Stanford University Press Blog

Two Filipina feminista sisters in academia (who write about sex)

What are the chances?

Two Filipina sisters grow up in Boston, head off to UC Berkeley for college, end up staying in academia, and now write about sex. They’re also both Stanford Univ. Press authors: Rhacel Salazar Parreñas’ most recent book investigates trafficked Filipina hostesses (Illicit Flirtations, 2011), and Celine Parreñas Shimizu has just authored the first full-length study of the racialization of Asian American men in movies (Straitjacket Sexualities, 2012).

And we're not the only ones who thought this was neat: this fall, the two professors are going to be featured in a segment on LA18, a SoCal TV station. (Edited to add: check out the television interview on Youtube here and here.) 

In the meantime, here are two thoughts to mull over from Professor Shimizu about filmmaking and being Asian American, taken from a Hyphen Magazine interview about her new book Straitjacket Sexualities:

 -       It’s not breaking news that Asian American men in movies have often been marginalized as practically asexual. But after taking a closer look at Hollywood films, Shimizu has another way of looking at it: rather than being macho-bravo, Asian American men are shown as being ethical, caring, and selfless. It’s a different kind of manhood--one that goes against all the stereotypes.

-       Minority art has a reputation for portraying warm and glossy versions of minority life--stories that usually don’t get told anywhere else. But according to Shimizu, the urge to only tell the positive “story of your people” doesn't always do justice to the people it's supposed to represent, for it's still just another fabric of incomplete truths. 

 

If you’re in Los Angeles later this summer, check out this upcoming book talk with Shimizu and Parreñas entitled “Filipinas, Feminism and Sex.”  Details: Echo Park Branch Library; Saturday, August 4, 2012; more information here.

 

Check out Celine Parreñas Shimizu’s Straitjacket Sexualities: Unbinding Asian American Manhoods in the Movies here.

Check out Rhacel Salazar Parreñas’ Illicit Flirtations: Labor, Migration, and Sex Trafficking in Tokyo here. 

 

And we thought that constitutionality would be the end of the debate…

The Supreme Court may have decided to uphold the constitutionality of the controversial Obamacare program on June 28, but the health care debate rages on: now the question is, how many states—and which—will choose to participate in the Medicaid expansion?

And on top of that, when will they decide? A handful of states—including Virgina, Nebraska, and Wisconsin—have made clear that they are biding their time to make a decision until after the Presidential Election results are announced later this year (East Village Tribune article), in case Romney wins and throws the entire thing out.

There are a lot of opinions out there, but today we’d like to shine a spotlight on Stephen M. Davidson, not just because he’s a nice guy and we have a habit of shameless self-promotion, but more importantly because he has spent over 30 years researching health care policy, and because the U.S. happens to be moving towards the kinds of changes he proposed in his 2010 book Still Broken. The book—which is a good starting point for anyone seeking a thorough explanation of the U.S. health care system—takes a close look at the current situaion, systematically charts the merits of universal coverage, and, crucially, shows how we can jump through political and social hoops to get that to work.

Here’s what Davidson has written recently concerning states still debating on how to proceed with Obamacare:

-       How opting out of the expansion could ultimately hurt the state’s citizens (NYT Letter to the Editor)

-       How opting out hurts hospitals and the poor (Politico debate)

And for a review of the case and all its nuances, check out this article Davidson wrote for The Huffington Post 10 days before the court ruling.

Check out Davidson’s book here.

 

From Drugs to Civil War: the New Gateway Effect

We all know that drug trafficking can be a deadly business. But can drug trafficking set the precedent for even larger conflict—that is, civil war?

That’s the question that former journalist Jonathan Marshall set out to answer in his newly released book The Lebanese Connection. Looking specifically at Lebanon in the lead up to its 15-year civil war, Marshall traces out how the country’s fledgling drug trade in the 1970s turned the country into a narco-state and financed the war. In other words: there was a sure connection between drugs and civil war in Lebanon—and Marshall warns that that connection can apply to any state.

And that makes modern-day drug trafficking in Afghanistan and Mexico all the more urgent. Afghanistan leads the world in opium production, as it has for the past two decades. Mexico’s drug war has regularly peppered American news sources with brutal images and chilling stories, and has become a party platform priority as the July 1 presidential election draws near. This isn’t just about the drugs anymore—there’s a lot at stake.       

 

Some food for thought:

• “Breaking the narco-state in Afghanistan is essential, or all else will fail.” The New York Times recently ran an article that explains why fighting the opium industry in Afghanistan is of upmost importance.
• The top three contenders for the Mexican presidency have all declared domestic-centered approaches to the drug war to be a priority over curbing drug trafficking into the U.S. See the NYT article here.
• And check out Marshall’s book The Lebanese Connection here.