GQ, Ciudad Juarez and Women
The boyfriend's latest GQ arrived yesterday, and I flipped through as eagerly as I do Bust. The first article I came across was titled "Mexico's Red Days" and covered the recent spate of murders that has plagued Ciudad Juarez since January. Having grown up in El Paso, the American town just accross the Rio Grande from Juarez, I took an interest.
Let me start with what I liked about the article. I appreciated the nod to how violence on the border and American drug habits are connected. We always learn how terrible drugs are for you, but no one ever really takes the time to tell you how terrible drugs are for the people living in the barrios. I also liked the connection made between the maquilas (factories) run by American companies and the thriving drug-trade work pool. While it wasn't directly stated, the implication was that American's addiction to cheap labor fuels the drug trade's labor force (and in turn, our addiction to drugs). As the author states, "The main reason a U.S. company moves to Juarez is to pay lower wages. The only reason poor people in Juarez sell drugs and die is to earn higher wages. The only reason they go north is to survive."
Now what I didn't like. There is a general dismissal of the violence that took place before the killing exploded this year. The author explains how murder had reason to it before, "There was a time when death made sense in Juarez. You died because you had a drug load or because you lost a drug load. You died becuase you tried to do a deal or because you were a snitch, or because you were a poor woman and it was dark and someone thought it might be fun to rape and kill you."
Yes, the violence in Juarez is mind-boggling right now. Already, Juarez claims 500 murders and we're only half-way through the year. And yes, 500 in half a year is death on a completely different scale than before. But it's not any less reasonble. Murder never was reasonable. I particularly take issue with the final statement, which seems to imply that before the violence exploded, being kidnapped, raped, and killed could be considered a perfectly sensible occurance.
The entire time I lived in El Paso, the newspapers on both sides of the border would occasionally whisper about a rash of women being murdered. Sometimes, a celebrity would take interest, and for a few days, the whisper would turn into an outcry. Today, women still disappear. The GQ article touches upon the murders and disappearances, but only to compare them with the current explosion of violence. The author implies that somehow a middle-class, light-skinned woman being kidnapped, raped, and then dumped is a more shocking crime in 2008 than when a dark skinned woman is killed in 1998 waiting for the bus to take her to the mequila where she barely makes enough to live on.
Now, I would never accuse the author of intending to dismiss these past murders, but the structure of the article, highlighting this year's dead and not the past decade's dead, is off-putting to one who grew up reading about the violence. Please don't say that death used to make sense. Death never made sense in Juarez. There is no reason for a woman to die just for going to work, even if she died in 1990 and her counterpart died in 2008.
Criticism aside, I'd like to see a woman's magazine spend some time covering the murders of Juarez women (and the current violence). I'd like for their coverage to touch on the complexity of the subject and avoid being maudlin. Any takers?
Let me start with what I liked about the article. I appreciated the nod to how violence on the border and American drug habits are connected. We always learn how terrible drugs are for you, but no one ever really takes the time to tell you how terrible drugs are for the people living in the barrios. I also liked the connection made between the maquilas (factories) run by American companies and the thriving drug-trade work pool. While it wasn't directly stated, the implication was that American's addiction to cheap labor fuels the drug trade's labor force (and in turn, our addiction to drugs). As the author states, "The main reason a U.S. company moves to Juarez is to pay lower wages. The only reason poor people in Juarez sell drugs and die is to earn higher wages. The only reason they go north is to survive."
Now what I didn't like. There is a general dismissal of the violence that took place before the killing exploded this year. The author explains how murder had reason to it before, "There was a time when death made sense in Juarez. You died because you had a drug load or because you lost a drug load. You died becuase you tried to do a deal or because you were a snitch, or because you were a poor woman and it was dark and someone thought it might be fun to rape and kill you."
Yes, the violence in Juarez is mind-boggling right now. Already, Juarez claims 500 murders and we're only half-way through the year. And yes, 500 in half a year is death on a completely different scale than before. But it's not any less reasonble. Murder never was reasonable. I particularly take issue with the final statement, which seems to imply that before the violence exploded, being kidnapped, raped, and killed could be considered a perfectly sensible occurance.
The entire time I lived in El Paso, the newspapers on both sides of the border would occasionally whisper about a rash of women being murdered. Sometimes, a celebrity would take interest, and for a few days, the whisper would turn into an outcry. Today, women still disappear. The GQ article touches upon the murders and disappearances, but only to compare them with the current explosion of violence. The author implies that somehow a middle-class, light-skinned woman being kidnapped, raped, and then dumped is a more shocking crime in 2008 than when a dark skinned woman is killed in 1998 waiting for the bus to take her to the mequila where she barely makes enough to live on.
Now, I would never accuse the author of intending to dismiss these past murders, but the structure of the article, highlighting this year's dead and not the past decade's dead, is off-putting to one who grew up reading about the violence. Please don't say that death used to make sense. Death never made sense in Juarez. There is no reason for a woman to die just for going to work, even if she died in 1990 and her counterpart died in 2008.
Criticism aside, I'd like to see a woman's magazine spend some time covering the murders of Juarez women (and the current violence). I'd like for their coverage to touch on the complexity of the subject and avoid being maudlin. Any takers?
posted by Sally at 7:27 PM
1 comments
