Empowering Young Latinas Through the Girl Scouts

           Today the House of Representatives passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a couple of weeks after the Senate passed the bill, now sending it to the President to be reauthorized. I mentioned in a previous post that this act offers resources to women who arevictims of violence. This act is certainly necessary, but I sometimes feel disappointed that we often put resources toward the treatment of problems, rather than focusing on prevention of the problems in the first place. Educational programs for men about using means other than physical violence to get what they want, and how to respect women could certainly go a long way. Programs that empower women and young girls would also be a great step in the right direction.
          Thankfully, there is one such group that empowers young girls that is quite high profile in general, but especially at this time of year. They do not rely on government funding, but perhaps our tax dollars would be better invested in programs like it-then they would not have to sell so many cookies to make ends meet. Because of those cookies, though, they are doing quite well for themselves and are teaching young women and girls great skills through their sales. If you have not guessed by now, I am talking about the Girl Scouts.

I typically buy a few boxes of cookies each year in January, to have them delivered around this time in late February. It seems that there is always a friend, a relative, or a coworker with a daughter who can hook me up with some Samoas or Tagalongs. This year I am lucky to have a Daisy in the house, the entry level Girl Scouts, and she is my six-year old daughter. 

Having a daughter has done a lot to raise my consciousness about gender and equity issues for females, which explains my last few posts. Not that I was completely unenlightened before, but I did grow up in a house with two brothers, and my father is one of nine boys (with one sister), and my mom likewise lived in a male dominated house (at least in numbers, with four brothers and a sister). So, I was not the most sensitive guy in the world, but thinking about opportunities and the safety of my own daughter quickly changed that. While, unintentionally, our daughter has become quite “girly” I am always happy to encourage her dreams and pursuits that don’t fit into traditional gender roles, such as playing soccer, being an astronaut, or playing with blocks.

The wonderful thing about the Girl Scouts, Brownies, and Daisies is that they empower young girls, but still reward them for being girls. This newfound admiration and cookie season led me to do a little research and I learned that they provided a great opportunity for girls in general, but that they are also great about empowering young girls of color, especially Latinas, my self-identified Mexican daughter included. 

First, a little history. Juliet “Daisy” Gordon Low, an upper class woman from Georgia was in an unhappy marriage with a philandering husband, who while perhaps not physically abusive, was certainly emotionally and financially abusive to Daisy. After his death in 1905 she assumed that she would have been left as an heir as they were still legally married, despite the fact that he had a live-in girlfriend and relegated Daisy to the servant’s quarters. But her husband left her nothing. Daisy was able to make it on her own and after meeting the founder of the Boy Scouts, she had the idea of creating a similar organization to serve young girls.  So, as I wrote previously in my VAWA post about immigrant and Latina women who experience abuse or at least a lack of respect by their macho husbands, the Girl Guides, as they were originally called had roots in issues that touch Latinas. 

As the media often does special interest stories on the Girl Scouts because of cookie season I learned of a couple of other connections between the organization and Latinas. One is the fact that the organization is currently headed by Anna Maria Chavez, a woman of Mexican-descent, who was enrolled in the Girl Scouts as a youngster by her mother, who saw it as an opportunity to help her excel in school. Now as CEO she gives back to young girls of all backgrounds, serving as a role model for all, but especially for those of Hispanic origin. A second Latina connection, also out of Arizona, is the all-time cookie selling record holder, 10 year-old Mary Ruiz, who was featured in the New York Times, and who sold over 5000 boxes of cookies last year. 

So, while I am happy that the VAWA was passed today, I am even happier that great work is being done by the 101 year old girl scouts; perhaps with their support we can have more female legislators and even our first Latina senator rise from their ranks to create a society where that type of act is no longer needed.

The Academy Awards: The Class Edition

There has been much discussion about the displays of sexism and racism at Sunday’s 85^th Academy Awards ceremony broadcast.  Much of the criticisms have taken aim at host Seth MacFarlane and the Twitter feed of the satirical newspaper, The Onion. Whatever problems the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has with gender and race that spilled into last night’s telecast, it seems they are less about either gender or race.  Rather, any poorly dim views of race and gender likely are based more in class than in anything else. 

To some extent, the Oscar ceremony is a display of some of the most privileged among us using their wealth and power to throw a lavish, self-congratulatory spectacle for themselves.  The rest of us are asked to witness this display and are expected to share in the revelry of the rich and famous wallowing in their own successes.  In such an environment, is it any wonder that the privileged class holds some of us – like minorities and women - in such contempt?

A look at some of last night’s winners beyond their performances demonstrates how well heeled they are.  Celebritynetworth.com reports that Best Actor winner Daniel Day-Lewis was worth up to $40 million dollars as recently as October 2010.  At about that same time, Best Supporting Actor winner Christoph Waltz was worth $10 million.  As of July 2010, Best Supporting Actress winner Anne Hathaway was worth up to $15 million.  Best Actress winner Jennifer Lawrence was worth only $2 million as of July 2011.  She earned a mere $500,000 for her role in The Hunger Games, but reportedly will earn $10 million for the next installment of that movie franchise.  Her win last night likely will enable her to demand even more money for any future projects.  And the producers of Best Picture winner Argo?  Ben Affleck was worth as much as $65 million as recently as January 2010.  His co-producer, George Clooney, had a staggering reported net worth of $160 million as recently as January 2011.

Most of us can only imagine the power and privilege that comes with this kind of wealth.  At best, it leads to the kind of self-indulgence demonstrated during the annual awards season.  At worst, it enables an ever-widening gap between filmmakers, actors, and other artists and entertainers and their audiences; who, after all, pay their salaries.

Authentic Latinos: Oscars Edition

This has been a less than inspiring year for Hispanics in film and their presence at the Academy Awards, or lack thereof, is indicative of that. Voxxi has given a rundown of Latinos who were up for awards. The list it mustered includes those in some of the less high profile categories, like cinematography and short documentary (not to undercut the two winners of the short and feature length documentary awards, “Inocente” and “Searching for Sugarman,” respectively).  In order to fill out the lack of a Hispanic presence, the article reaches to the foreign film category, namely the Chilean film “No,” starring Mexican actor Gael García Bernal; this although most would agree that Latin Americans living in their home countries are not Latino at all as Hispanic and Latino are categories that only have meaning in the United States. The Academy could not even muster a brief acknowledgment for Lupe Ontiveros, the Latina character actress, who passed away this year.

The one possibility for a Latino presence in a major award category was the acclaimed film Argo, which is based on the life of former CIA agent Antonio “Tony” Mendez. Rather than having a Latino actor play the Mexican-descent Mendez, Ben Affleck chose to cast himself in the lead role. This was to the chagrin of journalist and polemicist Ruben Navarrette, who argued a few weeks ago that Affleck rewarded himself at the expense of many qualified Latino actors. Navarrette offered a compelling opinion that it is time for Hollywood to place Latinos in lead roles, especially when the characters are Latinos.

There was an interesting twist to Navarrette’s appeal, however; Jack Rico, a writer with NBC Latino, sat down with the real Tony Mendez to see if he had taken umbrage with Affleck, an Irish-American, playing him in the film. Mendez said he had no problem at all with Affleck portraying him. It wasn’t because Affleck speaks Spanish and could pass as an authentic Latino, it was because Mendez doesn’t identify as Hispanic. As he stated in the interview, “I think of myself as a person who grew up in the desert. If I had been in a different family circumstance, I might have felt that way.” He reveals again that lumping a really diverse group of people into one category is a difficult thing to do, and given the artifice that is involved, many people may just opt out. Many “Hispanics” and “Latinos” do just that, as they typically prefer to be categorized by their countries of origin. Mendez takes it a step further, as probably a significant number of Hispanics have done, by simply melting into the American pot and giving up the minority ethnic identity. Richard Alba, a sociologist has argued this very point and has numbers to back up the idea that Latinos are assimilating into the mainstream, just as generations of immigrant descendants have before.

Even though there was not large Latino presence in terms of films and actors this year, perhaps Hispanics can take solace in the fact that in one way they have always been present at the award ceremony and always will be. After all, the Oscar statue was modeled after Emilio Fernández, a Mexican-born screenwriter, actor, and director who worked on both American and Mexican films. 

Violence Against Women on Fox

Yesterday, I shared my thoughts on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and how it has yet to be reauthorized by Congress since expiring in 2011. Republicans held up its re-authorization for a while before the Presidential election. After that loss, they realized they needed a new strategy, namely going after Latinos, an emerging giant that will be a force to be reckoned with in politics for years to come. I pointed out that Republicans have anointed Ted Cruz, a senator from Texas, and Marco Rubio, senator from Florida, as leaders in the party, charged with the goal of attracting the Latino vote. Unfortunately, these two senators have taken a hard line against VAWA, which is ironic because there are provisions that protect immigrants that really speak to Latino voter interests. I suggested that perhaps their views resulted from macho attitudes that don't consider women fully and with respect. Then I came across this article on Slate that reminded me that violence against women is not just a Latino thing or just political, it is a reality for all women. Bob Beckel, a former adviser to President Jimmy Carter, had the audacity to question whether rapes actually ever occur on college campuses. This despite the sad evidence that 1 in 4 women are victims of attempted sexual assault by the end of college. The worst part is how deeply ingrained the idea that rape and sexual assault can be justified or not that big of a deal in some parts of American culture. I was glad to see that even Fox News panelists called him out on this, but this kind of ignorance shows all the more that women need protection from this foolishness and violence.

A Woman’s Work is Never Done When a Latino Man is Standing on Top of Her

As a graduate student in New York City I worked on a multi-year research project that sought to find out more about how recent immigrants in the United States raised very young children. The goal of the project was to see how young children of immigrants develop and get ready for school and life in the U.S. more generally, given that many immigrants, and Latinos in particular, find themselves at the lower levels of the socioeconomic ladder as they move from childhood to adulthood.

As part of my work I visited two families who were originally from Mexico every two months for three years. I spent time with them in their homes, ate meals with them, played with their children in the park, and went on errands with them as they parented. I watched the kids grow from infants to toddlers to preschoolers. Given that mothers take on the majority of the childrearing in most cultures, especially Mexican culture, most of the focus was on them and their childrearing beliefs and practices.

Each time I visited I had a pre-defined agenda of topics to discuss, such as the experience of migrating, education, and struggles with learning English. On one occasion I had the task of discussing what life was like for a female immigrant, how the roles of women were different in the U.S. and Mexico, and how their ideas of what it meant to be a woman had changed since their move. I vividly remember the large grin that appeared on one mother’s face as she discussed her work life in the United States. She worked as a waitress in a Mexican restaurant making a very good wage. She said that apart from the money, one of the most satisfying parts of her job was to go into the kitchen and give the patrons’ orders to the cooks, who were all men. She delighted in teasing them for doing “women’s work” and for her ability to “order them around.” She said that it was empowering to be able to earn a good wage, but also to have some freedom and authority that she may not have had if she were in Mexico. This type of liberation among Latina immigrant women has been documented in a few research studies, and changing gender roles are a somewhat unintended consequence of migration. I think that for Latinas, these transformations are especially pronounced given the male-dominated, macho culture in which many of them were reared.

The other side of this gender coin is that men must sometimes re-adjust to their new status as dishwashers, cooks, or launderers-positions that they would probably hesitate to share with men in their home country.  Men have devised a number of “civilized” ways to maintain their privileged status as this completely un-ironic scorecard from the nineteen-fifties shows; it grades woman on how well they perform their roles and behave toward their men. When the upper hand that men have is threatened, they sometimes resort to less civilized coping mechanisms such as drinking. The trump card that men hold, given their biological advantages of size and strength, is to physically impose their dominance through violence, an issue that many Latinas face, especially immigrant Latinas. Shockingly, well over half of immigrant women experience physical or sexual abuse in their lives.

Among the most vulnerable immigrant Latinas are those who are undocumented or who are in the process of becoming legal residents with the help of their citizen husbands. Immigrant women without legal status or who are dependent on a partner to achieve legal residency can easily find themselves at the mercy of the whims of their male spouses. The risk of losing access to legal status by ending an abusive, violent relationship could lead women to stay in situations that are harmful or life-threatening. Further, undocumented women may be hesitant to report abuse to police out of fear of being deported or detained indefinitely in prison-like conditions. Deportation and detention can lead to separations from family members and loved ones, especially young dependent children.

Thankfully, in 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, which aimed to provide resources to all women residing in the U.S. with the goal of dealing with violence and abuse through treatment and prevention. There are progressive and libertarian concerns that some provisions of the Act, which call for harsh punishment of male offenders and invasive monitoring, infringe on liberties and are more punitive than restorative. Critics also contend that the law paints too broad a brush stroke that portrays most men as potential abusers. Perhaps this is true, but when one in three adult women in the U.S. report having been victims of sexual abuse, such laws don’t seem that unreasonable.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, the law was reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005. In 2000 provisions were added to protect immigrant and undocumented women from the pitfalls of reporting abuse that I mentioned above. It gave any migrant women who reported abuse temporary legal status while in the country, so they did not have to fear being deported or detained for coming out of the shadows. In some cases, immigrant women received a U-Visa, which even provided a path toward residency for these women. Some have claimed that women will take advantage of this law by faking abuse in order to receive legal status, although they must still prove the abuse through the courts; it seems a little far fetched that one could feign abuse well enough to pass that standard.

In 2011, the law was up for reauthorization, however, congress failed to pass it a couple of times, with one of the most contentious pieces being the provision of services to undocumented immigrants. Part of the failure to reauthorize may have been political gamesmanship during an election year. Conservative Republicans likely did not want to appear to be supporting more government spending, especially on non-citizens. However, with the presidential loss, Republicans have been rethinking their political strategy, especially when it comes to immigrants and Latinos, the latter group who many believe was and will be decisive in elections to come. That is probably why after the election that the senate overwhelming approved the reauthorization of the law with a vote of 78-22.

The biggest piece of note in this vote, which is connected to Latino and immigrant issues, is that the only two Republican Latino senators voted against the reauthorization of the law. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida are considered the new hotshots of the party that will lead them to victory by garnering the Latino vote. Again, however, we see that simply having a Spanish surname is not enough. If the Republicans ever expect to gain inroads with Latinos, they can’t rely on old macho ideology, but they must also remember that our Latina mothers, sisters, and daughters deserve some respect, too.

Is the Unexamined Life Worth Hiring?

The maxim “The unexamined life is not worth living,” usually is attributed to Socrates – the ancient Greek philosopher sentenced to death by Athenian leaders for corrupting the city-state’s youth with his teachings.  Socrates towers so high among the founders of Western thought that an entire method of inquiry has been named for him.  The Socratic Method probably can best be described as teaching by asking rather than by telling.  Questioning is at the heart of the maxim “The unexamined life is not worth living,” which compels each of us to question the quality of our individual existence while assessing the human condition and the state of the wider world.  Unfortunately, the essence of living a life worth living through inquiry and examination has eroded in current discussions about the role of education in our society.

You will note that Socrates advanced the idea that the unexamined life is not worth living; not that the unexamined life is denied admission to college or that the unexamined life is unemployable.  Yet, current “reforms” of education are characterized more and more by encroaching corporate influences shaping curricula, student assessments, and teacher evaluations and less and less by developing in students the skills needed to lead a life worth living.  Rather, the current agenda is what has come to be called “college and career readiness.”  (Pearson is the main corporate conglomerate pushing “college and career readiness” and stands to make a fortune by selling pre-packaged curricula and resource materials aligned to Common Core standards to complicit school districts and administrators eager to show what their students and teachers can do on standardized tests, but I digress.)  “College and career readiness” is narrow and wrong-headed because it sends the message that the only purpose for elementary and secondary education is future financial gain or future educational credentialing, which also is linked to future financial earning potential.

 

Socrates. Detail from Raphael's The School of Athens

It is for these reasons that I was pleasantly surprised when President Obama began discussing reforms for high school education during his State of the Union Address earlier this week.  I quickly was disappointed, however, when he reinforced the myopic view that the only purpose for secondary education is to put “our kids on a path to a good job.”  What does an education like this omit?  Love of reading?  Probably. Music appreciation?  Perhaps.  Physical education?  Judging by the nation’s adolescent obesity crisis; quite likely.

Developing the skills to lead a life worth living is a diminishing idea in higher education too.  During his State of the Union Address, President Obama announced the creation of the “College Scorecard that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria - where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.”  Those simple criteria, however, have little to do with authentic learning or intellectual development.  Emphasizing the financial factors or economic outcomes of higher education will continue trends researcher and president emeritus of Columbia University-Teacher's College Arthur Levine identified last fall.  In an interview discussing his book, Generation on a Tightrope: A Portrait Of Today's College Student (co-written with Diane Dean), Levine noted,

We found that 23 percent of students were majoring in business, and only 7 percent wanted to.  We found that 16 percent were in medicine or health, and only 6 percent wanted to be.  We found that six percent of students were in the arts, but 11 percent wanted to be.  Students are choosing the areas in which there are jobs, whether they want to be in those areas or not.

Such a situation likely will negatively influence students’ views of their education and the lives it enables them to lead.  Yet, even if we capitulate that the aim of education is employability, existing educational structures probably will not develop the employees with the skills businesses need.  A 2010 examination into skills the future workforce would need to remain employable emphasized creative problem solving as the most desired skill for future employment.  Yet, creative problem solving is not promoted in the kinds of multiple-choice-test, only-one-correct-answer environments that American public schools have and are becoming.

Ultimately, emphasizing the employment options education creates or the financial implications of seeking education without first considering some fundamental questions – What’s worth knowing?  What are schools for?  What are the aims of education?  What is a life worth leading? – is misguided and not in keeping with the foundations of education.