one of the youngest folks there). All of us identify as radically left leaning as well and I’m sure others may identify us as “radicals.” As we watched, I had a LOT to say, but said it mostly under my breath as the room was very silent as we sat and watched. I want to share some of my personal thoughts as well as some of the conversations that occurred during commercial breaks.

One of the first things discussed was the mispronunciation of the word “hierarchical” by Commissioner Kelly and then followed by the journalist. This occurs at the 2:42 mark if you want to go back and hear. We wondered what does that mean when the journalist, who probably knows the proper way of pronouncing that term, mirrors what their interview subject states, even if it’s wrong? Is this a good thing? A sign that the journalist was listening and centering the interviewer? Or is this poor choice? I’m still not sure where I’m at on this because often I think when folks mirror slang or terms that a community has created, especially when youth-centered, it becomes almost a performance of that term/word when it is mirrored. What do others think?

The counter terrorism division that was created in NYC was the focus of the segment. As I shared in a previous post regarding coping and healing during September 11th, I was here in NYC at the time, and have returned and witness first hand the work of the counter terrorism division. In the beginning of the segment we are told that NYPD are “armed like soldiers” and they are! Now, seeing ginormous guns in the hands of NYPD where I may go in the city does not make me personally feel more safe. Instead it actually makes me more tense. It triggers memories I have of visiting Puerto Rico during one of the height of the US war on drugs in the early 1990s where military occupied Puerto Rico and armed military men were pulling over random cars and searching them. This is a jarring experience to have and witness at any age. Yet, this is what may spaces such as Penn Station has turned into in NYC.

In the piece we learn that the NYPD is working with the secret service, military, FBI, federal emergency management, state and local first responders, but not the CIA. The absence of the CIA was something we discussed as well. Reports citing that the NYPD has been working with the CIA since 2002 are not new. What may be new is that folks didn’t realize this is not something the CIA is allowed to do: collect information/spy on “Americans” (I put “Americans” in quotes because America is NOT just the US, geographically speaking America includes Canada, the US, Central and South America. Yet, when people in the US use it, the purposes are primarily to mean US citizens or people living in the continental US. I put this note here because it is important to show that even the media we consume don’t always get it “right” or craft language in a particular way. Language is powerful!) Yet, this is exactly what has been done for almost 10 years. Currently the CIA is investigating the legality of working with the NYPD to focus on Muslim communities.

$3 billion has been spent to prepare NYPD for “every kind of threat” including having the ability to “take down a plane.” This includes training assault teams in specific ways like the hostage situation in a subway car we were shown. But, I wondered: why are there NO dummies or masses that could be people in that space, which is the reality of subway cars in NYC? How is this a good training simulation without having the knowledge that folks may be occupying space, screaming, terrified? This reminds me of the Maryland driving test where you take the driving test in a closed parking lot versus on the road where people actually drive in real life in this country!

Another part of the segment I struggled with was how it is impossible to walk a block in lower Manhattan without being monitored. There are currently 2000 cameras and soon to be 3000 that feed into the system created to monitor us. This alone a $150 million project. The artificial intelligence created, we are told, can identify packages that are left in a place too often (as we have been socialized for ten years to “if you see something say something” yet often there are no ways for us to “say something” until we are off the subway and find an employee, which the MTA has limited due to financial burdens). Now, the technology can also identify the description of a person. The example used was a person wearing a red shirt, but I wondered how sophisticated this was, as in would it racially profile people as well? This reminded me of the movement of young men of Color wearing white t-shirts all over their communities to make racial profiling harder for officers. I also wonder, if it can identify people why do we still have so many missing person’s reports in that area? Oh, right this is only for counter terrorism.....

And that counter terrorism effort is not just in the US, it’s abroad, where other NYPD are located. They are said to be “gathering intelligence all over the world” including Jordan, France, Madrid, Tel Aviv, London, Toronto, Singapore, and Dominican Republic. From a globalization perspective these countries must have agreed to have these folks placed in their country right? Well, that’s not stated, but i would like to think that’s the case and Commissioner Kelly would have not discussed things in this way if they were not agreed upon through a collaboration between nations.

The parts of the segment that I’ve also experienced where when NYPD signal subway cars to stop so that they can eyeball every passenger before letting the train go. Many folks may say all of these things are efforts to keep us safe, that who cares if we are a few minutes late for whatever we are going to do. But this is still racial profiling! What exactly are these officers looking for, or whom? What is considered a suspicious package or person? I really do still believe this is a form of institutionalized Islamaphobia.

One of the aspects of the counter terrorism efforts that the journalist was impressed by was one that I found to be deeply troubling. This was the NYPD Cricket group that consists of 12 teams and 200 Pakistani youth. The officer who coordinated the league stated that cricket is national pastime of Pakistan. Yet, cricket is also the sport in many Caribbean countries, so why the focus on Pakistani youth? Journalist stated that “Hundreds of Muslim immigrant parents have kids playing for the NYPD.” This is impressive to our journalist and media providers? This leaves me frustrated.

Finally, this whole conversation about being “lucky” in catching the bomb that was in Times Square last year. That wasn’t because of the $3 billion training or technology, that was luck? So then how do we know any of this will actually ever work for reasons it’s been created? We just heard a 12 minute discussion and presentation on how this new approach is great and impressive, yet we are still holding onto luck. Again, I don’t feel any more safe after watching this segment.

I learned that the US and NYPD define terrorism in a very rigid and specific way. Terrorism is not connected to the number of rapes, domestic violence, or hate crimes that are committed often by US citizens towards and upon other US citizens. Oh the irony of it all! What would our society (at least in lower Manhattan) look like if these resources shifted to social issues and experiences that a larger group of people experience and are impacted by? What more are we willing to give up regarding privacy and safety for a city and government counter terrorism plan of action? We’ve learned that the Patriot Act has resulted in more arrests for drugs (over 1500) than for terrorism (15).

What are your thoughts about how counter terrorism efforts have been presented and shared in our communities? Are there other aspects that came up for you while reading and watching the clip? If you live outside NYC what are ways your communities have seen counter terrorism efforts? What are the advantages and challenges experienced?

What's Up With The Fellas?

cross posted from my Media Justice column

This week has been filled with a whole bunch of people who identify as men acting out! So, I wonder, what’s up with the fellas this week?

My homegirl Barbara sent me this evolving story of Tom MacMaster, a 40-year old heterosexual married man who is a US citizen posing as a young Syrian lesbian woman named Amina Abdallah Aral al Omari on the blog A Gay Girl In Damascus (go search for it because I’m not linking to it!). He creates this persona and person on a blog he establishes and creates fictitious experiences, the most recent being that she was kidnapped. I remember seeing this story come up on my Tumblr page with an image of what is to be Amina Abdallah Aral al Omari saying she has been kidnapped. Shortly after that exchange, it comes to light that he was making it all up. In an interview with the Guardian, MacMaster speaks on the portrayaland is basically very matter-of-fact regarding his posing. Not only is he posing but he’s also stealing fotos of a woman from Facebook and using them for his story(ies).

His reasoning for doing this was one of selfishness. He wanted to be a lesbian Syrian woman because it was a “challenge” for him as a writer. He wanted to be challenged in the stories he creates. Oh, but folks it gets better! He also created an online relationship with another woman in Canada who alleges the relationship was “serious” and may have been sexual in nature as well. MacMaster says he feels “regret” and talks about how hurt he feels for tricking folks all over the world. He says he “regrets a lot of people feel I led them on.”

Now, who does this man think he is? Why does he think it is alright to do this? Oh, right it’s that little thing called male privilege when it hooks up with white supremacy. This is one example where people create specific messages for specific purposes. An example of how art can hurt other people, communities, and halt/distract social justice movements and agendas worldwide. But we can rest assured “justice will be served” right? WRONG. There are currently NO, I repeat NO legal ramifications for anything that he did/created, even stealing the images of another woman.

What message does this send about the lesbian community? Activists in Syria? Middle Eastern women?


Ok, Syria too far away from home for you? Ok, let’s try the creator of the lesbian news website Lez Get Real who goes by Paula Brooks is actually a man also posing as a woman online. Bill Graber is a 58 year-old heterosexual married veteran from Ohio, posed as a deaf lesbian!

What’s going on here folks? I’m not going to try and “figure out” each man in these stories, I’m far from figuring folks out these days. Instead I’m wanting to understand how claiming an identity and performing what one thinks that identity includes is so appealing. Let’s be honest, since the internets have existed folks have been posing online. Some folks who are against Net Neutrality could use these examples as reasons to put boundaries on the internets, however what about the misuse of power in these scenarios? I’m not talking about folks who go onto sites and build avatars that don’t look like them to play games or build community, or folks in chat rooms who are looking for something specific, or to lure others into giving them things or manipulating them. Those instances, of people lying about who they are online, is old news. But this, using the media in a way that is international and reaches multiple people is something that may be a bit new, at least it is new to me!

However, the main issue about why folks may be attracted to such activities, I believe, remains the same: power. Kira Cocran at The Guardian speaks to this in her article The Weird World of Lesbian Hoaxers where she speaks with several lesbian writers. She reports:

In fact, as the psychotherapist and feminist writer Susie Orbach says, they seem to have been using these lesbian personas as a "double inversion – exploiting the 'illegitimacy' of the person they were impersonating to give themselves legitimacy". In apologising, MacMaster wrote that he had seen "lots of incredibly ignorant and stupid positions repeated on the Middle East" online, and had found that when he, as "a person with a distinctly Anglo name, made comments on the Middle East, the facts I might present were ignored and I was accused of hating America, Jews etc. I wondered idly whether the same ideas presented by someone with a distinctly Arab and female identity would have the same reaction."
And so he took on the persona of someone whose views are so rarely heard or listened to. Iman Qureshi, a Pakistani lesbian writer, sees this as a very distinct form of egotism. "I think the rise of identity politics – a concerted effort to give marginalised people a voice – has made some white heterosexual men a little paranoid or insecure," she says, "so they invent an oppression and position themselves as victims. I would assume MacMaster felt ostracised from his 'own people', as it were, and as a result took on a persona in which he felt he could be heard without criticism. This seems to me to be a hero complex that's really a very smug delusion – 'Look at me, look at how I'm standing up for oppressed people.'"
Both cases, says the feminist writer Beatrix Campbell, can be seen as a portrait of male dominance – men needing to infiltrate discussions where they wouldn't otherwise have an obvious, and certainly not an authoritative, place. She says that when it comes to MacMaster, "he clearly doesn't have a clue about what the politics of identity has tried to reveal, which is, first, that we are not all white men, and second, that white men are always treated as the supreme identity. Here he is, doing the same thing – claiming the virtue of representing a repressed condition, in a repressed part of the world, deciding that he is the person who will give that voice. That is the supreme irony. Here we have a boundaryless white American boy absolutely habituated to a kind of supremacy, and reiterating that supremacy through his blog. It speaks to an omnipotence that doesn't understand its own limits." As Carolin says, he is ignored the first rule of being an ally, which is "don't try to speak for the people you're trying to support".

Then, I am reminded of Tracey Morgan’s trifling rant, which I’m sure you have read about, has influenced a lot of the writing that has come my way. I’m sure you’ve also read abouthis numerous apologies. He has been working with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and will be meeting with families of LGBTQI youth who have been murdered because of violence in NYC and returning to Nashville to apologize. Now I could go on a tangent about how GLAAD has it’s own mess to clean up, but for now I’ll stick to Morgan. There’s something going on here and I know I need more time to think on it, but I’m wondering if it is connected to attention. Or rather the impression that people are being seen and heard. I know what it feels like to want to be heard and seen and taken seriously in what you do and believe. So, how does this desire/need become something so harmful and manipulative?

Maybe stories like these are why I’m so thankful for types of media by men like the ones below. The first on is a video of a performer, J-Jon. I have no idea who this young man is to be honest and my searches lead me to different folks, and I’m not sure which to link to so if you have information on this performer please share!



This is my first introduction of him and it came from youth and a teacher at a school where I provided an HIV/AIDS education and prevention workshop last week. After speaking to the students for a class period, the teacher shared with us this artists and song title telling us we would really like the video and song. The teacher shared that the students they work with shared it and they thought we would appreciate it as well. It wasn’t until Tuesday afternoon that I remembered and looked it up. Now I realize why they think we would appreciate this video. Check it out below, there is some language that may not be appropriate for some work places (no transcript, if someone is able to or knows where one is located please share)



I’m sure if I was in another headspace I could provide further discussion and critique of this piece of media. For now, I’m glad I have it as a tool to use when needed. What are your thoughts?

Finally, this weekend I read an article by a Native writer of novels, comics, screenplays and young adult books, Sherman Alexie. If you are not familiar with Alexie’s work may I suggest his latest works War Dances and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. I have not ever taught Alexie’s work, mostly I’ve read it for my own pleasure and passed books around among my friends and folks I’ve had the privilege to mentor. Yet, when I managed a literacy project for youth of Color in east Harlem six years ago, young adult novels became a part of everyday work. There has been a lot of talk around young adult novels and Alexie has responded.

In his Wall Street Journal article titled Why The Best Kids Books Are Written In Blood Alexie makes an argument for why young adult novels address difficult and challenging topics (i.e. sexual orientation, teenage pregnancy, addiction, sex, homelessness, rape, -isms, war, survival, etc.).

Alexie argues:

When some cultural critics fret about the “ever-more-appalling” YA books, they aren’t trying to protect African-American teens forced to walk through metal detectors on their way into school. Or Mexican-American teens enduring the culturally schizophrenic life of being American citizens and the children of illegal immigrants. Or Native American teens growing up on Third World reservations. Or poor white kids trying to survive the meth-hazed trailer parks. They aren’t trying to protect the poor from poverty. Or victims from rapists.
No, they are simply trying to protect their privileged notions of what literature is and should be. They are trying to protect privileged children. Or the seemingly privileged.

It is this privilege that I hope my students may be able to discuss when I use this article in my class. How are our ideas of protection ones that are very specific and limited? How do our ideas of protection reach far beyond books, to law enforcement, social expectations, and reproductive justice? Who are we really protecting and why do we think we even have such power?

Power. It’s a topic that has come up a lot in this article, and in this column since it began in 2008. I think this topic is so important. We must realize that we individually and collectively have power. We must also recognize when we use that power over others versus with others. How that power may shift and become oppressive and we must hold ourselves accountable and learn to grow and heal so that it does not happen again. I think some folks, such as the two men above, have yet to really grasp this idea of power and how to use their power in strategic ways that make connections and not stroke their egos. My hope is that we all discover our power and that we choose to use it to create change that will eliminate any form of injustice and oppression.

(VIDEO) Balls of Pride: How Can We Use This Form of Youth-Created Media?

cross posted from my RH Reality Check blog

I really adore youth who create media to send messages that are important to them. Rarely do I comment or write about such those that are poorly constructed or have unclear goals. This will be a first. The creators of the video below seem to really be invested and serious about their proposed project. What I'm wondering is: how can I see and find the value in this form of media versus just debunking it and finding the "wrong?"

This video was introduced to me when a friend shared it on her social networking site. It had several comments shortly after posting and I knew I had to check the video out. We have both worked at GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and are familiar with the goals and work of the organization. Needless to say, when I watched this video I was just as surprised and confused as many of her colleagues.

This video was sent to GLAADs attention via their twitter account when Jacob Sempler, Copywriter at the Miami Art School, sent it to them. Sempler is an art student who created this with two other classmates, Matilda Kahl the art director who is at Miami Art School and Emil Tilsmann the art director who is at the New School of Design/Parsons, for a class project. I want to be clear this is not an official video by GLAAD, it is a student project submitted to GLAAD.

The video is called "Balls of Pride" and seems to be focusing on heterosexual men (I'm including trans men who identify as heterosexual because the focus is on "gay men," and I recognize that the creators may not considered trans men or their sexual orientations in creating this video) and how they can show their "pro-gay" support/ideas/etc. through their girlfriends. The description by the creators reads:

“Straight men avoid publicly stating that they’re pro-gay for various reasons. Our idea is to have their girlfriends do it for them. That makes them pro-gay and unquestionably straight at the same time.”

The creators state in the video that "research" they found (which was by interviewing 2 men on the street who the creators may have known) is what led them to understand that many heterosexual men are "pro gay" but don't know how to talk or speak about it. Their goal is to do this through their girlfriends, have them announce their "pro-gay" ideologies while also affirming their heterosexuality so there is no confusion if they are gay or not.

I'm not sure how long this video will remain up, so apologies in advance for that! I’m also going to let you choose if this is appropriate to watch at work, there are no inappropriate terms or language used. However, I will share that the images and conversations around the “Balls of Pride” does center on wordplay for testicles. There is even a “wall of balls” they believe they can create that will demonstrate an increase in support via facebook.

See what I mean? There’s so much good here, but there is also so much wrong here as well. It’s so layered. I completely appreciate their attempts and their vision. I also really appreciate that they believed so much in their project that they were shameless in promoting it via social media and networking. It is that kind of drive that I adore in many young people.

At the same time I see how this form of media is a misplaced attempt to create a community of people who openly support the human rights of all people. There is still a fear of people thinking others may believe they are gay and this is what the main problem being a member of that community? This is at the heart of the issues. There’s so much more here to unpack, from using a partner to do this, focusing on genitals without recognition of the social construction of sex, and finding/using our voices to promote social justice without recognizing the ways we perpetuate certain types of oppression.

It's important to me to also address how some may react with laughter and see this as comical. I'm not a fan of continuing to laugh at this piece of media, I admit it did make me laugh a few times and the wordplay was juvenile in a way that reminds me why I love to teach sex ed. However, having a sense of humor and using it appropriately to create media that can result in some form of social or community change is a skill that not everyone has. Often such humor can be effective, but when done poorly or in bad taste it can lead to all sorts of challenges, ridicule of the target population, and even physical pain for some who may be harmed.

I share this in hopes that it may promote some form of discussion either here or in the spaces we are occupying. This may be a useful tool to begin conversations about media, media literacy and media justice with many youth, but also among ourselves.

(VIDEO) Using Popular Culture to Address Violence & Bullying With Youth of Color

cross posted from my RH Reality Check blog

I saw this video Tuesday evening when a friend posted it on her tumblr page. There was a trigger warning regarding suicide, violence, and bullying. I wanted to share this video because I did not know what to expect while watching and when the video was over I was stunned. Not just with the messaging and representations, but in the possibilities of using this video in a classroom or youth group. Please watch the video below. I’ve posted a few ideas I have on how to use this video, please share some ideas and suggestions you may have!


There are so many ways to use this video with youth. I wanted to share and hope others want to add how they may use this video as well or what discussions you may envision having.

I’d first start by introducing the video. This may require some background of the artist Marsha Ambrosius, who is the other half of the R&B duo Floetry. They reached a height in mainstream popularity in 2002-2003. This is important to keep in mind, as some youth may not know who the artist is because of this time period.

Discussions of Bullying

I’m not sure if the concept of “bullying” would connect clearly with some viewers. It may be that some youth and other folks may view the experiences presented as intra-racial violence and not only bullying. There may also be a connection between bullying and age. Some may view the men in the video as adult males who may be too old to experience bullying in the ways we’ve heard about it in the past several months. This may lead to some interesting dialogue about how bullying can be considered an age-specific experience.

Conversations about masculinity and how it is connected to gender, race, ethnicity, age, geographic location, and ability (to name a few) will also be important. How are racially Black men living in the US expected to present themselves? How was Black masculinity represented in this video (make a list of all the forms of masculinity and Blackness seen, for example clothing, forms of affection, solidarity, etc.). Were there attempts at defending masculinity? How is intra-racial violence affecting our community? (this may be a good opportunity to have information about intra-racial violence as connected to various forms of violence from rape to murder). What could some community responses to violence look like in this situation/scenario?

Discussions on Men of Color & Same Gender Relationships

I’d make it clear that this is NOT a “down low” relationship. Both men have publicly been together and showing affection for and with one another. Living in NYC where the anti-homophobia campaign “I Love My Boo” began in October 2010, representations of men of Color in same gender relationships remain limited (see some of the images here). I have not seen in mainstream popular culture such images since Noah’s Arc (which I’m still recovering from it’s absence in my life) and the film that was released in select theaters in 2008, Noah’s Arc: Jumping the Broom.

The phrase “alternative Lifestyles” is the one thing I have an issue with in this video. My opinion is that this term assumes there is a choice in how people are living and I believe that we do not choose our sexual orientation. I came to this space while working as an intern at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) over a decade ago. GLAAD has a great Media Reference Guide that has a section on offensive and problematic phrases/words to avoid and “lifestyle” is included with this discussion:

Offensive: "gay lifestyle" or "homosexual lifestyle"

Preferred: "gay lives," "gay and lesbian lives"

There is no single lesbian, gay or bisexual lifestyle. Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are diverse in the ways they lead their lives. The phrase "gay lifestyle" is used to denigrate lesbians and gay men, suggesting that their orientation is a choice and therefore can and should be "cured

Heterosexual Privilege

In the beginning of the video the viewer may assume that there is a heterosexual relationship until there is affection in a specific way shown among two men of Color. This would be a useful time to discuss how we assume heterosexuality often, how heterosexuality is seen as a “norm” in our society, and what that does to all of us, not just people who do not identify as heterosexual. Here is a good article about heterosexual privilege and a checklist that may be useful for this conversation.


These are a few things that immediately come to mind and I’m hoping that others will share some of their own. I know over the next several days as I think about this video I’ll come up with more ideas and possibilities. Thanks in advance for all of you who share!

On GQs "Glee Gone Wild"

cross posted from my RH Reality Check Blog

The latest issue of GQ Magazine, which contains sexually provocative photos of several lead “stars” of the Fox television show Glee, has been at the center of many conversations among parents and youth. The cover image shows Cory Monteith who plays Finn, a football player, posing with Diana Agron his first girlfriend, Quinn, (who lied to him in Season One, and told him she became pregnant with his child when she was in fact pregnant with someone else's) and Lea Michele, who plays Rachel, who is his current partner.

I’ll admit my bias now: I’m not a fan of the show. Yes, I’m one of the several who got tired of them performing Blackness so early into the show (which they continue to do) and then all the other –isms they performed came into play as well. With that said I have a very simple response to this new concern/conversation that parents are now troubled to have with their children and youth in their lives who enjoy this show.

Now is the time to teach yourself and the young people in your life about media literacy. (That’s a link to an article I use often when teaching media literacy skills to my students and highly recommend it for everyone as it is a very accessible read, an updated article specifically for educators is available here.)

Instead of being disappointed that the young actors from a hit show are not in that same role 24/7/365, or that GQ Magazine created a cover that is very much objectifying of White women, or that many people are exposed to this form of media, I encourage folks to gain a new set of skills for how to deconstruct and critically examine these forms of media. Now, I will admit again, that I’m biased. I find it far too easy to blame the media for some forms of education and imagery when we as community members, educators, parents, mentors, partners, and activists must learn new skills.

I speak of this as someone who very much lives an analog life. I do not receive or send text messages, I still use my Polaroid camera (and yes I have plenty of film left for it in the fridge), still use rabbit ears on my television antennae, and the one stereo I have in my home has a dual tape deck and one CD player because I got it when I was in middle school circa 1989. I remember when the Internet was called the “information super highway” and I’m still trying to figure out how to spell check a Microsoft Word document in the latest edition my college offers.

I get it, learning new things is not always fun, nor is it always necessary. However, in this case I do believe it is a useful tool and skill. Without media literacy skills we would not be able to have a productive conversation around the fact that bodies of Color and bodies of size (which are exclusively ignored in almost all forms of media and especially in GQ) ignored in the media. Many of the critiques I’ve read have not even mentioned race, ethnicity, or body shape and size (and yes, I am biased about what and where I consume my media, that’s a media literacy skill).

Would the reaction be the same if the characters were different? Take White male actor Kevin McHale, an able-bodied actor who plays Artie, a young man who is in a wheelchair. Partner him on the cover with Amber Riley who plays Mercedes, the only Black character and also the only character of any size, along with Jenna Ushkowitz who plays Tina, Artie’s ex who leaves him this season for an Asian man, Mike, performed by Harry Shum Jr. Would we be disappointed we did not see Kevin McHale in a wheelchair? Would we want to? I’d argue that many people are not even willing to discuss sexuality and the intersections of differently-abled people in the media as the recent terror by readers of ESPN The Magazine’s body issue have shared regarding the nude photograph of Esther Vergeer.

I don’t doubt these conversations must occur, I just want us to have all the tools and weapons we need in our arsenal to have constructive conversations that are not only reactionary but that also lead to some form of action.

AAP's "Sexuality, Contraception, and the Media:" What's Included and What's Missing?

Cross posted from my RH Reality Check Blog

Before school was back in session for the fall, the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) released a revised statement regarding youth, sexuality, contraception and media consumption. The statement was published online on August 30, 2010 and in print on September 3, 2010 in the Pediatrics journal. “Sexuality, Contraception, and the Media” with lead author Victor C. Strasburger, MD, is not a new discussion for the AAP, as they made a similar statement, with the same title, almost 10 years ago.

In short, the AAP, states that the media (television, music, movies, magazines, and the Internet) impacts the perspectives and education youth receive regarding birth control, sexuality, and choices in general. They make eight recommendations for what pediatricians can do to be more useful and effective sources of information and care for their clients. The eight recommendations include:

1. Include at least two questions about the media during intake.

2. Pediatricians should (yes they used that term) counsel parents and guardians on the importance/impact of the media, helping them recognize the access their child has not only to TV, but the Internet and social networking sites.

3. Pediatricians and other groups should advocate and demand media create messages that are more responsible in their representations of sexual and reproductive health.

4. Pediatricians should encourage schools to incorporate comprehensive sexuality education and media literacy into their curricula.

5. Pediatricians should also advocate for the advertisement of birth control including emergency contraception.

6. Pediatricians should advocate that advertisements for erectile dysfunction ads on television be limited after 10pm.

7. Pediatricians should advocate to the broadcast media to provide “healthy” messages of sex and sexuality in their programming.

8. Pediatricians should partner with various non-governmental organizations, community organizations and the government to do further research on the impact of the media on youth and their sexual health choices.

I’ll admit that I was not expecting too much from the AAP. One of the main reasons I didn’t have high expectations is because often when membership organizations make statements about issues that may intersect with their field, they don’t always “get it” right. To be honest, the main thing that stood out to me about this list of recommendations and the overall statement was the incorporation of media literacy. For me, there is media literacy and then there is media justice. AAP is making a good first step in recognizing the importance of having our youth be literate and critical consumers of media. As an educator, I often include media literacy in my syllabus and have done so in all of my syllabi over the past 4 years. Yet, do they consider a media justice approach for the future?

I’m also impressed at the encouragement AAP provides its members to become activists in their community with educators, and schools, but also nationally and internationally with reaching out to media representatives. Areas that I think is not addressed are issues of access and class. How are youth who do not have access to certain types of media not being reached in general? If we are to look at how certain media is being used, how MTV is now partnering with social media outlets or the Minnesota Family Planning and STD Hotline is incorporating, these require 1. access to cable television (MTV specifically), 2. access to the Internet, and 3. access to a cell phone.

Last week I introduced theory to my sociology students. We discussed modernism and post-modernism and one of the ways I explained post-modernism was “mo’ money, mo’ problems.” (Ride with me all you post-modernists, I’m trying to give them a flavor of various theories, attract them to it). If we assume that more “choices” leads to more “freedom” does it really matter when those choices don’t even reach the most under-resourced groups? What does the “freedom” of those communities not reached look like if they aren’t even given the choice in the first place?

I write that to connect this idea of reaching youth in various ways, specifically the media, and to examine what types of media may not be included. Just as the AAP has argued emergency contraception rarely, if ever (I’ve never seen an ad on TV), gets airtime on television, there are many types of media that do not reach our youth. There is also an odd link to the direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies that is supported in this suggestion. The suggestion to limit erectile dysfunction advertisement may not be the most supported recommendation as many physicians who do such work may still be associated, invested, and paid by pharmaceutical companies. I also wonder what the AAP may think of the net neutrality debate, where it may take a position on such issues that may arise. Would they support a open Internet or a regulated one?