To the Victor, Goes the Word
Being a writer, I spend a lot of my time choosing words. I call them up, examine them for freighted meanings, contemplate the implications, and then try to select those words that convey the precise message I have in my mind. I know the power of words.
Which is why an article by Gloria Steinem caught my attention. She describes sitting on a plane with a young man, who groaned out loud at the movie selections, saying he refused to watch "chick flicks." Ms. Steinem pondered the significance of the word choice, thinking what messages lie in the current categorizations. Movies that appeal to men are just that, movies; but movies that are pitched to women are a subset, the value of which is denigrated by a condescending title. Ms. Steinem then proposes that violent, gory films that treat women as potential rape victims should be given their own, dismissive category: prick flick.
Language reveals a great deal about a culture. The sex and race of the power group becomes the normative standard for literary purposes. A leader is a white male of European descent, unless qualified as "African-American," "Hispanic," or "woman." A head of household is a male until proven otherwise. And let's not even begin to discuss the frame provided by our gender classifications, which are literally "man" and "of man."
These points are considered trivial and petty when raised by feminists, but are taken quite seriously when language appears to skew in favor of the underclass. As a woman who has worked in the field of sexual assault for many years, I have become increasingly frustrated with the substitution of "accuser" for "rape victim." When Kobe Bryant's legal team successfully tore apart the credibility of Mr. Bryant's victim, defense attorneys took note. Almost overnight, "rape victim" vanished from the lexicon, as a term too likely to provoke sympathy for the woman. Accuser is much better, as it gives a shrewish cast to the victim, making her sound like someone whose plausibility is suspect. It's the word of choice in courtrooms, news media accounts, and talk radio.
Recently a Nebraska judge has gone one further and banned the terms "rape," "sexual assault" and "victim" from trials in which the crime being prosecuted is, in fact, rape or sexual assault (depending on the state statute in question). An "accuser" cannot seek to win the support of the jury by saying, "he raped me." She has to use language that leaves open the idea that the act might have been consenual. Whereas a victim of a lesser crime can say: "the defendant robbed me," the victim of an intimate attack must use "neutral" language.
The ability of language to influence outcomes cannot be understated. Kobe Bryant used language, innuendo, and leaks of false "facts" to tear a victim to shreds. The fact that Bryant later admitted to having sex without consent (the definition of rape) left no impression. Those words carried no freight compared to what had been widely bandied about before.
These outcomes are not restricted to male dominance and female subordinance. We have been at war for five years, in part because our language is geared to favor the active tense over more complex configurations. "Nuke 'em back to the Stone Age," has more resonance than, "it is essential to differentiate between the varying Islamic groups, including Arabic and non-Arabic, Sunni and Shia, radical and moderate." The first phrase could be taken from "Die Hard." The second phrase is more attuned to "Sleepless in Seattle."
Despite the tenor of this essay, I'm not trying to play Sisyphus, endlessly seeking to perform an impossible task. I'm not suggesting we change the language - just our reactions to it. We can talk about movies versus chick flicks, as long as we realize that chick flicks ultimately have more power. We live in the world that chick flicks tend to depict, while "movies" are pure fantasy. I have no issue with fantasy (I am a big Harry Potter fan), but we need to be grounded in reality, with a touch of hope.
And my hope is that we use our language to frame a just, free, and compassionate world, that gives value to all men and women of good will.
Fervor or Fever?
I should probably make one thing clear: I had a really lovely birthday. My son fixed bacon and pancakes with fresh berries and whipped cream; my parents came over for a grilled lunch; friends came over for a dinner cooked on the grill. I had family and friends and presents and fireworks all day.
Now back to 4th-of-July-inspired griping. When did militarism and patriotism become synonyms? Why does every patriotic speech extol only our wonderful men and women in uniform, restricting the notion of sacrifice to that of fighting a war? Why is the highest standard of service to kill and be killed, God Bless the USA?
I'm sure most of our men and women serving in Iraq are wonderful people, just like most of my friends and family members are wonderful people. Most people strive to do the best with what they are given, within and without the military. As a rule, people in the military give up a great deal in terms of comfort and companionship, and to a much higher degree than I am capable of handling at this point in my life. I'm pleased and proud for them.
But serving in the military is hardly the only way to serve one's country, or to secure our freedom. In fact, due to the insanity of our foreign policy, our military is counter-productive when it comes to maintaining our freedom. Iraq was not a threat to our liberty, and fending off terrorist attacks there is not what is keeping us safe from terrorist attacks here. If anything, our presence in Iraq threatens our safety and our liberties. What is truly keeping us safe and free are our long-term diplomats, our generosity to others, and our ability to make the American Dream a reality for people from all over the world. The people holding out hope and opportunity are as worthy of praise as the people holding onto rifles.
Falling in love with war and power is the most corrupting of all passions. As a nation, we are diverted by pre-occupation with shock and awe, and lose our sense of what really makes us great. Our Declaration of Independence holds three rights to be inalienable: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't mention our right to stride the globe in arrogance and disdain as the world's only superpower. It wouldn't have made such a stir if it concentrated on military might rather than human rights.
What lit a torch around the world was our dedication to preserving human dignity and equal justice under the law, not the power of our bombs to blast desert nations into bits. All the fire power in the world cannot save us, if we abandon the principles of individual rights, and a society that works for the general welfare.
I'm pleased to honor our young people who have chosen to bear arms, and to salute the hard work that comes with that. I'm equally pleased to salute our young people who are teaching our children, caring for our aged, seeking to shape our government in order to form a "more perfect union." I'm proud of those who are challenging themselves through vocational training and professional schooling; who are immersed in philosophy and literature in order to enrich our political and social discourse. I'm proud of my son who spent hours each week during his senior year in high school working with the homeless, and I'm proud of my daughter who just finished her master's degree in accounting. I'm proud of my husband the doctor, my daughter the future nurse, and the daughter who is the mother of my grandson. There are hundreds of ways to serve our country, and I'm thrilled that there are millions of people trying to do just that.
Let's remember that when we salute the flag, we are not just saluting people in uniform. We are saluting an entire country of diverse people, talent and beliefs. We can be fervent in our love for our country, without being fevered by our love of power. Let's use our military strength with restraint, and the power of our ideals with abandon.
That is, after all, what makes Old Glory a "Grand Old Flag."
Land of the Free
America just celebrated my birthday again, with fireworks, flags, rousing speeches and a day off. It all struck a sour note this year.
The weekend before the 4th, I had the misfortune of traveling on our nation's airways. The flights were all on time, and there were no problems with the airlines, but the "security" precautions are insane, and most serve no purpose other than to remind us that we are more fearful than free these days.
For example, when I reached the part where they x-ray carry-on luggage, everything came to a grinding halt. Since my 3-year-old grandson lives with me, I keep a travel-size tube of child's sunblock in my purse, as you never know when a trip to the grocery store may involve a detour to the beach. It's one of those things that lives in your purse, forgotten until needed. It's also one of those things that sets off triple alarms at the airport.
The tube was x-rayed, opened, examined for tampering, and x-rayed again. Finally the security guard told me it seemed that the sunblock was just sunblock, but still too dangerous to take on the airplane. However, if I had a quart-size (not sandwich or gallon-sized) zip lock bag handy, I could put the sunblock in the zip lock bag, and be on my way.
This suggestion puzzled me. Why is sunblock okay when enveloped in a quart-sized zip lock bag, but lethal when dropped in a purse? Is there some element in the quart-sized bag that neutralizes flammable chemicals? Are terrorists particularly stymied when it comes to opening one specific size of zip lock bag?
Now, I do know the rationale. Having dangerous substances like sunblock or lip gloss contained in a zip lock bag lets anyone else who might choose to examine your purse further down the line know that someone earlier in the line knew you were carrying. But this rationale does not stand up, because liquids, gels and creams contained in zip-lock bags are not screened as thoroughly as my sunblock. And the probability of these items being used as terrorist supplies is remote beyond reckoning. I haven't checked recently, but at some point the number of confiscated toiletries ran into the millions, and the number of terrorist arrests or schemes foiled as a result came to exactly zero.
I find it fascinating that the government is very aggressive when it comes to harrassing citizens in the name of security, where very little is actually accomplished, but quite relaxed about security precautions that might be worthwhile, but wouldn't be noticed by the average tourist. Cargoes go unexamined, chemical plants uninspected, nuclear power plants ignored. But we are all over those flip-flops worn by toddlers.
The point of all these "security" measures seems not to enhance security, but to keep citizens reminded of all the monsters that lurk in closets. Over the last few years we have ceded extreme liberties to a government that thrives on promising safety in exchange for freedom.
A friend of mine who works in the US Department of Justice recently vented about her workplace. This is not a wild-eyed liberal like me, but a sober and deeply conservative Republican. She hated Clinton. Despite this, she considers the DOJ to be at its nadir. She feels constant pressure to use the force of law to constrict liberty and to mock justice. Colleagues who date back to the Nixon years said they had thought that was the lowest the DOJ could fall, but now they realize they had just skimmed the surface of abusing the powers of the prosecutor.
She is hardly alone in her opinion. John S. Koppel, who recently resigned, wrote an op-ed column in the Denver Post that read in part:
"The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.
"In the course of its tenure since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has turned the entire government (and the DOJ in particular) into a veritable Augean stable on issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, international law and basic human rights, as well as criminal prosecution and federal employment and contracting practices. It has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor “politics as usual,” but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate — which, in fact, I believe it eclipses."
I won't go on and on about the laundry list of civil liberties that have been altered until they are now unrecognizable, and a government that demands access to every e-mail, credit card transaction, and even US Postal mail, but won't tell you who works in the Vice President's office at your expense.
Nor will I go on about thee insanity of complaining that the RNC hasn't been keeping records of all the government official e-mails that have gone through their servers, without asking who is this government about: the people of the United States, or the rich donors to the Republican party? A government run as a partisan organizaiton by definition will not extend fair and equitable liberties to all, or even provide competent services to any.
Hope all the rest of you had a happy 4th of July. I did, of course, enjoy the company of friends and family as they came to our house for lunch, dinner, and our own private fireworks. And I'm getting ready for a personal Declaration of Independence in the 2008 elections.
