How does Gender define us, and furthermore, how does that definition bind us? Based on one’s gender, they are expected to adhere to a particular set of instructions, given to them by society so they may fit in and be accepted. The moment someone steps outside of these constructs or shows any form of dissent to them, it seems all heads in the room immediately rotate in unison as to suggest it is not permissible. As social beings, it is important to be aware of the effects of the social structures we uphold. Where did these rules come from, and how exactly have they become so engrained into our minds, that we cannot remember a time that we were not mentally bound by them? More importantly, how have these rules been defined by myths of gender, and how does society perpetuate them?

We place too much faith and show a generous amount of compliance toward our society and certain social structures which hold us within its constructs. Moving past simply observing at the way in which media affects how we dress and speak, one should take note at how these social institutions construct, manipulate and perpetuate the way we act, think, dress, speak, love, and live, solely based on the things found between our legs. Furthermore, we should begin to deconstruct the system to see that it is also affecting the opportunities one will be presented with in life based on socially constructed ideas about themselves, and those around them based, again, on the parts located in ones nether regions. This is one major downfall of global society; that we have constructed it to support these ideas, and that those ideas maintain the structure. In short, I ultimately wish to point out that it is not the penis, nor the vagina, that is a valid measurement of ones’ strength, intelligence, capacity to love,  nor are they a tool of measurement of ones’ ability in life. 

There are a series of basic myths, of which I shall mention only a few, which are constructed through misunderstanding or lack of understanding all together, which plague our society and many others around the world. They influence our social structures to the point where they become “just the way it is”; they become institutionalized, and as a result become part of the framework of our societies and go un-noticed. I aim to point out a few key myths which would appear to weave throughout the foundations of the globe.

Intelligence:

 ‘Men are more intelligent than women’ or, ‘men are better at understanding more technical information’. Believe it or not, this myth is still held in the minds of many people throughout North America, and certainly throughout the world as is evident in social media and academic study. Though there does exist a resistance to this mood. Optimistically, this may be a dying breed of thought; however societies throughout the world, including the West, are constructed on this very myth. Intelligence has been a hot point on the topic of gender throughout history, and has shaped the way our society is structured; in our case, it was a patriarchal design where men stood supreme in intelligence and understanding. This idea was

“High school girls who think of math as a “male thing” are less likely to go on in math and are less likely to do well in math”.[iii]

It is the young age at which we begin to embrace our

roles in society that is disheartening.

“Would you like a girl toy, or a boy toy?”,

we hear going through the drive-thru at McDonalds.

It is at this young age when we are learning to speak

and walk that is the point at which our gender identities

are formed. Interacting in Kindergarten, we are

already being primed to think and act like our gender. 

Render By Gender

This raises more questions; like how many other things are affected by the “facts” we know and have known since we were old enough to speak? Only in the last century have we begun to see an alteration or phasing out of these gender norms, biases, and structural inequalities which have been based on a myth that each gender is inherently different in every way imaginable. Furthermore, that each is allocated certain roles in life, not by society, but by their chromosomes. It is myths which have provided history with gems such as the female inability to do math, her inability to understand complex scientific thought, a female’s lack of knowledge to make an informed vote. Furthermore, that if she demonstrates intelligence higher than that of a potato, it designates her to be a user of the black arts. These are myths from a variety of periods throughout history dating back hundreds of years or more. However, myth has affected laws, religious beliefs, and practices throughout the world and its history. These myths in turn not only affect women, but men as well

Myth 2: ‘Men are natural leaders and breadwinners’ – ‘the woman’s place is in the home’. This is a myth which in the West, is in the beginning of its decline; or I would at least hope so, as more males take on roles that would traditionally have sent them into exile from the world of men, and women take on roles which would have seemed out of place for them just ten to fifteen years ago. However, again, much of the developing world is built on the ‘fact’ that men are natural breadwinners and that women should not work outside the home, or at all.[i] The social discrimination faced by a man who may not be very good at providing for his family is made worse when the same discrimination and stigma prevents his wife from aiding him in earning an income. In certain areas of the world where these stigmas hold strong, a woman and her family may be thrown into poverty due to the loss of a husband, father, or brother due to the sheer disapproval and shame associated with working.[ii]Though there may not be laws which directly impose these values on society, their existence in the beliefs of those in charge, results in a lack of initiative to end these stigmas.

We have expectations placed on us the moment our gender is identified before or after birth. For example, the idea in society that a male must be the breadwinner, must be head of the household, must be strong and must not stray from the masculine ideal is pushed on us, still. It is enforced by what we see through television and in magazines, by parents, and even by elected officials.[i]There are still members of society who believe, that to follow a discourse of gender roles and dismiss the existence of inherent abilities unique to a particular gender, is to break down the fabric of our society. In short, yes, that is exactly what it is. The fabric is tattered and stained, and needs replacing. It is time that we begin a worldwide reflection on the ways we think and why we think them, especially with regards to gender. On this note:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking into account that we have these subconscious beliefs or assumptions of the role of each gender, we should then analyze the effect these assumptions have had on the structure and opportunities presented to each gender in society. One may argue against any remaining gender inequality in the workforce; that feminists have no valid stance when claiming that, to this day, there is still income inequality based on sex or gender. Unfortunately, the legacies of a patriarchal society which still remains today maintain an unequal playing field with regard to occupation and income. Though it is illegal to pay a woman less than a man for her labor, as set forward in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is not in fact illegal to set the value of certain work to be worth lower wage earnings than others, such as traditional women’s’ occupations. An example of such being nursing and nutrition.[i]The society which reined throughout the early twentieth century generally maintained values which confined women to certain areas of labor such as domestic work, secretarial work, primary and secondary education, and occupations which were believed or deemed to be less deserving of greater pay. This labor was undervalued, and thus, the now, “Women’s’ work”, was deserving of less pay than “Mans’ work”.[ii]The traditionally female dominated fields of work which were seen as deserving of less pay were education, nursing, nutrition, secretarial work, textiles, phone operator service, and garment work, among others; which remains in place today.[iii]It would seem more so now, that these gaps were not mended, but were abandoned as women began moving into male dominated fields of occupation, creating the perception that there is now in effect, income equality. The point of this is to draw fact to the effects that myths of gender have had on the workforce regarding female abilities, not due to her academic capabilities or physical characteristics, but because of her gender. The resultant construction and allocation of “Women’s Work” has resulted in undervalued, and institutionalized pay standards in those fields.

Now, in the twenty first century, it may be hopeful or idealistic to say we may be moving toward such a discourse which counters these myths, and as a result sends us into a regression from these values and practices, due to academic influence. However, there still remains a clear income gap, media influenced gender roles, and the perpetuation of the classic myths which brought us to this mess in the first place. It is necessary that this discourse be spilled out from the higher learning institutions, and into the secondary learning, middles school, and elementary institutions. There needs to be understanding of the origins of our thought and resulting structures in order to mend the misplacement of value and backwardness of society. We need this in order to ensure that in the future, each person is met and known as a human first and judged accordingly; that being that regardless of gender, as a human being, they are capable of anything without restriction by those parts of their anatomy which are irrelevant in the first place.

By Ryan Fernandez

----------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did You Know?

- The first homosexual character to appear and be explored on mainstream television was in 1971: All In The Family. [a]

- IT was not until the early 1990s that gender specific toys were marketed in McDonalds Happy Meals. [b]

The current food crisis in East Africa has left millions unemployed, homeless, starved, and dehydrated— the worst drought to hit East Africa in 60 years.[1] But what caused such a massive crisis, and who is paying the biggest price?

As fears about food security slowly move into focus in the international community, much of East Africa is being divvied up once again for its fertile land; even the head of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, Jacques Diouf, is calling some projects “neocolonialist”.[2] The new phenomena of land grabs in East Africa by private investors and state-led initiatives begs immediate attention. Although there is a movement within the international political economy to support this trend, land grabs pose a real threat and has the potential to lead to grave human and environmental degradation. Land grabs compromise the autonomy of East Africans, especially women, to make a living and to provide food for themselves and their families.

Agribusiness has largely snubbed its’ nose to those at the very bottom of the food production chain. This is problematic for numerous reasons, mostly because it affects millions of people. In Kenya alone, 75% of the population lives in rural areas.[3] They are possibly subject to these land grabs and have little autonomy over the fate of their livelihoods that are already extremely sensitive to market fluctuations in the price of raw goods. This vulnerability is especially true for women, as 90% of rural women in Kenya work in the agricultural sector.[4] Kenya isn’t the only East African country where the overwhelming majority of rural women work in the agricultural field. It is estimated approximately 60-80% of all food grown in Africa is produced by women.[5] Land tenure deals have a direct effect on the lives of rural women by stripping them of their source of income, an incredibly harmful and dangerous fate for such a vulnerable population. This is because rural East African female farmers are born into overwhelmingly patriarchal societies that govern their labor, their access to land within the context of customary land rights, and are therefore further disadvantaged by liberalization and market-based reforms.

The nature of rural East African women working in the agricultural sector is severely limited by the constraints of their gender in a patriarchal society. There are wider customary laws and norms that women are always subjected to, such as issues of labour, health, and childcare. Stewart writes “…agricultural labour is guided by wider community norms which embody assumptions about gender roles.”[6] The value placed on women’s labour is significantly lower than their male counterparts, dictated by specific gendered work that is in the realm of their familial responsibilities. Though advocates for African women’s rights push for tighter labour laws and fair wages, author Ann Stewart explains: “Much of the agricultural work undertaken by women is ‘informal,’ unregulated by contracts of employment or labour laws because women often labour as family members, rather than owners on farms.”[7] This poses a roadblock for those women wishing to get fair compensation from land tenure deals. If women who farm don’t own their own labour or are severely underpaid, it is reasonable to conclude that if compensation was given to African residents, their husbands or fathers would be the one’s benefiting from it. This would further strengthen their financial control over their wives and daughters.

Liberalization schemes and market based reforms rarely benefit small famers, especially rural women. This is due to their inability to compete in such a cut-throat, tumultuous market. Author Ann Stewart explains that women are particularly hurt by liberalization, as it leads to a roll back of state services such as health care and education—issues that directly affect women.[8] She adds that liberalization schemes also lead to reduced tariffs, which lead to a smaller tax base, leaving governments with little spending money on social services.[9] With less money spent on social services, women have little option but to demand more from themselves and their female children. These issues are further exacerbated when one considers that “the risks within market-oriented strategies include economic marginalization and loss of land…”[10]Land tenure deals understandably place an incredible amount of stress on small farmers, however, in the world of privatization, new land market opportunities have tended to disadvantage women, as men find it easier to appeal to this new emphasis on investing.[11] With less money, less opportunity, and fewer social services, East African women have historically turned toward their extended family for support. But as more pressure is placed on the value of land, society grows more individualized, and the economy more privatized, notions of reciprocity and social safety nets of extended families are breaking down, further disadvantaging women.[12] Already in a vulnerable position, liberalization and privatization schemes place great stress on rural female farmers, as they simply have very few resources to support themselves and their children.

One of the reasons why land tenure deals pose a real threat to East Africans is that it removes them from their position as farmers in the agricultural production chain. In her book “The Challenge for Africa”, Kenyan activist and Member of Parliament Wangari Maathai writes:

“Our food might be produced in Kenya— either chickens or rice, as well as some greens— but the income received from it generally flows in one direction: out. Consequently, the money brought to rural areas through the sale of commodities such as cash crops is then siphoned back to the town where the consumer goods are transported from, and eventually repatriated to the countries that produce them.” [1]

Replaced by foreign farmers, land grabs force East Africans to be removed from the circle of economic activity, and all the money and food produced from the harvest goes directly to the purchasing countries without a penny distributed to small farmers.

The system of agricultural production already financially benefits those at the top rather than the bottom. Stewart explains: “By placing a premium on product development, value chain coordination and marketing, the system delivers the bulk of the gain to those involved in marketing and retailing, rather than growing crops.”[2] If international corporations like Monsanto are already making a large return on agricultural production, why must they insist on completely removing East Africans from the picture? The work of smallholder farmers isn’t lucrative—it is barely enough to survive on. To insist on their removal is undeniably inhumane. But as is the case with all other privatization schemes, to try and compete alongside these companies is more than financially difficult— it’s nearly impossible. Stewart states:

“Those who continue to pursue a livelihood in local markets must contend with the shadows of global markets, often finding themselves disadvantaged by changes associated with market development.”[3] Furthermore, due to their gender obligations and restrictions, female smallholder famers simply do not have the financial means to complete any post-harvest activities, such as large scale sorting, packaging and refrigeration.[4] Unable to compete in the shadow of global agribusiness giants, female farmers are left to find other methods of supporting themselves and their families.

Further exacerbating the many problems involved with land grabs is the issue of customary land ownership. In an effort by governments and the World Bank to formalize land ownership in much of East Africa, land titles were granted to those who registered their family’s land. Stewart accurately explains in detail the problematic tendencies with customary land ownership:

“Land is subject not only to the state law system but also to the customary land tenure systems of its [Kenya’s] 42 ethnic communities. Under the long-running Kenya formalization process, owners of customary titles are a free simple estate in the land, which can then be used and disposed of with minimal restrictions.”[5]

Unable to claim land as their own, governments are free to dispose communities that have been residing on pieces of land for hundreds of years without much trouble. Stewart writes, “customary rights of use are not recognized under the Registered Land Act, and so are not included as overriding interests.”[6] Land titles however are only granted to males, women’s access to land is only through marriage, divorce or inheritance. Unable to access markets, command their labour, or own land women are utterly left helpless—dependent on their husbands. In Kenya, it is estimated that women own 1% of registered private land, 5-6% hold land in joint names.[7] Women’s lack of opportunity to secure land rights under vastly patriarchal societies make them incredibly vulnerable to land grabs for several reasons; they are unable to receive compensation for land they predominately work on, and they have no negotiating power in community discussions regarding the customary uses of land, and their relocation.[8] Any attempts to remedy women’s lack of access to land has been futile since formal land titles are the only thing that are recognized. Women are thus ignored by any state lead initiatives[9] However, the situation isn’t entirely bleak, Englert and Daley explain: “…tenure reforms can be shaped and influenced by those who are concerned to protect women’s land rights.”[10] Because host East African countries are almost jumping at the opportunity to create land tenure deals, lobbyists, advocates, and even those countries buying or those investing in the land, have the unique opportunity to address gender inequality. Englert and Daley write, “it requires that gender be addressed seriously and integrally in all land policy, administration and reform initiatives.”[11] This could have a huge impact on rural East African female smallholder famers. Though exact figures aren’t yet available for the number of people displaced by land tenure deals, it can be assumed it is close to tens of thousands of people worldwide.

As the rate of successful land grabs continue to grow, it is morally imperative that a code of ethical conduct for foreign countries or businesses be adopted in order to eradicate further violation of human rights. This seems like a viable solution, as purchasing countries are the ones courting host countries, therefore host countries can set forth their agenda and expectations. As female rural smallholder farmers are already disadvantaged by liberalization schemes and patriarchal East African society, a preferential hire agreement of locals, particularly women who have previously worked their land would promote economic independence and provide new opportunities for them, such as learning new technological skills on new machinery. There would of course have to be a handsome compensation for those thrown off their land and environmental regulations clearly outlined and put into effect. Stewart writes: “The inclusion on a ‘social clause’ requiring all members [of the WTO] to enforce minimum labour standards was opposed by the majority of states, particularly in the developing world, and business lobbies.”[12] But because host countries are the ones being courted, they have the unique opportunity to conduct business that serves the purpose of ultimately bettering their citizens financially and socially. There is the potential for the fate of small-scale rural female farmers to continue making a living for themselves and their families on their farms, Jacobs states “…these examples indicate that positive outcomes for women within land reforms require democracy, transparency, and commitment to gender equity.”[13] It requires a commitment to change by policy makers, lobbyists, foreign countries and agribusinesses. To correct this prevailing bottom line ethos, they must favor a more just and principled dedication to sustaining the livelihoods of those, who thousands of kilometers away produce our dinner.

Works Cited

Englert, B., Daley, E. (Eds.). (2008). Women’s land rights and privatization in Eastern Africa. Woodbridge: James Currey.

Jacobs, S. (2010). Gender and Agrarian Reform. New York: Routledge

Maathai, W. (2009). The challenge for Africa. New York: Pantheon Books

Peterson, L. E., & Garland, R. (2010). Bilateral investment and land reform in Southern Africa. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.library.dal.ca/lib/dal/docDetail.action?docID=10406256

Stewart, A. (2010). Engendering responsibility in global markets: valuing the women of Kenya’s agricultural sector. In A. Perry-Kassaris (Ed.), Law in pursuit of Development (pp. 26-40). New York: Routledge

Buying farmland abroad: Outsourcing’s third wave (2009, May 21) The Economist. Retrieved from http://economist.com/node/13692889

Did You Know?

Approximately 60-80% of all food grown in Africa is produced by women (Englert & Daley, 2008).  

90% of rural women in Kenya work in the agricultural sector
(Stewart, 2010, p. 32).

In Kenya, it is estimated that women own 1% of registered private land, 5-6% hold land in joint names

(Stewart, 2010, p. 34)

Get Your Hands Off Our Land

By Arielle Cohen

By Alec Cumming

Arrival in Riyadh International Airport, and the first steps taken in Saudi Arabia, has a distinct feeling of significance for a western traveler. Immediately one is faced with the drastic cultural differences present, perhaps the most obvious of all can be found in the presence of Saudi women. Or rather, a lack of presence. There are no female airport workers, or indeed female workers of any sort to be seen upon arrival. The only women in sight are covered head to toe, wearing the niqab and the abaya to cover their entire bodies, and move like shadows behind their male escorts.

As a male traveller, I was spared the enforcement of a dress code, since there is none for men. But all women, no matter their descent or religious beliefs are required by law to wear the niqab, to cover the head and face, and abaya, to cover the body to the toes, at all times in public. Compliance with the law is ensured by the Mutaween, or religious police, who operate almost entirely unrestricted in their enforcement of the official policies of the Kingdom[i]. Punishment for any infractions are often swift and brutal in nature, with the accused having no access to a lawyer, and no semblance of a fair trial before being subjected to the will of the Mutaween, be it torture, flogging, maiming or beheading[ii]. Even small infractions of the dress code can result in public beatings or arrest, keeping women well in check.

conditioned to expect male dominance and female subordination at all times, something which is not easily undone.

The level of institutional discrimination against women in Saudi Arabia is unrivaled. The laws in place are unmatched in their blatant disregard for the notion of female mobility, and the method of law enforcement is barbaric at best. However, the recent decision to allow women to vote and run in elections is an extremely promising development, and the actions of Saudi reforms like Rania Al-Baz and Nadia Bakhurji are creating important discussion around traditionally taboo topics. There are sign of change. The challenges however, years of male domination that have created an ingrained expectation of complete authority over women, will not be overcome quickly or easily. Indeed, a substantial shift in cultural values is required for women to approach any sort of equality, something that will likely be fraught with backlashes and violence, and thus cannot and should not be rushed. The events in the lead up to the 2015 elections will be extremely telling in terms of male acceptance of the idea female voters, and the results of the election, should it go smoothly, could be the start of a more profound and widespread change in the Saudi mindset. 

Saudi laws regarding women are entirely religious ones, overseen and interpreted by religious scholars under the oversight of the King, who maintains an absolute, and undemocratic authority. Under these laws, women are heavily restricted in nearly every way imaginable; banned from driving, traveling alone, or even checking into a hospital without written permission from a man[iii]. Marriage laws allow for men to easily obtain divorces, while women must request a court approval, where a woman’s testimony is treated as presumption, rather than fact[iv]. Indeed there are a variety of forms that marriage in Saudi Arabia can take, including temporary marriages, marriages that require no financial support from the husband to the wife, and marriages that allow for older men to marry significantly younger women, or even girls. There are even accounts of 3 three old girls being married off by their fathers, with the marriage being consummated by the age of 9[v].

There are somewhat more encouraging trends to be found in the Saudi education system, where women make up 58 percent of university students, although they are restricted from studying certain subjects that are considered ‘male’, like engineering. These high university enrollment numbers are somewhat of an oddity however, since women make up a lowly 5 percent of the workforce in Saudi Arabia, and an estimated 33 percent of Saudi women are believed to be illiterate[vi], thus showing not only that this university education is rarely put into practice, but that a vast number of women are still denied even basic education. In a similar case, while there are now a handful of high profile women working high ranking positions in the Saudi government, it is only through their privileged backgrounds and a wealth of connections that they have risen to positions of power, while the vast majority of women in the country have no power at all.

Recent improvements for women include a change to be recognized by name on government identity cards in 2001, rather than the property of a male[vii]. In 2008, women were giving the right to check into hotels on their own, and this year, for the first public screening of a movie in 30 years, it was deemed acceptable for women to watch the movie in the presence of men[viii], but the most significant change was the announcement that women would be allowed to vote and run in elections beginning in 2015[ix]. Despite most of these gains being meager and long overdue, many traditionalists were, and remain, drastically opposed to even the smallest of these reforms and allowances, showing a complete lack of acceptance for the improved rights of Saudi women. Indeed Saudi Clerics and traditionalists are quick to write off women’s rights as a form of cultural imperialism; the corrupting effect of western culture on the Arab world. Such a stance provides no avenue for discussion on such issues with westerners concerned about the rights of Saudi women, but there are, however, reformers living under these conditions who challenge these conditions on moral and, quite importantly, religious grounds. Believing that the Quran has been misinterpreted to oppress women, this scripture based argument is much harder to ignore than the criticisms of the western world.

One such reformer is Rania Al-Baz, who is perhaps the most high profile advocate for change in Saudi Arabia following her appearance on an episode of Oprah. Al-Baz was nearly beaten to death by her husband in 2004, who left her unconscious outside of a hospital with extensive injuries received from repeatedly smashing her head against the floor of their home[x]. As a well-known news broadcaster, Al-Baz was in a position to make a stand against this type of abuse which is all too commonly ignored in Saudi Arabia. Al-Baz became the first Saudi Woman to press charges on her husband for abuse, and in large part due to the media attention paid to the story, Al-Baz won the case, but pardoned her husband in exchange for a divorce and child custody. This was a tremendous victory for the recognition of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, but Al-Baz’s actions following her victory, in particular her appearance on Oprah where she was seen with an unveiled face, tainted the victory. Her unveiled face was as far as the thought process went for many Saudis; she invited the violence from her husband through her inappropriate behaviour[xi]. Al-Baz’s case provides one of only examples in Saudi Arabia where a women was able to effectively use the existing power structure in her favour, to protect herself from an abusive husband, but once she stepped outside the rigid gender role set for women, the impact of the decision was easily deflected by the cultural demands of Saudi men.

Nadia Bakhurji is another prominent female Saudi reformer, who attempted to run for political office in 2005 using a legal loophole, but was denied the chance to run by the Saudi government, citing logistical issues[xii]. Bakhurji believes that the issue is a cultural one at the core, rather than a religious one, explaining that “it is not in our culture to tolerate. We are very judgemental. This is wrong. We need to educate people to be tolerant rather than judgemental… this kind of narrow-mindedness which is programmed… socially from an early age needs to be changed. The only way we can move forward is to get rid of this ignorance”[xiii]. Indeed, while the legal changes have been slow to come, there does seem to be some willingness to consider change at the top. The real resistance to change comes from the male population at large, who has been

Did You Know?

-58% of university students in Saudi Arabia are women

-The first elections allowing female participation will be held in 2015

-Women constitute only 5% of the workforce

AIR YEZZY 2'S UPDATE

After waiting this long for the

Nike Air Yeezy II'S, get ready to wait a

little longer. According to a Nike

spokesperson, the Air Yeezy 2'S release

date has been officially set for June.

Retail will still be $245. This all means

one thing — if you're camping out now, you might want to stop home and get more supplies. Stay tuned to INSIDEVIEW for the latest news on the Yeezy 2'S drop as we get it.

The Roots’ annual Roots Picnic music festival returns June 2-3rd at Festival Pier in the band’s native Philadelphia. this year’s lineup boasts Kid Cudi, Rakim, De La Soul (backed by The Roots!), Wale, Major Lazer, Diplo, St. Vincent, The Tune-Yards, Danny Brown, Shabazz Palaces, Moosh & Twist, Flosstradamus, Stretch Armstrong, The Hood Internet, Star Slinger, Mr. MFN Exquire, Kids These Days, Chill Moody and more.

Two-day passes on sale NOW via Ticketmaster.

THE 5TH ANNUAL ROOTS PICNIC 

JUNE 2ND & 3RD 

THE PHILADELPHIA JAZZ MONTH IS HERE AND ITS NOT A JOKE !!!!!

              APril 1st to 30th

For free events, show, live entertainment and more Visit  

http://www.kimmelcenter.org/events/?org=355

http://www.phillyjazz.org/calendar/events/

http://creativephl.org/jazz

http://www.phillyfunguide.com/categories/index/14/911

Law Library
City Hall, Room 600 
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM (ET)

TODAYS IS THE YOUTH POETRY MOVEMENT>>>RSVP TILL 5pm

RSVP http://chp1-estw.eventbrite.com/?nomo=1

 The INSIDE      VIEW

THE RETROSPECTIVE VIEW

Coming Soon

josh  keyes

Sirens (40"x30", acrylic on panel, 2012)

Scorch I  (18"x24", acrylic on panel, 2009)

Stampede  (60"x120", acrylic on canvas, 2011)

Tangled II (30"x40", acrylic on panel, 2011)

Descent (24"x20", acrylic on panel, 2011)

Waking (40"x30", acrylic on panel, 2011)

-Josh Keyes' work is a hybrid of

eco-surrealism and dystopian folktales that express a concern for our time and the Earth's future.-

-American contemporary artist-

via: biography page in

studio blog from Josh Keyes

interview (2011) in livefastmag.com

joshkeyes.net

upcoming shows

from the movie "They Live" -1988

If you wear this pair of sunglasses, you will wake up to the fact that aliens have taken over the earth.

(brilliant concept!)

Echa zamieszania z filmem powoli chchną, ale mam nadzieję że efekt kampanii sprzeciwu wywołanej przez Tomasza Raczka będzie miał charakter długowalowy. Rozumiem że w każdym procesie edukacyjnym (w tym przypadku mam na mysli dwudziestoletni okres wyciągania naszego kraju z prowincjonalnej mentalności) musi być miejsce na serię upadków z konia. Ale głosy zapowiadające upadek polskiej kinematografii pamietam od premiery "Psów" Pasikowskiego i w porównaniu z nimi, ostatnie upadki groziły poważną kontuzją kręgosłupa. Poprzez gęsty muł zaczęło przebijać się prawdziwe, twarde, skaliste dno.

Tak, jestem po stronie recenzenta. Czara goryczy się przelała. Nie można nazywać szamba perfumerią, przyszedł czas na lekcje prowadzone za pmocą bata i szpicruty. Oliwy do ognia dolewa sam producent Jacek Sajmołowicz który pozywa Raczka za straty finansowe. I tu jest pies pogrzebany. Można się krytykować, obrażać, nie organizować pokazów prasowych ale to wszystko da sie z łatwością znieść. Ale trzepnięcie po kieszeni. To naprawdę boli...

Zastanawiam się kiedy pojawi się Tomasz Raczek polskiej reklamy i w sumie kogo miałby tak naprawdę trzepnąć. Biznesowa kurtuazja nakazuje stwierdzić że wina leży pośrodku. Skoro z filmami mamy problemy, to tym bardziej z branżą która w Polsce rozwija się od zaledwie dwóch dziesięcioleci. Może trzeba poczekać jeszcze jedną dziesiątkę, przecież jest postep. Wystarczy rzucić okiem na legendy polskiej reklamy telewizyjnej () i złapać się za głowę patrząc na produkcje z którymi warsztatowo, smiało może konkurować polowa dzisiejszych najbardziej mydlanych seriali. No tak, tylko że głowa jakoś potwornie boli od kaca, a nigdzie pod ręką nie ma aspiryny.

Posting shit for your enjoyment circa 2011.

Image: Tammy Karr

Could You Sketch During A War?

Via: Gettysburg Daily

Bart Threads.