This Is Hysteria!

"Tact"

2011-10-13T01:08:00.000-04:00

Ever since I was a child, I've been a very polite person. As an adolescent I was also very shy and had a hard time making friends. Then, when I was in grade nine I read How To Win Friends And Influence People by Dale Carnegie. "Smile," the book told me. "Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves," "Talk in terms of the other person's interests," were among the many useful tips within.

I took the book to heart. And it worked. Getting people to talk about themselves made conversation a lot easier and less awkward. And because I really listened, people liked talking to me. That book became my bible. I took it so seriously that about a year and a half after befriending one of my now best friends, she said, "I hardly know anything about you. You never talk about yourself. Why don't you talk about yourself more?" Why? Because I followed HTWFAIP's instructions assiduously, and focused on encouraging others to talk about themselves.

The major lesson I took away from the book was to always put my feelings aside, and put the other person's feelings, ego and interests first. To go out of my way to make the other person feel comfortable and respected. The number one rule for dealing with others was, "Never criticize, condemn or complain." And this is all well and good in many situations. But as a model for daily living I found it saps one of one's sense of agency, of power. Interestingly, a lot of Carnegie's advice goes along well with the ideals that women in our society are supposed to live up to - always smiling, always supportive, ever a self-sacrificing wife and mother.

It wasn't until I started reading feminist and anti-racist literature that I realized that not every interaction is about winning friends or influencing people. Sometimes it's about asserting that your needs and your interests are important, and should be respected, without having to carefully and sensitively dance around privileged people's feelings in order to "earn" that respect.

Because my needs and interests are important. I am important. That's still an idea that I have trouble wrapping my mind around. But I'm working on it.

Which is not to say that every time I overhear someone say something bigoted I try to turn the incident into a confrontation. If it's a person I hardly know that I usually just let it go, because I don't have much time with them and there's no reason why they should care very much about what I have to say. I might die a little inside, but I let it go. If I know the person, then I'll try to explain what's wrong with their behaviour, politely, even casually, and try to put the issue in terms that they understand. But there have been situations where I've gotten quite worked up and "aggressive." Situations where I've thrown Carnegie's rules for influencing people to the wind.

Because sometimes, a confrontation is not about convincing a privileged person that oppression exists and that they've just done something oppressive. It's just about opposing that person's behaviour, and making sure they know you oppose it. Sometimes it's not about patiently teaching them about oppression in the hope that they will eventually "get it." Subordinating your own sense of injury and indignation for the sake of the feelings of the offender just perpetuates the power structure that makes their behaviour oppressive.

The requirement that one be tactful or kind when speaking out against bigotry is a way of shielding the privileged from knowing what the impact of their behaviour is on others. It makes one complicit in maintaining the willful ignorance of the privileged. I reject the requirement of tact. Bigotry hurts me, and it hurts the marginalized people that I'm trying to stand with. If someone says or does something oppressive, then they should have to deal with the consequences, and not be coddled.

If someone does something bigoted or oppressive, and I call them out, and it becomes a confrontation, then the confrontation is no longer about them. It's about me. It's about asserting myself and setting my boundaries and making it clear that I will not stand for their bullshit. In that situation, tactfulness or lack thereof is entirely besides the point.

One of my friends from high school has told me a few times now that she's proud of how assertive I've become.

Tumblr Round-Up: Sept 1 - 9

2011-09-09T15:07:00.000-04:00

via

Stuff I wrote/commented on

Commentary on the idea that Catholics can't "pick and choose" what to believe.
Can anyone recommend progressive adventure/fantasy novels?
I am now watching Lost Girl
Thoughts on what we can label as religious oppression
More thoughts on religion as the cause of 9/11 (tl;dr: it's not)
The US is really to blame for Nickleback
Some thoughts on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Reblogged

Why do you have to nitpick?
Hey, it's okay...
A take-down of a post about a study on the connection between abortion and mental disorders. And another take-down.
Canadian's attitude towards the US change
A discussion of marriage as a human right
What is this even? I don't know, it makes me happy.
Juana Galan
A chart comparing labour standards around the world.
Opinions are not shiny, sparkly magical unicorn eggs that nobody is allowed to disagree with or destroy with logic.
List of rape myths
Re: Privilege
You don't owe prettiness to anyone
Iconatomy
On being anti-"political correctness"
Inclusive feminism is the only feminism that makes any sense
Danny Glover's Haiti film lacked "white heroes", producers said
Stephen Harper is the Annoying Childhood Friend
"9/11 Changed the World"
36 Reasons Why You Should Thank A Union
The Transfeminist Manifesto

Stupid Products That Endorse Sexism

2011-09-02T15:13:00.000-04:00

Get ready for me complaining about "trivial" stuff.

Okay, so this is an in-store ad, not a product. It's back-to-school time, so Loblaws is providing easy lunch box fixes, "with busy mom in mind". Because care-work is for moms only. And of course she's busy because she's the "super-mom"; the woman who can do it all, who has a job, but still does most of the child care and housekeeping herself because that's women's work. And of course, all kids have moms, none of them are raised by single dads, or other relatives, or have two dads. Nope.

"Daughters are a Blessing / So precious to the heart / Full of laughter, Full of fun / Loved... (something I can't read)"

"Grandma / You are someone I can count on / Someone who really cares / someone who always sees the best / And has a Heart of Love to share"

So get these beloved women in your life a dish towel/oven mitt/pot holder set, covered in pink flowers and sappy verses, to show them you really care. To remind them of how much you love them as they make you a sandwich. I know I would really appreciate getting kitchen linens that look like a Hallmark store exploded on them.

Oh look, it's a piggy bank, labeled "His Money" and "Her Money"! When you put a coin in the slot, it starts off as "His Money" and then goes directly into "Her Money"! It's funny because men work for a living and women are money grubbing bitches!

These are things that are supposed to be cute and funny, presenting stereotypes and gender norms as truths that are just taken for granted. Yeah, these are little things, but it just shows how our society is marinating in sexism.

Tumbler Roundup: Aug 24- 31, 2011

2011-09-01T12:44:00.001-04:00

My Posts

Thoughts on Lady Gaga's appearance as Jo Calderone at the VMAs
Updates on the health of my dog
I went to view Jack Layton's casket
Messages in chalk at Nathan Phillips sqare: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Reblogged

A take-down of someone who thought "Slutwalk is fucking stupid" (trigger warning: rape, rape culture)
Dangerous White Stereotypes
Your friends are not your audience: A disturbing lesson on perspective (trigger warning: rape, rape culture)
More messages in chalk from Nathan Phillips Square: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
I wish I was beautiful
The Not As Bad As I Could Be Award!
Remembering Jack Layton at Nathan Phillips Square
How to talk to privileged people about oppression you've experienced

The Loss Of A Leader

2011-08-23T01:48:00.001-04:00

During the last election, I officially became a member of the NDP, but I've identified with the NDP since highschool. I had been impressed with Jack Layton as a politician ever since he became leader of the NDP and started to improve the fortunes of the party. And after he gave a talk at my law school a couple of years ago, where he went overtime answering detailed questions about policy, I have never trusted, never had as much faith in, as much hope for, a political figure as much as Mr. Layton.

He reasoned the same way I do. He thought about the impact of policies on marginalized people. He prioritized the interests of low-income families. I wanted him to be our next Prime Minister so badly, and after this last election, it seemed like that goal was within reach.

I'm afraid of what will happen in Canadian politics without Layton's galvanizing presence on the left, without his energy. I'm afraid that the Liberals and NDP will flounder as the Conservatives become the new "governing party".

But as Jack wrote in his last letter to Canadians, "Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair."

Despite the almost overwhelming sense of unfairness that he died before he could fully realize his potential and ambition, I have to acknowledge that what Jack Layton did accomplish was pretty awesome. And it's up to those of us who share his ambitions to take his accomplishments and run with them. So many are cynical about politics, but through political involvement we can build a better society and a better country. Jack almost got us there, we just have to go the rest of the way.

What Ever Happened To...?

2011-06-29T14:16:00.000-04:00

Hello there!

Basically, I have been going through some relationship turmoil, my sister is getting married, I'm going out of the country on vacation for the first time in years, and when I get back I'm moving.

Which is all to say that I've been too preoccupied to even think about writing. But! I am not going to let this blog fade away into oblivion. I have a lot to say, and this is where I plan to say it. So stay tuned! Regular posting will resume in about a month or so.

In the meantime, here in Hamilton Wesley Wigglebottom:

Fucking Fuck Fuck Fuck

2011-05-02T22:56:00.000-04:00

First Toronto, now Canada.

Ontario, I fucking hate you. What the hell.

It looks like I'm going to have a Conservative MP. I didn't think it would happen.

I guess it's time to get activist.

Weekly Joy

2011-05-02T12:39:00.000-04:00

A great send-up of ads whose main product is a certain standard of masculinity.

This Election is Important

2011-04-25T15:51:00.000-04:00

I am freaking out over the possibility that Harper might win a majority. Because he is doing well in Ontario. ONTARIO WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU.

Please, please, everyone do what you can to prevent a Harper majority from happening. Talk to people about why it's important to vote and why it's important to not vote Conservative. The Conservatives are garbage on just about every issue you can think of. There are resources and information about why Harper is bad for Canada, here, here, here, here, and here. Use social media, make reasons for not voting Conservative your facebook status, tweet about is, write to newspapers, call radio stations, talk to your relatives, friends, co-workers and neighbours. If you can convince one person to vote who otherwise might not have, or if you can convince one person to not vote Conservative, that is an accomplishment.

This is going to be a very tense week. I probably won't post much until after May 2.

An Anti-Choice Fantasy

2011-04-21T01:22:00.000-04:00

Remember those greeting cards for expectant mothers that were ostensibly from her fetus?

Ie. these things.

Someone took this idea a step further, and wrote a series of letters to a woman from her fetus. Her aborted fetus.

I'm not exactly sure where it came from, or who wrote it. You can see it on Facebook here. I found it on Tumblr, but the original post, and many of the reblogged posts, have since been deleted (in some cases, the entire Tumblr account was deleted). Probably because the post was accompanied by an image of a bloody fetus. (Which I did not reproduce here, for obvious reasons.)

Anyhoo, the whole thing is, in various measures, bizarre, creepy, patronizing, ignorant, insulting, and ridiculous. It's horrific. But in a manner that makes it hard to look away. So instead, I dissect it. As one might dissect a fetal pig.

The following includes an account of domestic violence. Just so you know.

Hi, Mommy. I’m your baby. You don’t know me yet, I’m only a few weeks old. You’re going to find out about me soon, though, I promise.

This is what an embryo looks like at three weeks:

Doesn't really look like it's capable of holding a conversation, does it?

Let me tell you some things about me.

Tell what? Nothing has happened to it. It has nothing to tell.

My name is John,

I'm all for kids choosing their own names. But at this point, the embryo has never heard of names, is incapable of conceptualizing names. It's incapable of conceptualizing much of anything.

and I’ve got beautiful brown eyes and black hair. Well, I don’t have it yet, but I will when I’m born.

Interestingly, the author of this piece hits on the idea that John is, at this point, just a potential person. Unfortunately, the idea does not take hold.

I’m going to be your only child, and you’ll call me your one and only.

How the fuck does John the Embryo know this? Is he psychic?

I think this is highly indicative of a certain anti-choice mind-set. In that the woman literally has no choices in her life. She's unable to decide whether she's going to have other kids or not. It's set in stone, she has no agency.

I’m going to grow up without a daddy mostly, but we have each other. We’ll help each other, and love each other.

Your unplanned pregnancy is the silver lining to an abusive relationship!

I want to be a doctor when I grow up.

... an abortion doctor!

LOL. Anyways. Isn't that a nice, normative, white-bread ambition for Embryo John? Who, if carried to term and born alive, would not have a vast array of life paths to choose from and explore. No, Embryo John is a Future Doctor.

To me, this also is indicative of a kind of conservative (or societyl-wide) tendency to not value children as full human beings, but to value them as future adults... but that's a topic for another post.

You found out about me today, Mommy! You were so excited, you couldn’t wait to tell everyone. All you could do all day was smile, and life was perfect. You have a beautiful smile, Mommy. It will be the first face I will see in my life, and it will be the best thing I see in my life. I know it already.

So here's the thing. This is a story about a wanted pregnancy. Not every pregnancy is wanted. A story about an unwanted pregnancy might instead read,

"You found out about me today, Mommy! A wave of dread washed over over you, and all you could do was withdraw and avoid everyone you know. Your plans for the future vanished, and life was bleak and hopeless. You feel like I'm a parasite living inside you, and you want to punch yourself in the abdomen until I'm dead."

It is a tragedy when someone who wants a pregnancy has to terminate it. But a pregnancy is not a happy thing for everyone, as much as anti-choicers insist otherwise.

And considering the fact that this is a wanted pregnancy, wouldn't the decision to have an abortion have been a hard one to come to? Wouldn't the expectant mother have considered every other option before concluding that she had to terminate? She herself being in the best position to determine what's the best course of action for her? And woudn't it be cruel, then to assault this woman with images of bloody fetuses (which originally adorned this post), and torment her by concocting a personality for the child she wanted but couldn't have?

I would think so. But let's see what happens next...

Today was the day you told Daddy. You were so excited to tell him about me! …He wasn’t happy, Mommy. He kind of got angry. I don’t think that you noticed, but he did. He started to talk about something called wedlock, and money, and bills, and stuff I don’t think I understand yet.

Yeah, I don't think Embryo John would be able to understand any of that yet. The way the character is constructed is bizarre. Does the author actually think that fetuses have this level of awareness? Or are they deliberately being misleading and manipulative?

You were still happy, though, so it was okay. Then he did something scary, Mommy. He hit you. I could feel you fall backward, and your hands flying up to protect me.

Forcing someone to terminate a pregnancy against their will is just as much a crime against individual physical integrity as is forced child bearing.

But that's not what anti-choicers are really talking about. This is just another way of denying that women who get abortions have agency, that they thought it out for themselves, and know what they're doing. They either have to villanize women who seek abortions, or paint them as hapless victims. They go with the victim angle so that they can claim that they're on women's side. They claim that deep down, no woman wants to have an abortion, and anti-choicers are just standing up for women to protect them from the evil abortion industry.

Uh huh.

I was okay… but I was very sad for you. You were crying then, Mommy. That’s a sound I don’t like. It doesn’t make me feel good. It made me cry, too.

Really? After this woman was assaulted by her partner you're going to tell her that her crying upset her embryo? Is there any way that the writer of this mess could try to make her feel worse?

He said sorry after, and he hugged you again. You forgave him, Mommy, but I’m not sure if I do. It wasn’t right. You say he loves you… why would he hurt you? I don’t like it, Mommy.

There is! By victim-blaming a woman in an abusive relationship. Why do you keep forgiving him? Why don't you just leave? ...because of a whole host of reasons that neither the writer nor Embryo John understand, because they have never experienced an abusive relationship. Reasons like dependency and "battered woman" syndrome.

Fuck you, Embryo John.

Finally, you can see me! Your stomach is a little bit bigger, and you’re so proud of me! You went out with your mommy to buy new clothes, and you were so so so happy.

And again, the difference between a wanted and an unwanted pregnancy matters. If it's an unwanted pregnancy, it'll be terminated before you start to show. 88% of all abortions are in the first trimester, over half before week nine.

That is, before the fetus looks as baby-like as the one in the photo I cut out from this post. People have parasitic fetuses (which are technically alive) that are more developed than this stage.

You sing to me, too. You have the most beautiful voice in the whole wide world. When you sing is when I’m happiest. And you talk to me, and I feel safe. So safe. You just wait and see, Mommy. When I am born I will be perfect just for you. I will make you proud, and I will love you with all of my heart.

So, yeah, Johnny Fetus is not a representative case.

If this was an unwanted pregnancy, then the words that the writer is putting in Johnny Fetus' mouth start to sound really creepy. Almost Nice-Guyish. The similarities are there - neither really think of women as full human beings, just as useful bits of anatomy.

Not to mention the, "I will be perfect" bit. That seems problematic and ableist to me; but I'm not really equipped to speak to that. Feel free to in the comments.

I can move my hands and feet now, Mommy. I do it because you put your hands on your belly to feel me, and I giggle. You giggle, too. I love you, Mommy.

What is this emotional blackmail shit?

Daddy came to see you today, Mommy. I got really scared. He was acting funny and he wasn’t talking right. He said he didn’t want you. I don’t know why, but that’s what he said. And he hit you again. I got angry, Mommy. When I grow up I promise I won’t let you get hurt! I promise to protect you.

It's the job of the unborn fetus to protect it's mother. Why? Because that fetus is a dude. Holy gender norms, Batman!

Daddy is bad. I don’t care if you think that he is a good person, I think he’s bad. But he hit you, and he said he didn’t want us. He doesn’t like me. Why doesn’t he like me, Mommy?

More with the victim blaming. This is less about deciding to get an abortion and more about being in an abusive relationship.

You didn’t talk to me tonight, Mommy. Is everything okay?

She's taking your advice, kiddo. She's leaving "Daddy" - but that means that you have to DIE!

It’s been three days since you saw Daddy. You haven’t talked to me or touched me or anything since that. Don’t you still love me, Mommy? I still love you. I think you feel sad. The only time I feel you is when you sleep. You sleep funny, kind of curled up on your side. And you hug me with your arms, and I feel safe and warm again. Why don’t you do that when you’re awake, any more?

I’m 21 weeks old today, Mommy.

Yeah, very few abortions happen at this point, mostly just for medical necessity. This story really doesn't jive with any representative data at all.

Aren’t you proud of me?

Because she should be proud of the fetus, and not herself, for making it through five months of pregnancy. Childbearing is so hard on the fetus, doncha know.

We’re going somewhere today, and it’s somewhere new.

Because a fetus would be aware of something like that?

I’m excited. It looks like a hospital, too. I want to be a doctor when I grow up, Mommy. Did I tell you that? I hope you’re as excited as I am. I can’t wait.

LOL. Nice use of dramatic irony. It's like a dog being all excited about going for a car ride, only to end up at the vet.

…Mommy, I’m getting scared. Your heart is still beating, but I don’t know what you are thinking. The doctor is talking to you. I think something’s going to happen soon. I’m really, really, really scared, Mommy. Please tell me you love me. Then I will feel safe again. I love you!

Okay, this is sick. This seems to have been written so that pro-lifers can imagine a woman who got an abortion reading it, and being emotionally tortured. So that the pro-lifers can feel all good and holy.

Mommy, what are they doing to me!? It hurts! Please make them stop! It feels bad! Please, Mommy, please please help me! Make them stop!

I can't help but imagine a comically over-the-top death scene here, akin to the Wicked Witch of the West.

Don’t worry Mommy, I’m safe. I’m in heaven with the angels now.

Actually, according to many denominations of Christianity (and I'm assuming the author of this is Christian), Johnny Fetus would be destined for hell because he's unbaptised. Just sayin'.

They told me what you did, and they said it’s called an abortion.

Why, Mommy? Why did you do it? Don’t you love me any more?

Why I hate this thing so much: It's about a wanted pregnancy.The woman in the story wanted the pregnancy, but felt she had to terminate. It was not an easy decision for her, nor was it one she was happy with. In fact, it's implied that her boyfriend forced her to get an abortion. So why is the story so focused on guilting the would-be mother?

This doesn't apply to unwanted pregnancies at all. It's like, no I don't love you, I never did. I never wanted anything to do with you.

Why did you get rid of me?

Um... because she had to. I thought that was well established? Or maybe it was because she wanted to. It really doesn't matter why. You're not entitled to sustain yourself on another person's body, kid. No one is.

I’m really, really, really sorry if I did something wrong, Mommy. I love you, Mommy! I love you with all of my heart.

And another frustrating thing - the characterization of Johnny Fetus as someone who know what other people are, or has any awareness of the world outside himself. It makes this whole thing pretty absurd.

Why don’t you love me? What did I do to deserve what they did to me? I want to live, Mommy! Please!

Yeah, so do people who need bone marrow transplants, but we don't drag folks off the street, make them do a blood test to see if they're a match, and then force them to be donors. We don't even force people to donate blood, which is far less invasive. Hell, we don't even force people to donate organs when they're dead.

And what is that "Please!" supposed to accomplish? "Mommy" can't bring you back from "heaven", Johnny boy.

And isn't heaven supposed to be better than earthly life anyways?

It really, really hurts to see you not care about me, and not talk to me. Didn’t I love you enough?

Okay, now Johnny Fetus is starting to sound like a stalker.

Please say you’ll keep me, Mommy! I want to live smile and watch the clouds and see your face and grow up and be a doctor.

As I mentioned before - fetuses don't know what any of those things are. They aren't aware of the world. They don't have any relationships. They don't have any aspriations. They don't have any experiences.

That's why a fetus =/= a born, living person.

I don’t want to be here, I want you to love me again! I’m really really really sorry if I did something wrong. I love you!

Oh for fuck's sake...

I love you, Mommy.

Every abortion is just…
One more heart that was stopped.
Two more eyes that will never see.
Two more hands that will never touch.
Two more legs that will never run.
One more mouth that will never speak.

But since Johnny Fetus never experienced those things, I guess he isn't really going to miss them.

*sniff* So moving.

Look South To See Harper's Vision For Canada

2011-04-09T18:13:00.000-04:00

I would like all Canadians to take a look at what's going on south of the border right now. The war on women's reproductive rights. The war on unions. The anti-environmentalism. The anti-intellectualism. The outright class warfare. Look at what Republicans are making of our neighbour.

And remember: These are the people that Harper takes his cues from. When the USA went into Iraq, Harper wanted to go in with them. When it looked like a Democrat was going to win the presidential election, the PMO tried to discredit him. When US politicians started using "socialism" as a dirty word, Harper tried to use it the same way, to make the NDP look scary. When right-wing USians got huffy about their census, he started a census controversy here. His environmental policy is explicitly "We'll do whatever the US does". He even jacks Republican campaign ads.

The Republicans that are bent on making life a soulless grind for all but the richest USians are the people that Harper admires. Like he admires George W. Bush. (And seriously, how many people still admire Bush?).

Harper wants Canada to be like the USA. So look hard at the US. Do you want that?

Canadians Against Harper

2011-04-04T11:48:00.000-04:00

Find more posters here

Canadians!

Are you concerned about the outcome of the upcoming election? Are you interested in something simple you can do to help prevent another Harper government?

Then head to AnyoneButHarper - a site where you can download printable posters, each displaying a simple fact or two illustrating why the Conservatives are bad for Canada on any given issue. Are people in your area concerned mostly with the economy? There's a poster for that. With farming? There's a poster for that. With immigration? There's a poster for that too. Find the issue you think is most relevant to your neighbourhood, download the pdf, and print out posters to put up.

It doesn't take long to spread a little information.

Quick Thoughts on Slutwalk

2011-04-03T21:38:00.004-04:00

The crowd congregating at Queen's Park

I went to Slutwalk today.

The crowd was great! Tons of people of all ages, men and women and gender queer, people of all colours, and sexual orientations. The signs people made were clever and thoughtful. I loved seeing the outfits that people chose - lots of slutty clothes. There were spontaneous outbursts of chanting; and some folks brought percussion instruments and were playing an awesome beat that people were dancing to.

The range of speakers was pretty good. The organizers (Sonya Barnett and Alyssa Teekah) talked about the word "slut" and why we were reclaiming it, and about sexual assault on university campuses (especially York); and about the institutional power that we were opposing. Deb Singh of the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre talked about working with survivors and their experiences with the Toronto police blaming them for their assaults. Michael Kaufman of the White Ribbon Campaign talked about the responsibility that men have to discourage rape and to combat rape culture.

Jane Doe also spoke. I was so impressed with her. She has such a positive, energetic, forceful personality. I had wondered what kind of character it took to sue a police force, and now I know. She spoke about the problems with the current police training programs, and issued a challenge to mayor Rob Ford to institute real change.

I teared up several times.

I've been getting pissed off at feminists on the internet recently for massive intersectionality fails, and failures to check their privilege. So it was encouraging to see the organizers, as young feminists, making an effort to be inclusive and acknowledge all the various groups that are effected by rape, and who were at the walk, and who the organizers worked with.

I came away from the walk pumped and excited and feeling really positive. There's a huge group of us who care about equality, and who are demanding change.

On the march

All photos were taken by me.
For news coverage, better photos, and video, see CityTV, Toronto Star gallery and article, the Toronto Sun (stay away from the comments), and CBC

Instersectional Oppression, Intersectional Privilege: White Female Privilege

2011-03-30T03:46:00.000-04:00

The existence of white female privilege is being debated. (See the comments here, or just read Renee's take on the whole thing). I see the debate as an example of the continued failure of white feminists to grasp intersectionality.

As I wrote here,

The universal human being is not just male. He is heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied, middle-class, and - in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand - white. We tend to conceptualize every deviation from the default atomistically, even though this does not reflect individual identities or experiences. So, for example, the experiences of a disabled woman of colour do not amount to the experiences of a white able-bodied woman + an able-bodied man of colour + a white disabled man. Her experiences are those of a disabledwomanofcolour. The different aspects of her identity cannot be separated out from each other.

As such, I do not just experience marginalization as a woman. I experience marginalization as a white woman (among many other aspects of my identity).

By the same token, I do not just have privilege as a white person. I have privilege as a white woman. I have white female privilege.

That is, there are assumptions made and expectations placed on me that, vis-a-vis my interactions with white men, rather suck. But vis-a-vis my interactions with people of colour - particularly women of colour - those same assumptions and expectations privilege me.

This is not contradictory. It's about relative power in the kyriarchy. This is intersectionality.

How To Wallow In Your Privilege

2011-03-27T21:48:00.000-04:00

I think my activity on Tumblr is mainly going to consist of cutting up other Tumblr users when they write horribly oblivious things.

This is something that I wrote on Tumblr today, and I thought I'd share it...

***

On March 21 the Admins of Fuck Yeah English Major Armadillo replied to an ask from eatenplacenta that let them know that many of the submissions they post are ableist - that is, the ones where Armadillo responds to improper grammar/spelling with rage, violence, and death threats. Personally, I agree that such posts are ableist - and not only that I think they are classist, racist and nativist as well. Also, not very funny. Seriously, it feels like there have been dozens of iterations of the same joke, we get the picture.

The Admins replied in a kinda-accommodating, kinda-'splainy and justifying way. They could have done better, but they also could have done worse. So, yeah, take that as you will.

ANYWAYS, today they posted another ask, from bw9, that was written in response to the ask about ablism. The admins posted it without any response or commentary, so one can only assume that they agree with it's content. It's pretty horrible. There was no option to reblog the ask, so I'm just doing a post on it.

I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not writing this just to pick on some random internet person. I'm writing this because bw9's ask is like a Derailing for Dummies bingo card. This highlights many tendencies of privileged people that we can learn from and endeavour to avoid ourselves.

So, let's start.

This is not so much a question as a response to a question posed on March 21. The post I'm referring to asserted that this blog "reeks of ableism". This was not the first time I'd seen something along those lines brought into the forum, but from what I can recall it's the first time one of the admins has responded. I feel like that question should be addressed by someone without the responsibility to the blog as a whole.

I don't know why bw9 thinks the question "should be addressed by someone without responsibility to the blog as a whole". I guess they think that they're doing a service by sharing their opinion with the world. Whatever.

Admins, you're doing a great thing here. Every time I look at this blog I chuckle at least once or twice. To blindside you with such an assertion was totally unwarranted and, in my opinion, a bit mean-spirited.

Making bw9 chuckle is great work. Far more important than sparing a thought for marginalized groups and maybe trying not to perpetuate their marginalization. That would deprive bw9 of chuckles. And we can't have that.

And don't you think it's so mean when folks try to assert their humanity/the humanity of disabled people? Standing up for themselves is totally unwarranted. How are you supposed to deal with that?

Your response to the post I'm referring to was as much as one could expect from someone whose creation is being attacked.

So some people feel attacked when they see that others want to "get their shotgun ready" whenever they open their mouths/write something. When they point out to you that they feel like they're being attacked, that's an attack on you!

In my opinion, the diction of the question asked of you

TONE ARGUMENT

made it nearly impossible to answer without condemning all of the Armadillo's followers who have posted as "ableists", and you managed to avoid that, so good for you.

Okay, sarcastic mode is now turned off.

First of all, "ablist", "racist", "sexist" etc. are not nouns - or at least, they should not be used as nouns. eatenplacenta did not use "ablist" as a noun. It's an adjective that describes an action that marginalizes or oppresses a disabled person.

It would be ridiculous to argue that Armadillo's followers are all ableists, as that would imply some knowledge of how they feel about disabled people. Their feelings are not the point. What matters is how they treat disabled people. That is, their actions and activities.

Second, now it's clear what this is all about. bw9 is personally offended by the (non-existent) implication that they are an ableist. This is classic privileged-person behaviour. Someone says that you hurt them, so you recentre the conversation around your feelings and intentions. So the hurt experienced by the marginalized person is never actually addressed, and you get to maintain your privilege. It's like, "You're standing on my foot!"

"How dare you accuse me of hating feet!" while not actually stepping off the person's foot.

Third, what's with the scare-quotes?

Now, a response to eatenplacenta: What gives?

I think that was made pretty clear in the original ask.

Yes, there are a large number of posts that mock those whose English skills and knowledge are not expansive. The posts range from expressing annoyance to full on hate. They get a bit intense at times, but there is one common theme all the posts share: they're all made in good fun.

"I want to blow your head off! Ha ha, just kidding!"

For bw9 it might all be good fun. But they aren't the one the jokes are targeting. Again, centring the perspective of the privileged over the perspective of the people who are actually hurt.

Jokes can be used to threaten. They can be used to bully. They can be used to marginalize. If you have never experienced this, then count yourself lucky. Laughing at someone excludes and others them. This is a pretty easy concept. It's called making fun of someone. I think we can all agree that making fun of someone - laughing at their expense - is a mean thing to do. I shouldn't have to argue this point, and yet here I am.

No one on this blog really feels the urge to murder someone for a minor grammar infraction or an ignorance of classic literature, no matter what they may write.

But what they write still expresses hatred. That they stop short of physical violence doesn't make it all okay.

If anyone does, I think all can agree that this person is seriously deranged.

And I think such a person would feel that their behaviour is endorsed by such jokes. When you joke about doing harm to someone, it reduces the social restraints against actually harming that person.

One of the best parts of word and language, in my opinion, is the opportunity for humor, something that is consistent in all posts on this blog.

Again, bw9 isn't the one being laughed at. Again, classic privileged behaviour - setting oneself up as the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, when they will never experience the adverse effects of the behaviour in question. The privileged person assumes that their assessment of the situation is objectively true and accurate, because their perspective is normalized by society.

The way that you posted was accusatory, which totally defeats the point of your question, which was, let's be honest, an accusation.

Being accusatory defeats the point of an accusation? I don't get it.

And what's wrong with accusing someone of something if the substance of the accusation is important?

The concept of ableism, in my mind, is at its most basic one group of people grouping themselves as superior over others.

Again, the privileged person defining that which they do not experience. A definition, no less, that focuses on the intentions of the privileged, instead of the experience of the marginalized.

Moreover, making fun of people's language skills communicates a sense of superiority over the one being made fun of. Even by bw9's definition, some of the Armadillo jokes are ableist.

Whether it be intellectually, physically, or morally, I do agree that it is wrong and is best avoided.

Isn't that magnanimous.

When you put yourself on a pedestal above everyone who's posted on the blog, you put yourself into a morally ableist position.

What is this? I can't even... By pointing out that some of the Armadillo content was ableist, apparently eatenplacenta positioned themselves as morally superior (?) and hence was being "morally ableist"????

Wut??????????????!

I guess this is kind of an awkward attempt at the "you brought up race, so you're the real racist!" type of thing?

An accusation of being ableist isn't the best way to try and disparage this particular blog.

This is the height of a privileged person centring their own perspective and erasing the marginalized person's concerns entirely. eatenplacenta's goal wasn't to assert the humanity and dignity of disabled people! No, it was to disparage a blog - a blog the bw9 follows. eatenplacenta didn't identify and address ableism! They were just looking for some way to attack Armadillo!

Granted, your assertion was that it is intellectually ableist, but personally, when I hear the term, physical disability is what comes to mind.

And... ?

The Admins and posters have made an effort to post everything in such a way so that everyone who comes across the website can enjoy its content. The descriptions below the posts, if you were unaware, is so that those who use screen readers can fully comprehend the image of the Armadillo. This does not seem like a group of ableists to me.

Again, making the conversation about what's in the privileged person's heart, their identity, instead of their actions. Entirely missing the point.

Analogy: There is an anti-racist white person. In conversation, this person refers to Asians as "Orientals". They are not aware, or have never thought about, the colonialist and exoticizing connotations of that word. They do not hate Asian people, but they still used racist language.

If someone tells them that it's racist to call Asian people Orientals, they hypothetical anti-racist white person could respond the way that bw9 has responded, and exclaim, "How dare you call me a racist! I make an effort to not be racist, therefore nothing I do is racist!"

Or, the hypothetical anti-racist white person could actually make an effort to not be racist, and respond, "Oh, I apologize. I will educate myself about racist language and make an effort to not use such language from now on."

I hope I don't come across too harsh in this response. I see the point in your question, I just don't see the point in how you worded it and the manner in which you posted it. It's important to consider how you word things--especially on a site dedicated to English majors--because I don't think you were looking for a fight.

bw9 sees eatenplacenta's point. After they have tried to contradict that point. And subsequently talks about tone instead, in the guise of offering helpful advice. Interestingly, bw9 assumes that eatenplacenta is not also an English major, thereby othering them.

We shouldn't mock people for mockery's sake, but as an outlet for stress and for humor, I'm sure people can agree with me that it's acceptable if it's done without a mean spirit.

It's okay to use certain people as verbal punching-bags, as long as it's not mean-spirited. It's the spirit of the thing that matters, not how it feels to be punched.

After all, the blog is filled with as many self-deprecating posts as there are of any other type.

Self-deprecating is different from mocking others.

Finally, the beauty of the internet and tumblr in particular is that there is an endless amount of sites to waste your time on. If these posts bother you so much, maybe it would be a good idea to see what some of the others have to offer.

Another beauty of the internet is that you can interact with people who call you out on your ableist bullshit.

I feel like this is a good discourse to have if both sides stay civil.

Who is this, Jon Stewart? Toneargumenttoneargumenttoneargument

In my opinion, you straddled the line, and I'm doing my best to stay on the right side of it. I hope I managed to do that. Now I know I'm an English major, this post has taken up 45 minutes and I have a paper due soon. Thanks again to the Admins for a great site.

Finally, bw9 takes the moral high ground over tone. No final words on how disabled people are actually affected by some of the Armadillo content. And then a nice little dismissive farewell.

Also, since bw9 is an English major I'm going to point out that "straddle" does not mean the same thing as "cross".

tl;dr: You can wallow in your privilege by refusing to acknowledge that marginalized groups even have a perspective, and by making every conversation about you and your feelings.

Or, you could decide not to do that.

"The Harper Government" Meme!

2011-03-26T14:01:00.000-04:00

Check it out!

The Invisibility of Women Warriors

2011-03-26T00:59:00.000-04:00

Ukrainian guerillas, 1944

I was watching a BBC World War II documentary about the Eastern front. It focused quite a bit on the partisan fighting in Ukraine. It was a while before I realized that the only footage they showed, and the only interviews they conducted were with male partisans.

My grandfather was part of the Ukrainian resistance during the war. And I have researched the activities of Ukrainian nationalists during WWII. So I know that there were more than a few women partisans - one of them even had her autobiography published in English (unfortunately I can't remember what it's called).

The documentary also showed local communist activists who were targeted by the Nazis - again none of them women. When there were certainly women among them - my grandfather's aunt was one of them.

Throughout the documentary, the narrator talked about German and Soviet atrocities carried out against the local populations for their support of nationalist partisans. Even against "women and children". Erasing the fact that there were women who were actively involved with the partisans. And assuming that it was somehow more reasonable to kill men who were not active partisans.

This post on Feministe criticizes the common MRA line that women ought to be more grateful to men because men are the ones who built society and fought in wars, blah blah blah. The idea that it has only ever been men who fought is, of course, bull shit. The assumption itself makes it easy to ignore any evidence to the contrary, obscuring the trials and sacrifices that women experienced as active fighters in war. It's a self-perpetuating myth, that is reflected throughout pop history.

Image is property of Jo Hedwig Teeuwisse, here on Flickr.

It's Election Time!

2011-03-25T14:54:00.000-04:00

"The Harper Government" has fallen! Good. I'm glad they were taken down on a vote of non-confidence due to the government being in contempt of Parliament in the first time in Canadian history. Instead of being taken down on the budget. It seems like the Liberals are aggressively trying to frame the election - unlike last time. They have to make this about democracy, not economic scare tactics.

Although I'm not terribly fond of the Liberals, and I think Michael Ignatieff is an enormous douche, they aren't anti-democratic like the Conservatives.

And if the Liberals don't win this one, they had better come together with the NDP and the Bloc to form a coalition government. Most Canadians vote for a left or left-of-centre party, and it's ridiculous we don't have a left/left-of-centre government.

Image source.

To My Fellow Privileged Feminists...

2011-03-24T09:32:00.005-04:00

So I just posted a rant at Sady Doyle on Tumblr. That might not have been the wisest course of action. But I'm angry and frustrated. I am disappointed in third wave feminism, and in us, white cisgender heterosexual able-bodied North American class privileged feminists. I thought we were trying to do better than our predecessors. I thought we were trying to set our egos aside and make room for people who deal with more axes of oppression than being cis women. I thought we were trying to not use feminism to trample over more marginalized people. Can we try to not fuck that up for a while? Seriously. And if we do fuck it up, can we at least try to not make things worse subsequently?

Without getting into the background of the Tumblr thing, here are some of the key points from my rant:

Questioning the subjective reality of the marginalized person you’re talking to is not cool.

You know what doesn’t matter and what you don’t need to explain when someone tells you you’re being racist, or disablist, etc? YOUR INTENT. Does. Not. Matter. What matters is that you understand how and why what you did was racist/disablist/etc, and that you make an effort to not do it again.

If you step on someone’s foot (to use the ever-popular foot-stepping metaphor) you don’t say, “yikes! Either I was being clumsy, or you got in the way. I’ll assume that I was being clumsy. But see, I was just trying to demonstrate this really neat dance move that involves a lot of stomping.” No. You step off the person’s foot, apologize, and be more careful.

As white cisgender heterosexual able-bodied North American feminists, I tend to think that we should always be combating our own privilege. That means not deciding, “Oh, I’ll just revel in my privilege this one time, in this one space.” If you realize that you’re looking at something from a privileged perspective, challenge your perspective yourself. Don’t wait for a more marginalized person to come along and do it for you.

(I refered back to this post)

What we can do is SHUT UP AND LISTEN. And help in the ways we are told we can help. And also: WE ARE OWED NO ALLOWANCES, NO ASSUMPTIONS OF GOOD FAITH. If you want to be considered an ally, you need to prove that you are an ally, and continue to prove it. And if you fuck up, that does not mean that you get a free pass because, hey, at least you’re trying! It means that you have to keep trying harder.

Yeah. End rant.

Hey, Torontonians!

2011-03-24T05:01:00.000-04:00

Are you going to SlutWalk on April 3rd?

And I'm Also On Tumblr Now

2011-03-21T19:10:00.000-04:00

It seems like a lot of stuff is going down on tumblr these days. So I jumped on that bandwagon too. Follow me on tumblr!

It's not going to be the exact same content as here; I think I'm going to do more post just about things that happen in my life, and random observations and stuff. Also, reblogging.

On Black People Being Held To A Special Standard Of Goodness: A Message To White People

2011-03-19T14:04:00.004-04:00

This video has been making the rounds online:

A white woman takes it upon herself to sneer at a younger black woman who is eating on the subway. She calls her an "animal". She says that she will be "going to jail". Apparently, the white woman - and countless others who have commented on this video - expected the black woman to just take being dehumanized by a stranger as she was going about her daily business. Apparently - to countless people who have commented on this video - the fact that the black woman did not just take it, but instead confronted the white woman, and did not let her get away with how she was treating her, and the white woman continued to antagonize the black woman until the confrontation became physical, "proves" something about the "aggressive nature" of black people.

As a white person myself, I would like to address that white woman, those internet commenters, and all white people who might watch this video: If you feel anything other than sympathy for the black woman in this video, and perhaps concern that the white woman will try to get her into trouble, then you are being racist.

If you think that black people should accept being antagonized, and dehumanized, and having their very personhood challenged; if you think black people should abstain from challenging the people who treat them that way, from asserting that they are people who deserve respect; if you think black people should just take that kind of treatment and let it wear away at their sense of self until they die - then you are being racist.

If you think the fact that a young black woman let herself go and became physically violent after being prodded, and prodded, and prodded, "proves" anything other than the probability that she puts up with a lot of shit in her life - then you are being racist.

If you think that any black person who is not perfect confirms the negative stereotypes about them - then you are being racist.

If you think that a white person should feel comfortable hurling insults at a random black person, secure in the knowledge that they will not be confronted for their actions - then you are being racist.

If you think this is simply a case of "bad manners", or being "disrespectful of elders", or "lacking self-control", and that race has nothing to do with it - then not only are you being racist, you're embarrassing yourself. This is a white woman using stereotypes about black people to bully a black woman. It's obviously about race. Sit down and stop being an idiot.

I'd like you to imagine that everyday, you put up with bullying, with major and minor slurs and insulting assumptions, not only from people you encounter day to day, but also from media, and embedded in the cultural narratives of the society in which you live. Do you imagine that, when confronted with an individual who interrupts your day to let you know that they consider you less than human, that you would always suffer in silence, that you would always take the high road, that you would always meet the requirement of being the bigger person?

Personally, I know that I've reacted to bullying in very much the same way as the young black woman in the video - standing in front of the bullies and not letting them pass, getting "in their face", and grabbing one by the shoulder when she tried to pass by me. Things might have gotten more physical had I not realized that we were standing across the hall from the principal's office.

So, yeah, I think the way the black woman in the video acted is entirely understandable. Of course, the difference between the two of us is that I'm white. The way I was being bullied did not fit into a pattern of discrimination that I had faced, and had watched my friends and family face, my entire life. I was in high school and knew that I would encounter bullies, I wasn't going about my daily business when I was shocked by some stranger interfering in my life. And, were someone else to witness the altercation that I was involved in, it would not occur to them to compare my behaviour to that of a predatory animal; they would not use my behaviour as "proof" of the aggressive tendencies of white girls. The observer might even support me and cheer me on, like people have supported this kid:

The two incidents are not directly analogous. The simple point I want to make is that when we see a white kid standing up to a bully, he gets a facebook page supporting him. When we see a young black woman standing up to racist bullying, she's pathologized.

If you're not disgusted by the white woman's behaviour, then you're siding with privilege over human decency. If you can't find in yourself the ability to empathize with the black woman she's harassing, you're letting racial difference get in the way of how you relate to people. If your first reaction is to judge the black woman, instead of the white woman who instigated the conflict, then you're being racist.

Stop.

WTF Cleverbot?

2011-03-18T02:01:00.002-04:00

My partner plays World of Warcraft. We were talking about the different bots people use in the game, and how sophisticated some of them are. That made me think of Cleverbot, the website where you can have a conversation with an artificial intelligence program. So I went over there.

I started by asking, "Do you play WOW?"

It replied, "No, I'm a girl."

There are girls who play WOW.

Are you a boy?

No.

You are a boy.

What makes you think that?

Because you love me and I am a girl.

I could be a lesbian.

You're a man?

No.

Is Scotland better than England?

Not only are you sexist and heteronormative, you're ethnocentric too.

You cannot claim ownership of that statement.

I totally own that statement.

Yes.

~~Seriously, who programs this thing?~~

I'm On Twitter!

2011-03-16T22:48:00.000-04:00

Yeah, so I got a Twitter account. Cause sometimes I want to share my thoughts, but there's not enough for a blog post. And it seems to be what all the cool kids are doing. Follow me please! (See sidebar for button) Also, I'm wondering who I should follow, so if you have any favourites, please suggest them!

It's About Power

2011-03-15T17:07:00.001-04:00

I've been catching up on feminist blogs, including a piece that Amanda Marcotte wrote for The Good Men Project called "The Solution to MRA Problems? More Feminism". The article is pretty much exactly what I think whenever I read anything by an anti-feminist "men's rights activist". Some of whom turn up in the comments to that very article. One individual who calls themselves thehermit wrote,

Equality would probably help everybody, the basic problem is, that feminism never was equality. Not at all.
Do they want 50% women in the congress? Of course. 50% of directors of big companies? Sure. 50% of homelesses? 50% of workplace deaths? …….
Oh wait, they only want half of the GOOD things.

This common MRA complaint actually is directly addressed by Marcotte in her article. But I want to talk about it here too.

The answer to all of thehermit's questions is YES.

In the "Western World" men have higher rates of workplace deaths because they are typically hired for more dangerous types of jobs like mining and factory work. Women were initially employed in these sectors. But then came union organization. Women were deliberately pushed out of these jobs by male workers because a) doing so lowered competition in the job market, and b) men could then justify demands for higher wages by saying that they had to support their wives.* Women were legislatively barred from many such occupations. Today, women might only face social barriers to working in the industrial sector, but those barriers - including social expectations, the prejudice of employers, and the prospect of being one of the few women in the workplace and as result having to deal with casual and overt sexism and possibly harassment every day - are significant. Feminists have backed employment and human rights regulations that whittle down these barriers somewhat. Feminists also pushed for women to be able to join the armed services, and to serve on the front lines. I think it's pretty obvious that feminists want employment equity in dangerous jobs as well as high-ranking positions. To suggest otherwise is just facetious and counter-factual.

Moreover, I think it's fair to say that in general, feminists don't want anyone to be homeless or to die as a result of their job.

But there's another, broader point I want to make.

There are a number of complaints that MRAs use to try to establish that men as a group are worse off than women in our society. The higher rate of workplace deaths among men - which is the result of men dominating sectors where you can get a well-paying union job without investing in higher education. The higher rate of men serving in the armed forces and dying in combat - when in the "West" armed service is an incident of full citizenship. Higher rates of suicide among men - as a result of greater pressure to succeed in the workplace. Men more frequently being the victims of violent crimes - which glosses over the fact that men are are even more frequently the perpetrators of violent crimes - and can be attributed to an array of social factors from the requirement that men use aggression to establish their masculinity, to the fact that men have more freedom to move through the public sphere.

The fact is that most of the things that MRAs complain about are the result of having social/structural power - having access to more sectors of employment, being recognized as a full citizen and person, having high expectations, being in leadership positions, being encouraged to develop and use their physical strength, etc. The fact that there are downsides to one's social position does not mean that those in less privileged positions are conspiring against you. Nor does putting up with those downsides mean that you have earned your privilege and that you deserve it more than anyone else.

An illustrative analogy: If you've seen The King's Speech, then you know that George VI faced some challenges in life. He had stresses and responsibilities that were unique to his position, that in fact likely shortened his life considerably. But the fact that his social position contributed to his early death at 52 does not mean that he was less privileged than a factory worker of that period who lived to 92. He was still the freaking king. Nor does the fact that he performed well as king mean that he deserved to be king more than a factory worker - his position was still an accident of birth.

The point: Everyone has to deal with the shit that comes along with their position in society. Having to deal with shit is not the same thing as being a member of a marginalized group.

MRAs talk about the downsides and upsides of gendered social positions. When they hear that women are expected to do more unpaid labour in the home, they find an upside to it - you get to spend more time with your kids! - and then turn the focus on the downsides of being the primary earner in a family - more stress and less family time! But every social position has downsides and upsides if you look for them. What matters is the relative power between social positions. Having to do more unpaid labour at home often results in one having lower earning capacity, and hence being financially dependent - that is, having less power. It results in one's activities being restricted to the private sphere, having less of a public presence, and hence having less of a political voice - that is, having less power.

Equalizing power means equally sharing the burdens that go along with that power, as well as the burdens of powerlessness. So, yeah, feminists want that.

*Sources: here, and Honeyman, Katrina and Jordon Goodman (1991) "Women's work, gender conflict, and labour markets in Europe, 1500-1900." Economic History Review 44 (4), 608-28.

Image source

A Radical Idea

2011-03-01T17:06:00.000-05:00

Not an actual woman.

In a recent interview, Charlie Sheen was asked if he has ever hit a woman. He replied, "Women are not to be hit. They are to be hugged and caressed."

I don't know much about Charlie Sheen. Or anything, really. But that one sound bite is enough for me to determine that he is an asshole.

Women are not to be anythinged, Charlie. They are neither your punching-bags, nor your body-pillows.They do not exist for your use. They are just people.

There are a lot dudes who are like Charlie Sheen. They say, "I'm not sexist! I think women are pure and lovely angels, who should be put on a pedestal." And when women prove to not be angels, but people with inner lives and ambitions and standards, these guys show their colours as the kinds of misogynists exhibited at man boobz - those who cannot comprehend that women do not exist for their personal gratification.

There's this idea in our culture that is perfectly expressed by FCUK's ad copy. "This is the woman. She is a very special thing." That is to say, "You don't get to be a full human being, but don't feel bad about it, because you're still so special." The idea is so ingrained that it even shows up in washroom signs.

Who wants to be a person, when you can be a beautiful, delicate flower instead?

Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler wrote that, "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." It's clear that the idea remains a radical one.
Image source
Image source 2

Bits and Pieces

2011-02-25T12:00:00.020-05:00

Oh, look! I haven't disappeared!

The thing with Attention Deficit Disorder is that it doesn't just mean that you have trouble concentrating on things. It also means that you're prone to hyper-concentrate on some tasks.

If you're wondering why there's been a lack of posts recently, the answer is: puzzles. Lots and lots of puzzles. And a new guitar. And shopping for bridesmaid dresses. But mostly, puzzles.

So now Libya is in upheaval? And Wisconsin? I have no clue what's going on.

Anyways, here is a collection of random feminist-y observations about the unimportant things that have been filling my life. Namely: Some Like It Hot, Get Smart, and hidden object games.

Some parts of this post talk about fictional depictions of sexual harassment and controlling/abusive behaviour. Just so you know.

***

Josephine and Daphne

I re-watched Some Like It Hot recently. Ie. the AFI's funniest American movie of the last 100 years. IMDb summarizes: "When two musicians witness a mob hit, they flee the state in an all female band disguised as women, but further complications set in."

I hadn't seen the movie in years. One thing I appreciated about it this time around is the way it depicts sexual harassment. It's a constant infringement on the heroes' lives, from the first scene with them dressed as women onward. Joe/Josephine (Tony Curtis) and Jerry/Daphne (Jack Lemmon) endure the attentions of the band's manager, a "dirty old man", a horny bellhop, and mafia goons. These aren't men whose attentions are sought-after; Joe and Jerry don't make conventionally attractive women; and obviously they aren't trying to attract attention to themselves. They do their best to discourage various come-ons, but the men just take their rebuffs as invitations to keep trying. "Don't bother to leave your door unlocked, I have a pass-key," the bellhop tells Josephine at one point. The threatening nature of these advances is especially apparent when Joe and Jerry - as Josephine and Daphne - get stuck in the elevator with the very same thugs they're trying to escape from. When the mobsters show interest in Josephine and Daphne, Joe and Jerry do their best to shut them down, while staying polite to avoid incurring anger - a familiar experience for many women. As they're getting off the elevator, one of the mobsters grabs the heroes' hotel key to see what room they're in. Because they're perceived as women, Joe/Josephine and Jerry/Daphne have little personal security.

I appreciate, probably more than I should, that harassment is depicted not as something that women ask for or encourage, but as an incursion. That it's not just something that happens to conventionally attractive women, who should take the attention as a compliment, but it's one of the risks of living as a woman.

Of course it's played for laughs, and the characters don't really change from the experience ("I'm tired of being the flag, I want to be the bull again!" Jerry complains at one point). But for what it is, I think the film is not bad at communicating what harassment is like, in a way that might get through to guys who wouldn't otherwise understand.

***

Something else I've watched recently was the original Get Smart series. And holy shit. Like, I know I'm letting my white privilege show here. And I know the series was made in the sixties - I've seen Breakfast at Tiffany's with Mickey Rooney's incredibly offensive yellow-face caricature. But wow, Get Smart was racist.

The villain was this ambiguously Asian character named Dr. Claw - which led to many "Not 'Craw,' 'Craw'!" jokes as he tried to get people to say his name properly. Inexplicably, in his hide-out was a portrait of George Washington with his eyes painted like a Japanese print - I have no idea what that was supposed to imply. His henchmen were named "Bobo" and "Toto". And the presence of "Orientals" at the scenes of various crimes was considered a clue.

Not to mention that the way that agent 99 simpers over Smart is ridiculous. The writers present absolutely no reason why she would be attracted to him, other than the fact that he's a dude.

And the nostalgia for this show was enough to warrant a movie. Yeah, whatever.

One of the results of an image search for
"Dr. Claw"

***

Isn't it romantic how he wants to control
every aspect of her life?

I enjoy playing adventure/hidden object games (and yes, I am an adult). I recently finished one called Mystery Legends: The Phantom of the Opera. In general it was a very well constructed game - it was visually attractive, the puzzles were fairly challenging, and the plot was compelling. But the conclusion...

So the game is set years after the original story ended. Christine has a daughter named Evaline who looks just like her. She looks so much like her mother that the Phantom (who is still alive) mistakes her for Christine, kidnaps her, and takes her to the abandoned opera house. You play Evaline, and the game consists of trying to escape by finding black roses to give to the Phantom to "prove your love". Which sounds weird, but it's set up in such a way as to make it seem like you're humoring the Phantom so you can gain access to more areas of the opera house and eventually find an escape route.

Throughout the game, the Phantom is portrayed as creepy and controlling, saying things like, "You denied my love, so I shall deny you freedom!" At the end of each chapter of the game, the Phantom recounts part of the story of how Christine "betrayed" him. But he always speaks to you from the other side of a mirror. Finally, you come face-to-face with the Phantom. And... he rows you to his lair. Where... the story ends. With an epilogue that asks, "Will Evaline warm the Phantom's heart and gain her freedom? Or will he be her angel of music forever?" Because abusers stop being abusive if you "warm their hearts."

But wait! There's bonus content! An extra level to play! Surely, the game makers will redeem the plot-line?

They don't. Despite working through a bunch of puzzles, nothing is added to the story. But Evaline does find a portrait of Christine that tells her (yeah, the portrait talks), "Be brave, my daughter, but be gentle with his fragile heart." Because her kidnapper's feelings are the most important thing at stake here.

The whole thing comes off as fanfiction concocted by the type of people who are like, "Edward Cullen is so romantic!" (despite the fact that he's a stalker); and "[soul-less] Spike was the only one who understood Buffy! True love!" (despite the fact that he tried to use his understanding to keep her depressed and away from her friends and hence under his influence, oh, and tried to rape her). The epilogue says something about how accidentally kidnapping their daughter is actually the perfect revenge against Christine and Raul. It seems implied that it's the revenge the game-makers think they deserve. While the Phantom will finally be able to make someone love him.

You know, I don't play casual games expecting to find apologia for abusive behaviour. WTF, game-makers, WTF?

***

The hidden object game that I'm playing now is called Escape the Museum 2. It's about a guy whose wife and daughter get trapped in a museum after an earthquake. He has to make his way across town to save them, risking his life to save other victims of the earthquake and return lost teddy bears along the way, while heroically avoiding the police who insist that he stay in a safe place and let them do the rescuing.

In the game he's a hero, but in real life, he'd be recklessly endangering his own life and the lives of others, doing things like trying to single-handedly hoist a fallen ATM off a person using rope and a bracket for a wall-mounted TV. In between each level a series of snapshots appear on the screen, showing the guy and his family enjoying happier times. Which is supposed to show, what? That he really loves his family? Which makes him more special than everyone else who stays in the safe area? I don't know.

This little hidden object game is a perfect illustration of one of the ways that Patriarchy Hurts Men Too - by encouraging and even requiring needlessly dangerous behaviour. The main character is a Good Father, which means he protects his womenfolk by getting in the way of professional rescue workers and putting himself in harms way.

Image sources: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven

New Meme Alert!

2011-02-19T02:50:00.000-05:00

Being mocked for your ignorance? That's really sad, but everything happens for a reason.

See the new ApologistBeiber tumblr for more.

For Trans Equality Write To Your Senators

2011-02-10T12:10:00.000-05:00

Some good news this morning; from suite 101:

Bill C-389, introduced by NDP MP Bill Saskay and read for the first time in May 2009, provides rights and protections to the transgendered. The bill, opposed by the Conservative government but supported by the three opposition parties, passed third and final reading by a vote of 143-135.

The purpose of the bill is to extend the concept of equality to transgendered persons in respect to all matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The legislation is to ensure the transgendered have equal opportunity and equal access in order to better meets their needs.

So the bill amends the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to protect people from discrimination and hate crimes on the basis of "gender identity" and "gender expression".

To me, this is rather a no-brainer. If a trans individual brought a Charter challenge regarding their protection under federal legislations, they would easily win. They're clearly an analogous group to the groups that are explicitly protected by the Charter. And while the Supreme Court of Canada has been overly deferential to the government as of late, they do understand that their purpose is to protect people, and based on her statements I think that Chief Justice McLachlin considers herself progressive at heart. So I don't see them buying the justifications for excluding trans individuals from protective legislation.

Those objections, as cited on Pam's House Blend, being: "The group is ill-defined!" (Lots of groups, and things in law are. Doesn't stop them from being defined.) "This is an imposition on the rights of individuals to discriminate!" (Yeah, that's not an acceptable argument.) The one argument that might carry some weight is the "But then men will be able to go in womens washrooms!" one. I really hope the court is smarter than that. But even if they do buy that one, as a justification it does not pass the minimal impairment test - it does not justify trans individuals being excluded from protection against all discrimination and hate crimes.

The way I see it, bill C-389 saves the time, effort, and cost of a Charter challenge that eventually will happen. But then, the Cons have proven from day one have proven themselves to be anti-Charter rights, by terminating the court challenges program, which funded equality-based challenges brought by disadvantaged groups. So, I'm disgusted by the Cons, but I really didn't expect anything better.

The thing that got me was this, again from the salon101 piece:

Although Bill C-389 passed the House of Commons, the Conservative dominated Senate is likely to prevent the bill from passing into law.

As an unelected body, it really is not up to the Senate to block legislation passed by the House of Commons. It happens rarely and usually on major issues that they feel have not properly been put before the public, like passing NAFTA and restrictions on abortion. And it would be painfully ironic for the Cons to use the Senate to block this bill, seeing as they have gone on about how the Senate is unrepresentative and undemocratic since they were the Reform Party.

So please, write to your Senators. Let them know that you support bill C-389. You can send mail to Senators postage free at this address:

The Senate of Canada
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A4
Especially write to the Conservative ones. Especially the ones appointed by Harper. You can find a list of Senators, sorted by province and territory, here.

Image source.

9 Reasons Not To Spank Your Kids

2011-02-09T13:00:00.001-05:00

I just read a post by Renee at Womanist Musings, written in response to an article called, "8 Reasons to Spank Your Kids." I agree with Renee's take entirely. Corporal punishment is something I have strong opinions about, and intend to write a full post on at some point. For now I'll just say that corporal punishment is not about what's best for the child, but about breaking their will, as one breaks-in a horse. And I'll quote from an article by Anne McGillivray, in which she summarizes the results of Elizabeth T. Gershoff's meta-analysis of over eighty studies on the effects of corporal punishment:

12 of 12 studies of the association between corporal punishment and mental health found that it was associated with poorer mental health in children.
13 of 13 studies examining parent-child relationships found that corporal punishment was associated with poorer quality in relationships between the child and the parent, including fear and resentment of the parent, aggression against the parent, and erosion of trust and closeness between child and parent.
27 of 27 studies on the relationship between corporal punishment and the level of aggression in children found corporal punishment to be associated with increased aggression -- bullying, fighting, and 'acting out' against siblings, peers, and parents.
12 of 13 studies on the relationship between physical punishment and antisocial behaviour found that physical punishment is associated with increased delinquency and other anti-social behaviour.
13 of 15 studies documented a relationship between physical punishment and lower levels of moral internalization -- children who receive physical punishment are less likely to internalize moral reasoning and values, and are more likely to demonstrate lower levels of empathy and pro-social reasoning (i.e. thinking about others and about consequences for other people).
4 of 4 studies on adult aggression confirmed the relationship between corporal punishment and heightened aggression in adulthood.
5 of 5 studies on adults who abuse a spouse or a child confirmed the relationship between receiving corporal punishment as a child, and violence against a spouse or child (domestic violence) as adults.
5 of 5 studies on adult criminal and anti-social behaviour confirmed the relationship between corporal punishment in childhood and criminal activities in adulthood.
8 of 8 studies on adult mental health problems confirmed the relationship between corporal punishment in childhood and depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, and other mental health problems in adulthood.

Before anyone comments on it, I'd like to point out that these studies found relationships between corporal punishment and various outcomes, not one-to-one causation. So no, I'm not arguing that if you were spanked as a child you must be a criminal now. But there is a relationship between the two.

I think finding number five is the most interesting and thought-provoking. Instead of learning to empathize with others and make moral judgements, children who experience corporal punishment are taught to act based on fear of punishment. Of course, depending on the individual, one may or may not internalize this lesson. It makes me think of the religious conservative types, who have more patriarchal families and long for the good-old-days (when beating children was more socially acceptable). The ones who fear hell, and tell everyone else that they're going to hell, and can't seem to empathize with LGBTQ people, or women, or immigrants. It also reminds me of my friend's son, who is not spanked, and is a sweet, helpful boy. When he was three he warned his parents not to squash a bug, because, "it wants to live!" I just about died when I heard that story - how many three year-olds empathize with bugs?

Ultimately, corporal punishment is about asserting power and control through pain and fear, and that can't be a good environment for a child to grow up in.

Citation:
Anne McGillivray, “Child Physical Assault: Law, Equality and Intervention,” (2004) 30 Man. L.J. 133, summarizing Elizabeth T. Gershoff, “Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associate Child Behaviors and Experiendes: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review” (2002) 128 Psychological Bulletin 539-579.

Image source

Crazy: Addendum

2011-02-08T11:00:00.000-05:00

In this post, I talked about how calling someone "crazy" - even if good-natured in intent - is dismissive and derogatory. In similar conversations about other words ("retarded", "gay", etc.), it's common to see comments in the vein of, "Now I'm not allowed to say [crazy/retarded/gay/etc.]!? Censorship! Political correctness police! Newspeak!"

I have not had any such comments here, but they came to mind, as I've found that taking "crazy" out of my vocabulary has resulted in me expressing myself better. Because now instead of just saying "that's crazy!" I have to put more thought into my intended meaning. Instead of "crazy", "nuts", "insane"; it's "unpredictable", "out of control", "incomprehensible", "irrational", "illogical", it "doesn't make sense". I have to be more precise in my language. And I avoid simply dismissing an idea or person - saying something is "irrational requires justification; saying something "doesn't make sense" invites explanation.

Contrary to what those opposed to "political correctness" think, avoiding dismissive slurs improves discourse for everyone.

Image source.

An Open Letter To Lady Gaga, From A Fan And Fellow Feminist

2011-02-07T15:30:00.006-05:00

Dear Lady Gaga,

I love what you do. The populist spirit with which you insist that pop culture is art. Your devotion to performance. The sense of community that you're building with your fans. That you're not afraid to make out with butch women in your music videos, or be photographed in drag. I love that you've taken up the phrase "born this way," not only as the title of your next single and album, but almost as a slogan. In light of the constructedness of your image, it's very post-modern, and speaks strongly to self-determination - you become the person you want to be, and no one else can tell you who you are. And I relate to you - your upbringing, your feminism, your desire to create and to be heard. I relate to "Wonderful." In other words, I'm a huge fan.

But I need to tell you something, not as a fan, but as a fellow feminist. Specifically, as a fellow white feminist.

It's about "Born This Way." You released the lyrics a little while ago. A lot of people found them inspiring and life-affirming, as they were intended to be. A bunch of people thought they were trite - but honestly I don't think that will matter once the lyrics are set to music. And some people found them offensive. Normally, you don't respond to criticism, and often that's a good thing. But you need to listen to those people.

Those would be the people you refer to in your song as "Cholas" and "Orient made". Terms that are both racist.

You didn't mean to be racist. But that doesn't matter. The words you used hurt people. The hurt remains, whether you intended it or not.

Maybe you know people who refer to themselves as "Cholas". And that's fine for them. It's called "reappropriating the pejorative" - the same thing as what you do with the word "bitch". But you can't reappropriate if you're not part of the group that the pejorative is applied to. So you can call yourself a "bitch" or "guidette" as much as you like - but use the word "Chola"? Not so much. Or maybe you know women who refer to themselves as "Cholas" not because they're trying to make anything positive out of it, but just because they're buying into negative stereotypes. Doesn't change anything. My partner's father is Chinese-Canadian and tells Chinese jokes all the time, which I am not going to repeat anywhere. Because that would be racist. The jokes don't stop being racist just because I heard them from someone who is Chinese.

Maybe you didn't realize that "Orient" is considered offensive. A lot of people don't. But that doesn't make the word less exoticizing, or less associated with imperialism and stereotypes. And, as someone trying to write about race, it was your job to find out what is and isn't considered offensive.

There will be a lot of Hispanic and Asian people who will say that they aren't offended by the words you used. Okay. That doesn't erase the hurt of other people. That doesn't change the fact that the words that you chose convey negative stereotypes.

There will be people who say that you shouldn't be criticized because you created a song that is supposed to be positive and life affirming. But if you want to create something positive, you need to listen to such criticism. If you're using language that is hurtful and offensive, then you have not achieved your objective.

There will be people who say that this doesn't matter. But it does. This is the type of thing that white feminists are known for: being oblivious to racial issues. Thinking so highly of their own (trite) opinions that they do not take the time to listen and understand before speaking and acting. And then getting defensive and denying that they did anything wrong. As one white feminist to another I need to tell you that we need to stop doing this. Otherwise, we're just hypocrites, and we will never get anywhere. You've made the first two mistakes. Please, please don't make the third.

Here's what to do instead: Acknowledge the criticism. Apologize. Listen to what groups like Chicanos Unidos Arizona and MEChA have to say. If there's time, change the lyrics to "Born This Way". Learn. And do better.

You're new to this feminism thing. You're going to make mistakes. The important thing is how you react to those mistakes.

So many young people look up to you. You've set a good example for them before, by advocating for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I hope you set a good example again by addressing dealing with the criticism of "Born This Way".

Sincerely,
Marissa (A Little Monster)

Edit: Related reading at Racialicious: Lady Gaga Brings Cholas Back To Pop Culture – Like It Or Not

Image source

Weekly Joy

2011-02-07T12:30:00.001-05:00

This week: Supernatural star, Jensen Ackles (links to a YouTube vid - it's funny!)

What? It can't just be kittens and bunnies every week!

Image source

Racism Isn't Ironic

2011-02-05T10:30:00.001-05:00

An Idiot Abroad has been running for a while now. If you haven't heard about it, the show is premised on following a inexperienced British man on a trip around the world, so that everyone can laugh at the racist things he says. One of the creators is Ricky Gervais. Something happened recently that made me think of it.

My partner's father has a tendency to say offensive things. My partner had a tendency to do impressions of his father saying offensive things. He wasn't recounting stories, just saying what he thought his father would say in a given context.

It got kind of irritating.

"You know, just because you're saying something in your dad's voice, doesn't mean that you're not the one who's actually saying it."

My partner thought about this for a moment.

"Yeah, you're right."

So he pretty much cut it out.

Ironic/hipster racism - of which An Idiot Abroad is a prime example - works the same way. You can put an ironic tone on it, be all like, "This is what a racist person would say! Ha ha! We're not like that!" But ultimately, you're the one who came up with the racist stuff, and decided that it needed to be shared.

Ironic racism really is just plain racism.

The "No Abortions For Floozies!" Stance

2011-02-02T02:44:00.001-05:00

Someone who deserves to be forced
into childbearing

I was reading the comments on Sady Doyle's article on H.R.3, and came across a comment from someone calling themselves Evil Conservative:

Don't just lead with John Boehner.The abortion bill was sold to the public as a way to an abortion in the event of rape or incest. Something like 2-3% of the time. Now, abortion has become a right and a cottage industry. All those that go out and have a one nighter, or for whatever reason need an abortion-do it. It's like getting a wart removed!! There is no revererce for life.

I'd be more inclined to have rapists castrated or have ladies that want to just have sex with no consequences get fixed. I think that would be better than just worrying about funding.

Rape is a terrible crime of power.I'm not minimizing it at all. But these cases of rape should be taken case by case, and any others hopefully would take some precautions and protect themselves.

Despite the commenter's moniker, the comment reminded me of many a conversation I've had with people who identify as liberal. The notion that there be some readily identifiable circumstance excusing the woman from carrying the foetus to term is a common one. People who consider themselves pro-choice may go so far as acknowledging that financial constraints meet this criteria, but then - just like Evil Conservative - they add the qualification that there has to be some reason to have an abortion besides "she doesn't want to be pregnant and have a kid." Oh, and she has to have used some contraceptive that failed. We can't have people using abortion as their first, last, and only line of defence against pregnancy! I've seen people take this position over and over again, in real-life and online. I would go so far as to say that in liberal circles, this is the standard, "reasonable" stance on abortion.

Let me restate what that stance is: All women have to submit their sexual activity to scrutiny in order to prevent hypothetical floozies from running around carelessly having sex and terminating their pregnancies. So that those hypothetical floozies can be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. Because they must be held responsible for having sex - they must be punished.

Doesn't sound so reasonable anymore.

In fact, it's amazingly inconsistent. "These women are irresponsible and morally deficient... they should be parents!" It's part of the conservative tendency to objectify and instrumentalize children (a topic for a whole 'nother post). A child's need to be taken care of by ~~capable and loving parents~~ parents who are prepared to give the child a loving home is not considered. The child is a tool to enforce norms of sexual propriety. They don't consider that children need to be wanted - therefore people who do not want children should not be forced to have them.

It's a ridiculous stance because it's based on a hypothetical situation that does not align with reality. Women do not carelessly forego birth control because the know they can just get an abortion. Even if abortion is a readily available option, it is in no way convenient. Women don't think to themselves, "Pfft, who needs contraceptives when I can just make an appointment at a clinic; undergo an uncomfortable, painful procedure; find someone to drive me home; be knocked out for the rest of the day on pain-killers; maybe take a few days off work; go on a round of antibiotics; watch my diet for a couple weeks to make sure I'm getting enough iron; avoid exercising, heavy lifting, swimming, taking baths, and using tampons for two weeks; and not have sex for two to four weeks!"

A woman still might have sex without contraceptives - they might be inaccessible to her, she might have had sub-standard sexual education and not know how to prevent pregnancy, her partner might insist, etc. But the woman who shuns contraception because of the convenience of abortion is a fiction. The floozies are bogey-women. They are constructed in the minds of the public and of policy-makers to limit access to abortion for all women.

But all this aside, "I just don't want to be pregnant and have a child," is a sufficient reason to get an abortion. You can't judge whether a woman is ready to go through with a pregnancy or not. No one is in a position to fully evaluate her circumstances - including her particular capabilities, and her mental and emotional state - except for her.

The most important thing to remember about this stance is that ultimately, you can't put the reproductive decisions of some women up for review without putting the reproductive decisions of all women up for review. And that's just unreasonable.

This is the first result of an image search for "hypothetical
floozies"

Image source and source.

To My American Readers...

2011-02-01T15:17:00.003-05:00

H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act" would limit the exemption that allows federal funding of abortions for survivors of rape and incest to those whose pregnancy is the result of "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest." Survivors of rape are to be scrutinized and re-victimized, not helped.

Read what Sady Doyle and Nick Baumann have to say about all this.

And take action by clicking on the banner at the top of this ~~page~~ post.

Edit 1: And take part in the #DearJohn campaign.

Edit 2: Palaverer at Chunky Monkey Mind has done an extremely thorough job compiling links to resources and commentary on H.R.3. Check it out.

Weekly Joy

2011-01-31T12:00:00.000-05:00

"Out On The Water" by Camera

Marketing Diversity: WINdows and FAILdows at Holt Renfrew

2011-01-26T17:07:00.002-05:00

In case you aren't familiar with Canadian retailers, Holt Renfrew is the high-end department store in the country. Holt's flagship store in Toronto is known for having creative and eye-catching window displays. I walked by there yesterday, and saw that their windows were set up for Valentine's Day in a series of five or six scenes, each featuring a mannequin couple and a mannequin cupid. Most of the couples consisted of a male mannequin and a female mannequin, and most of the mannequins were stark white.

This was the first display that really caught my attention:

There are two male mannequins posed arm-in-arm: one is silver-coloured, wearing a grey suit and funnels on his head; the other is wearing a blue sweater with a blue-checked shirt and ruby-red pants, and carrying a basket. The heart-shaped speech bubble floating above them says, "Stop him in his tracks."

They're a gay Dorothy and Tin-Man! "That's so cute!" I thought. Okay, so maybe it's playing on the stereotype of the flamboyant gay man who loves Judy Garland and musicals. But still: adorable. And it was cool to see Holt's recognizing that they have gay customers whose relationships are just as worth celebrating on Valentine's Day as the relationships of straight people.

I walked on a few paces, until I got to this display:

A white-coloured male mannequin and black-coloured female mannequin are posed in an embrace. This is the only black-coloured mannequin in the entire store front, so it seems obvious that the display is supposed to represent an interracial couple. The heart-shaped speech bubble says, "Better than chocolate."

"Zuh?" I thought. "I don't... what?" And that's about as far as I've gotten understanding what's going on here. Is "better than chocolate" an intentional reference to skin colour? If so, what is it supposed to mean? Or is the copy just the result of poor decision making, that nobody thought to point out? I really don't know what to make of it.

After standing bemused for a few moments, I moved on. And saw this:

Two female mannequins, one white-coloured and one brown-coloured, are posed as though caressing each other. The are both wearing lingerie. The heart-shaped speech bubble says, "Entice the Senses."

Oh, the sexy-girl-on-girl-action-! trope. So tired; so objectifying. FAIL, Holt Renfrew. FAIL.

The people depicted in a company's marketing reflect both their actual customers, and who they want to attract. For over a hundred years, Holt Renfrew was the store of the old-money White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant establishment in Canada. But in the twenty-first century Holt's remade itself - as still sophisticated, but more urbane, and most of all young. Having done customer satisfaction surveys for Holt Renfrew, it seems like a significant portion of their clientèle are still of the old-money WASP establishment, and that they're quite put-out by the direction that Holt's has taken. So I suspect that when the store was designing their widow displays they weren't so much taking diversity into account as a fact of life, as thinking that featuring gay, lesbian and interracial couples in their marketing is a way of signifying, we are young and socially sophisticated.

When the depiction of diversity is approached in that kind of calculated way, there's bound to be a certain degree of FAIL. Instead of just illustrating people in all their forms, one is ticking boxes for different kinds of people, and then people become stereotypes. So instead of showing a couple doing something couple-y, and oh, they happen to be lesbians, one ends up thinking, "I have to include lesbians; how do I do that? ... I know! With a stereotype!" And the result is the "Entice the Senses" window of Holt Renfrew's Valentine's Day display.

At the same time, it was still kind of cool to see a major retailer including different kinds of couples in its marketing. It's still notable. I wish it was something that could just be taken for granted.

Original top image source. Modified with LOLBuilder. Photos of window displays taken by me.

Weekly Joy

2011-01-24T12:30:00.006-05:00

This week: cute gifs!

Weekly Joy

2011-01-17T12:30:00.002-05:00

This week: a couple of slacker-looking dudes goofing off while playing and absolutely gorgeous arrangement of Lady Gaga songs.

Crazy

2011-01-11T03:36:00.001-05:00

Morgan constantly flits from one thing to another, and has never been able to settle on a single path in life.

"That Morgan is crazy!" someone comments. Ha ha ha!

Morgan is bipolar, and has been suicidal in the past.

* * *

Leslie is schizophrenic.

Someone elaborates, "Or in the words of those in the industry, cuckoo!" while drawing circles in the air next to his ear. Ha ha ha!

* * *

As a listener in those conversations, I was shocked. I should not have been.
"Crazy" is one of the first words I reach for when I want to dismiss someone, when I can't be bothered to understand them (for example, Glenn Beck). I know that "crazy" is a joke. It's Homer Simpson in the Treehouse of Horror segment "The Shinning". "Crazy" is not to be taken seriously.

And the way we use "crazy" cannot be separated from the way we understand mental illness as a serious subject.

* * *

On his Monday show, Stephen Colbert addressed the shooting that occured in Tucson Arizona this past weekend, saying, "We may never know what motivated this clearly troubled individual". Earlier, on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart had said that while Americans should work to improve their political discourse, it's impossible to say whether the current political climate was a contributing factor to the attack, commenting that no matter what the political climate is like, "crazy will always find a way."

While finger-pointing may not be the most helpful or productive reaction to the recent shooting, I don't believe that the Stewart/Colbert approach is much better. The fact is that we do know what motivated Jared Laughner. He shared his thoughts and concerns with the world via YouTube. While often incoherent, what he had to say was not incomprehensible. It is possible to understand where he is coming from. Saying that "we may never know what motivated" Laughner does a disservice to all people with mental illness. It puts them in the category of Those Who Cannot Be Understood, premptively dismissing everything they have to say. And one wonders, if people with mental illness cannot be understood, then how can they be helped? The comment that "crazy will always find a way" does the same thing. It casts mental illness as a wild, elemental force. But mental illness can be understood, mitigated, and controlled.

Calling someone "crazy" is a way to dismiss them without seriously considering their perspective. Really, it's a cop-out; it's intellectual laziness. Pointing out that Laughner is mentally unstable is likewise a cop out. It doesn't explain anything. There are many, many people living with serious mental illness who have not resorted to political violence. Jared Laughner is not just a crazy person. He is a person, with reasons for behaving the way he has.

* * *

We call people "crazy" when we don't want to try to understand them, because we don't think people with mental illness are worth trying to understand. The fact that someone is living with mental illness is enough reason to dismiss their perspective, because "crazy" is something that should be dismissed.

"Crazy" hurts people. It hurts the people that it is used against by implying that their inner lives are nonsensical and meaningless, by generalizing about the unique psychological burdens that they have to deal with, and by refusing to take them seriously as individuals. And it hurts those who wield it against others, by inhibiting empathy and limiting our understanding of our fellow human beings.

It's a word that I'm going to try very hard to stop using.

Image Source

Weekly Joy

2011-01-10T12:00:00.003-05:00

Before Meomi designed the mascots for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics... before they were even called "Meomi"... they made this video...

On Gay People Being Held To A Special Standard Of Goodness

2011-01-07T16:33:00.000-05:00

Ever read Post Secret and think to yourself, "it's a good thing the secret-keeper keeps that one to themselves, because that's just offensive, and makes them look clueless." This week there was one of those.

If you can't see the image, it consists of a photocopied picture of soldiers in combat, over which someone has drawn rainbow stripes, and pasted the text:

I thought gays fought to promote tolerance of differences thus the rainbow flag representing their acceptance of diversity. Seems like fighting and killing are the exact opposite of promoting tolerance and diversity.

Where to begin...

First, there's this thing called Wikipedia, where you can look up the origins and significance of things like the Rainbow Flag. You know, just to make sure you've got it right. As it turns out, it doesn't represent that gay people have "accepted diversity" so much as the diversity of the LGBTQ community itself. A bit of a difference there.

Second, gay people have not made it their job to "fight to promote tolerance of differences" in every way. Because there is no representative Council of Gay that decides what gay people are going to do and what they stand for.

Third, even if someone is a pacifist, that doesn't mean that they're down with discrimination in the military. Being able to defend one's country is an important part of asserting equal citizenship.

Seriously, I think the rainbow imagery has some people confused into thinking that LGBT folks are all magical happy people filled with peace and understanding. Note to postcard writer: "gays" are just people.

A Message To Christmas Warriors

2011-01-07T07:00:00.000-05:00

My family is celebrating Christmas today. There are no carols on the radio. One person at work yesterday wished me "Merry Christmas," because she's celebrating today too; but there are no "Happy Holidays" from strangers. The only decoration in a public space that I've seen was a black-and-white computer-printed "Христос ся рождає" on the door of the liquor store by my parent's place. And it strikes me that this is what the "War on Christmas" people are afraid of.

"The War on Christmas" isn't actually about Christmas itself. It's about asserting privilege - this is obvious. It's about making sure that one's beliefs and practices are the centre of attention for an entire month out of the year; making everyone else cater to one's own religious calendar; and refusing to acknowledge difference. The entire thing is simply an exercise in whiny self-centredness.

I know this for a fact. I've celebrated Christmas on both December 25th and January 7th, and here's what I've noticed: Ukrainian Christmas (or Eastern Orthodox Christmas) is no less of a special day for lack of public acknowledgement. It's still a time for family to get together, eat good food, exchange gifts, practice traditions, and (possibly) go to church. It's still a happy, heartwarming occasion. In fact, I've often found it to be the more enjoyable holiday, for the very reason that it lacks the hype and hectic-ness of "regular" Christmas.

I have a message for the soldiers of the War on Christmas: lay down your arms. You have nothing to fear in surrender.

Image source

Weekly Joy

2011-01-03T12:00:00.003-05:00

This week: Meme

Stupid Christmas Songs

2010-12-30T02:43:00.001-05:00

Santa's not "rocking out." He's just really frustrated with some

of the stupid songs he has to listen to.

Christmas may have passed, but there are things about the holiday that stay with you long after it's over. Like songs that get stuck in your head. Now, I love me some carols. But there are some horrible, horrible Christmas songs out there. These are a few of them...

# 7 Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer

Hit-and-run deaths make for charming
Christmas tree ornaments!

YouTube
Lyrics

I'm not opposed to dark humour. I just don't find this song funny. At all. And I can't get over the feeling that it's sexist, or ageist, or both; what with this...

Now we're all so proud of Grandpa,
He's been takin' this so well.
See him in there watchin' football,
Drinkin beer and playin' cards with cousin Mell.

Grandpa really doesn't seem to care that his wife just got killed. This song isn't the only place where I've come across the idea that old men just want to get rid of their wives once they aren't youthfully attractive any more. It's not an idea that I find amusing.

#6 Mary, Did You Know?

Pictured: Mary being the first to know

YouTube
Lyrics

I just find this song condescending.

Mary, did you know
that your baby boy is Lord of all creation?
Mary, did you know
that your baby boy will one day rule the nations?
Did you know
that your baby boy is heaven's perfect Lamb?
The sleeping Child you're holding is the Great, I Am.

Yes, Mary did know all of this. In fact, she was the first mortal to find out about it. So stop acting like you were in on some great irony and she wasn't. Asshole.

#5 Here Comes Santa Clause

What is this? I can't even...

YouTube
Lyrics

As a child this was one of my favourite Christmas songs. I think my attention span was such that I never really listened to the last verse. It's kind of a devious song; the first couple of verses are all about reindeer and toys, and then the last verse slaps you with this:

Peace on earth will come to all
If we just follow the light
Lets give thanks to the lord above
‘Cause Santa Clause comes tonight

Is Santa coming to give us toys or to lead us into the light of Christ? Is he a jolly old elf, or a missionary? Make up your mind, Bing!

#4 Last Christmas

Have a pouty Christmas!

YouTube
Lyrics

Last Christmas
I gave you my heart
But the very next day you gave it away
This year
To save me from tears
I'll give it to someone special

This isn't even a proper Christmas song. It's a self-pity anthem that happens to be set during Christmas. The singer had a one-night stand a year ago, still isn't over it, and now is attempting to throw shade at the girl by saying, "oh, you just weren't special enough!" Dude, she doesn't even remember you!

Tell me baby
Do you recognize me?
Well
It's been a year
It doesn't surprise me

Why are you even talking to her? She clearly doesn't care what you do with your heart. And I don't think you should be gifting your heart to anyone new either, at least not until you're able to find self-validation outside of a relationship.

#3 Grown-Up Christmas List

Wishing really hard that the world was a
better place.

YouTube
Lyrics

Do you remember me?
I sat upon your knee
I wrote to you with childhood fantasies
Well I'm all grown up now
Can you still help somehow?
I'm not a child but my heart still can dream

So here's my lifeful wish
My grown up Christmas List
Not for myself
But for a world in need

No more lives torn apart
That wars will never start
And time will heal our hearts
Every man will have a friend
That right will always win
And love will never end
This is my grown up Christmas List

Ah, Christmas... the time of year that we can all ask Santa to make the world a better place... instead of actually doing something to help.

Also, I don't appreciate the implication that it's not grown-up to want - or, y'know, need - stuff for Christmas.

#2 Baby It's Cold Outside

Why don't you come in and warm up with Santa?

Lyrics
YouTube

This one is kind of personal, because I have a dear friend who insists that this song is not about date-rape. Allow me to explain why it is.

A man and a woman spent an evening together. She has to go, and he tries to pressure her to stay the night. His lines are in parentheses.

I really can't stay
(but baby it's cold outside)
I've got to go away
(but baby it's cold outside)
This evening has been
(been hoping that you'd drop in)
So very nice
(I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice)

This is not cute or charming. By repeatedly ignoring her "no," the man is engaging in boundary-testing behaviour used by rapists to choose their victims.

My mother will start worry
(beautiful whats your hurry)
My father will be pacing the floor
(listen to the fireplace roar)
So really I'd better scurry
(beautiful please don't hurry)
but maybe just a half a drink more
(put some records on while I pour)

The thing that makes me sick about this song is that the woman has actual reasons why she has to go - specifically, her family - which are dismissed out of hand. She is depicted as playing hard-to-get. It's like the song writers are saying, "Don't be fooled by this line. She doesn't actually have other relationships or obligations that she has to worry about - she's just being coy to reel you in." No matter what a woman says, she's not to be taken at her word.

the neighbors might faint
(baby it's bad out there)

Again, an actual real concern - being slut-shamed the next day - is dismissed out of hand. It's not a serious concern that women have, just a line they throw around. Even though the song is a duet with a part for a woman, the woman's perspective is entirely absent from this song. She is objectified as the potential conquest.

say what's in this drink
(no cabs to be had out there)
I wish I knew how
(your eyes are like starlight now)
to break this spell
(I'll take your hat, your hair looks swell)

I don't think a woman has to be sober to consent to sex. But pressuring a woman to have alcohol in order to impair her judgement so that she'll have sex when she's already said no - that's something else. That's something date-rapists do.

I ought to say "no, no, no sir"
(mind if I move in closer)
at least I'm gonna say that I tried
(what's the sense in hurtin' my pride)

The entire song seems like it was written by a misogynist "Nice Guy"-turned-pick-up-artist. The woman in the song basically reveals that she just says "no" so that she won't look like a slut - she doesn't really mean it. Because that's what women do. And what's the most important thing at stake here - more important than all of the woman's previously stated reasons for leaving? The man's pride.

I really can't stay
(oh baby don't hold out)

both:baby it's cold out side

"Oh baby don't deprive me of teh sex!"

I simply must go
(but baby it's cold outside)
the answer is no

If this song was not about date rape, this is where it would end. But it doesn't!

(but baby it's cold outside)
your welcome has been
(how lucky that you droped in)
so nice and warm
(look out the window at that storm)
my sister will be suspicious
(gosh your lips look delcious)
my brother will be there at the door
(waves upon the tropical shore)

This song really highlights the double bind that women find themselves in when it comes to the social consequences of sex. If you have sex, you risk being slut-shamed. If you don't, you're a frigid bitch.

my maiden aunts mind is vicious
(gosh your lips are delicous)

This is something else that I've seen misogynists write on the internet. That is, the idea that slut shaming isn't an element of patriarchy, it's just something that sexually frustrated women do to prevent anyone else from having fun.

Also, it's funny how the dude is running out of sweet-talk.

but maybe just a cigarette more
(never such a blizzard before)
I've gotta get home
(but baby you'd freeze out there)
say lend me a coat
(it's up to your knees out there)
you've really been grand
(I thrill when you touch my hand)
but don't you see?
(how can you do this thing to me?)
there's bound to be talk tomorrow
(think of my lifelong sorrow)
at least there will be plenty implied
(if you got pneumonia and died)
I really can't stay
(get over that old out)

both:baby it's cold
baby it's cold outside

"Get over that old out." Throughout the song, the fact that women have to face social consequences for sex that men do not is utterly dismissed. But even if it was just an "out", the fact that the woman in the scenario is using it means that she doesn't want to stay. Her motivation is really besides the point. If she doesn't want to stay, she doesn't want to stay, and that the man is haranguing her into doing something she doesn't want to do is what makes this song date rape-y. The entire song is premised on the notion of attraction-as-pursuit - a pillar of rape culture.

Of course, one could make excuses for the song, saying that its a relic of a by-gone era. But it's still being played on the radio. It's still being covered by contemporary artists. As though there is nothing wrong with it.

#1 The Christmas Shoes

The kind of shoes that a kid would probably buy for
his mother

Lyrics
YouTube

"The Christmas Shoes" is a truly special song. Though simple, the story it tells manages to demonstrate several things that are wrong with North American society in terms of attitudes towards poverty, gender, religion and consumerism. At the same time, it is highly contrived to the point of being absurd.

It was almost Christmas time, there I stood in another line
Tryin' to buy that last gift or two, not really in the Christmas mood
Standing right in front of me was a little boy waiting anxiously
Pacing 'round like little boys do
And in his hands he held a pair of shoes

The first thing that bothers me about this song: why is a child buying shoes? I don't know how representative my experience is, but as a kid, I didn't think about shoes; not unless the ones I was wearing happened to be pinching my toes. They were just things that you had to wear. If I had gotten shoes as a gift I would have been hugely disappointed. It would never have occurred to me to get shoes as a gift for someone else. Moreover, I hated shoe shopping - all the sizing, and waiting for the sales people to bring out different shoes, and trying them on, made for a frustrating process. I would try to hurry past the shoe store whenever I went shopping with my parents. But say that child-me absolutely had to buy shoes - I probably would have gotten the wrong size anyways.

Which is all to say: from the beginning, this song has broken my suspension of disbelief.

His clothes were worn and old, he was dirty from head to toe

Okay, so this kid knows how to buy shoes on his own, but he doesn't know how to bathe himself? I get that the songwriter is trying to establish that the kid is poor, but what is this, Dickensian London? There seems to be this idea that if you're not entirely helpless, then your poverty is your own fault. So in order to be worthy of the narrator's charity, the songwriter made the child as wretchedly poor as possible.

And when it came his time to pay
I couldn't believe what I heard him say

Chorus:
Sir, I want to buy these shoes for my Mama, please
It's Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size
Could you hurry, sir, Daddy says there's not much time
You see she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes would make her smile
And I want her to look beautiful if Mama meets Jesus tonight

Again - why shoes? If I wanted to make someone look beautiful, the first thing I would get for her is a dress, or maybe a hat. But more importantly: you know what would probably make the mom smile more than shoes? Spending her final hours with her children. That's the thing about this song - it tries so hard to be all Christian-y with a good moral, and ends up being a parable of consumerism. Jesus doesn't care how you look; "blessed are the poor" and all that. It seems like the child has confused Jesus with a bad gay stereotype, "Girl, you are not getting through the pearly gates wearing those."

He counted pennies for what seemed like years
Then the cashier said, "Son, there's not enough here"
He searched his pockets frantically
Then he turned and he looked at me
He said "Mama made Christmas good at our house
Though most years she just did without
Tell me Sir, what am I going to do,
Somehow I've got to buy her these Christmas shoes"

And again, it bothers me that the songwriter felt it was necessary for the kid's family to live in abject poverty for the story to work. Does the narrator really need to know that a child's dying mother was the epitome of domestic martyrdom before he considers spotting him for a gift? What if the boy said, "Mama made Christmas good at our house, she spent a lot of money to make sure everything was perfect;" or conversely, "Mama sank into a depression after she lost her job, and last Christmas was really sad, so I wanted to make this year's nicer"?

There is an ideology about who is worthy of help that the song plays into. You need to have done everything conceivable to try to boot-strap yourself ("making good" while "doing without") and at the same time be without hope (say, dying of cancer). And when someone living in poverty fails to live up to these requirements it's easy to villanize them as "welfare bums" or people trying to cheat the system.

In either of those alternate scenarios, the kid's mother is still dying, and he's still a kid who doesn't know how much shoes cost.

So I laid the money down, I just had to help him out
I'll never forget the look on his face when he said
Mama's gonna look so great

The fixation with making sure the mother looks good at the hour of her death is simply sexist. You'd think that when someone is in their final days, beauty standards could be cast aside, and that person could be allowed to simply exist, as comfortably as possible, in the company of her loved ones. But no. Could you imagine a song being written a kid buying a tie for his dying father to make sure that he'll look handsome for Jesus? I don't think so.

Sir, I want to buy these shoes for my Mama, please
It's Christmas Eve and these shoes are just her size
Could you hurry, sir, Daddy says there's not much time
You see she's been sick for quite a while
And I know these shoes would make her smile
And I want her to look beautiful if Mama meets Jesus tonight

Am I the only one who finds it embarrassingly trite when song writers tack on the word "tonight" to the end of a chorus in an attempt to make sound more poignant?

I knew I'd caught a glimpse of heaven's love
As he thanked me and ran out
I knew that God had sent that little boy
To remind me just what Christmas is all about

Considering that the central theme of Christianity is self-sacrifice, this is some pretty self-centered reasoning. God gave a woman cancer so that her son could remind some dude of the true meaning of Christmas. Which, apparently, is that it's more important to get nice gifts than to spend time with your loved ones.

And then, because it wasn't corny enough already, the song ends with a child singing the chorus.

The sad thing is, that after working retail for six hours on my feet, this song did bring unironic tears to my eyes.

* * *

I hope you all are having a wonderful holiday season, and a happy New Year too!

Image source: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Weekly Joy

2010-12-27T12:00:00.001-05:00

This week: Hamilton Wesley Wigglebottom

Weekly Joy

2010-12-20T12:00:00.001-05:00

This week: a sleeping bunny

What can I say? Bunnies make me happy.

Weekly Joy

2010-12-14T02:27:00.000-05:00

This week: a bunny

Image source

Attention Whores

2010-12-08T21:43:00.002-05:00

The idea for this post started a couple of months ago, when Lady Gaga wore a meat dress to the VMAs and spoke out about Don't Ask Don't Tell. Many internet commenters were insistent that Lady Gaga is not committed to gay rights, and that the entire effort was just to get attention. The phrase "attention whore" came up a few times. This bothered me. Since then, I've paid more attention to the way that celebrity women are talked about online.

Some examples (trigger warning for misogyny and wishes of death):

Ke$ha

I’m tired of seeing this dirty slag… can someone please inform her that her 15 minutes of fame are up?

Snooki

Snooki–because the world needs another no-talent fame-hag.

Please dear God just make it go away..please…..

On a gif of Snooki floating through space:

Shame we can’t make this happen in reality – fortunately for me I’m not in the US, but I’ve seen enough pictures of this … *ahem* woman(?) … to know she’s a waste of oxygen!

Tila Tequila

Bitch should be kept in a damn cage.

this whore isn't dead yet?

Lady Gaga

She is disgusting, a completely irrelevant object. How can anyone look up to this woman.

god someone please set her on fire

When will this attention whore fall of the radar?

Lady Gaga and Yoko Ono

"I've been a talentless fame whore for decades. Let me take your hand and show you the way."

Most of these comments are from that pit of slut-shaming and homophobia, ROFLrazzi. The last one is from Jezebel.

There is so much wrong with the phrase "attention whore" itself, not to mention the way it is used to reinforce the dismissive and eliminationist language aimed at women who dare to live publicly, that it's taken me this long to figure out how to approach the subject. First, I'll address why we shouldn't be using "whore" as an insult. Then, why we shouldn't be using "attention seeker" as an insult. Finally, I'll talk about the implications of the entire phrase, and the way we talk about celebrities.

Whores

When you call someone a "whore" as an insult, you hurt sex workers; in much the same way as calling someone "gay" as an insult is harmful to gay people. You communicate the undesirableness of those people. The insult silently confirms and endorses the association between an individual's status and every stereotype and negative connotation about that status.

With sex workers, those are some seriously negative connotations. We live in a society where sex workers are often thought to be un-rapable; where killing a hooker is a punch line. When you call someone a "whore" you are saying that they are dirty and hence disposable. And in turn, you are reinforcing the idea that sex workers, as human beings, are of little worth.

If you take nothing else away from this post, please, just stop using "whore" as an insult.

Attention

This is one topic that Jezebel got right: there's nothing wrong with wanting attention. It's a human need. Treating an individual as unworthy of attention is deeply dehumanizing. Think of house servants treated as furniture, or the maxim that women and children should be "seen but not heard," or homeless people who are invisible to countless passers-by.

I briefly worked for a company that employed people to stand on street corners and try to get pedestrians to become regular donators to charitable causes. For several hours I would stand on the sidewalk, looking bright and alert, trying to make eye-contact, and to get people interested in donating to our client. Trying to get attention. I have never had another job that was so frustrating, unrewarding, and emotionally draining. Being continually ignored is tiring and disenheartening.

Saying someone "just wants attention" is, in my opinion, one of the more obnoxious ways to dismiss a person. Not only is it insulting and demeaning, but it is also a profoundly uncritical and unthinking way to approach an issue. Of course they want attention. We all want attention. The question is, what do they want attention for?

Attention Whores

Calling someone an "attention whore" is dehumanizing and objectifying. It implies that a person doesn't have an inner life or valid motivations - everything they do is an attempt to garner my precious attention.

As I mentioned, this post was inspired by some of the responses to Lady Gaga's public opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. For example, on ROFLrazzi, the webmaster wrote of her Video Music Award appearance,

Lady ‘Salmonella Head’ Gaga changed into three outfits at the VMAs. The final ensemble was this meaty little number made of… um, meat. Franc Fernandez, the designer, said he scored the meat from his local butcher shop (buy local, everyone). Lady Gaga gave some confusing explanation about the dress, claiming she was “taking a stand,” which I guess roughly translates to, “Look at me!”

A user comment:

The cause is attention.

And, commenting on a photo of Lady Gaga speaking at a gay rights rally:

They’re poking fun at how Gaag isn’t really into “polictics”, she’s just attention whoring.

As I said, these responses are uncritical and unthinking, intellectually lazy. These responses also objectify the woman in question. They presume that she has no convictions, no concerns, no genuine desire to help. She is not a full human being in her own right; rather her existence is focused on the observer, in a never-ending attempt to wrest their attention. This mentality has been taken to ridiculous extremes, such as Jezebel entertaining speculation that Amy Winehouse and Lindsay Lohan are essentially faking their personal breakdowns as elaborate publicity stunts.

Most often, "attention whore" is directed at famous people, usually women. Of course, these women's careers depend on being in the public eye. It is their job to seek attention, and there's nothing wrong with that. No one is being forced to pay attention to any celebrity. And yet the fact that some women regularly attempt to, and succeed, at getting public attention earns them the label "attention whore." The idea that there is something wrong with seeking attention is a way to justify the derision, scorn, and hatred (exhibited in the comments quoted at the beginning of this post) leveled at women who dare to have a career that puts them in the public eye. To punish women, like the women above, for being publicly successful, for being more than attractive furniture.

The hateful, eliminationist language aimed at celebrity women is aimed at all women. The very existence of these women is a source of disgust. You don't want to be like that, do you? How well-deserved their fame is is besides the point. There are very few people who deserve the vitriol and bile that is regularly directed at famous women. And, as a woman, when I read that someone thinks that Tila Tequila should be dead, or locked in a cage - that's scary. That tells me that the impulse to control women not only still exists, but to many people, is acceptable.

Foot

2010-12-08T18:36:00.001-05:00

Wanna hear a funny story?

Yesterday, I went out with some friends to a pub, had a couple of beers, as well as a lovely time.

When I got home, I was in a fabulous mood. I was singing my favourite Christmas carol, and I thought to myself, "you know what would both express my cheer and look really cool? One of those spinning flip things."

GIFSoup

It started out really well. My feet were off the ground, I was twirling through the air. "I am awesome!"

My boyfriend was in the washroom at the time. As he was washing his hands, he heard a thud, followed by a plaintive cry.

"Owwww... owwwww..."

"Are you okay?"

"... owwww..."

I had landed on my foot funny. There was a crack, and I collapsed, along with my delusions of awesomeness. Luckily, my foot is not broken, but it is sprained pretty badly. I can't put any weight on it, and it currently looks like this:

My foot, with an epic bruise

Lesson: two beers do not enable me to dance the hopak.

I so entirely relate to Allie Brosh right now.

Gif is from this video.

2010-12-07T18:12:00.000-05:00

I have not been very involved in the Canadian politics blog-o-sphere. One blog that I do follow - and one of the first to feature me in its blogroll - is Canuck Attitude. I was shocked to read that the proprietor of that blog, Bruce McDonald, recently died, apparently taking his own life.

He designed this graphic, signifying, "no surrender" in the fight for gay rights.

My heart goes out to all those who knew Bruce. If you don't know who he is, please read Simon's tribute to him.

Weekly Joy

2010-12-07T00:58:00.001-05:00

Ever get the feeling that life is too serious and you just don't want to deal right now?

I've decided that once a week I will post something simple that makes me happy.

This week, that thing is this tortoise:

OMG! STRAWBERRY!!!!1!1!!!!1

Via Cute Overload

Fuck FCUK

2010-12-02T16:43:00.000-05:00

French Connection's "This Is The Man/This Is The Woman" ad campaign has been around for many months now. It has bothered me right from the start. The Man in this campaign is presented as active: the copy is in all caps, and often in quotations - he speaks for himself, in an assertive voice. The Woman is passive: the copy (with standard capitalization) makes observations about her appearance. In the example above, The Man says, "DO NOT DRESS LIKE CHILD." Apparently this maxim does not apply to The Woman, of whom it is written, "The woman is not undersized. The jacket is oversized. But the effect - it is the same." The Man asserts rigid standards of masculinity, while The Woman is infantilized and objectified.

Today I went to the mall. At French Connection was the most gratuitously sexist window display I have ever seen.

The copy on the window reads, "THE MAN ENDURES CHRISTMAS" which, first of all, is a highly unseasonal sentiment, and a rather ineffective way to get people in the Christmas shopping spirit. The mannequins are posed with punching bags, which I suppose is how The Man is supposed to take out his frustration with the holiday season. All the men I know who enjoy Christmas must either be pretending, or they aren't Real Men.

On the other hand, "The woman prepares for Christmas." Which not only makes her the presumptive homemaker, but also the source of The Man's annoyance. How is she preparing for Christmas? Apparently, by standing with a fan blowing up her skirt. Again, while the male figures are depicted as active, the female figures are passive and ornamental.

This display isn't unique to the one FCUK location. Apparently, it's in other locations around the city too, and, one assumes, across North America.

Fuck you, FCUK.

WUT?

2010-11-30T09:16:00.003-05:00

Found this on a tumblr and had to share it.

Apparently your abortion affects the fertility of animated lions.

Abortion is a serious subject. And yet, so often, anti-abortion treatments of the subject end up making me laugh.

UPDATE: I couldn't let Space-Jesus miss out on this one...

Simba: Hey, Toy Soldier! Want to join me and Space-Jesus for a shedding-a-single-tear party down at Pride Rock?

Toy Soldier: I don't know if I can make it...

Simba: We'll be crying over your favourite ill of human society - abortion!

Toy Soldier: I'll be there!

It's Not My Job To Flirt With You

2010-11-29T00:00:00.001-05:00

Not your girlfriend.

As regular readers will know, I've worked in call centres for years.

Often, people tell me that I have a pleasant voice. Sometimes, guys flirt with me.

"Can we try to reach you some other time?"
"Only if it's you, sweetie."

"Thank you for your time."
"It was my pleasure. It's not every day I get to talk to an attractive young lady like yourself."

I've had guys ask for my phone number. "So, uh, can I call you sometime? That sounds fair, doesn't it?"

I've had drunk guys repeatedly ask me to come over.

Once, a (sober) survey respondent told me all about his business successes, and suggested that I come and join him in Saskatchewan.

When I was doing customer service, a guy called in and asked me what I was wearing. "Business casual." He hung up.

It's always nice to hear that someone enjoyed doing a survey because they got the chance to speak to someone and share their opinion. It's creepy to hear that someone enjoyed doing the survey because they were imagining talking to someone attractive. Substantially, it's not much different from saying, "by the way, I was masturbating to the sound of your voice the whole time." Why do you think I want to know that? It's not a compliment. It's a way of reinforcing the idea that my attractiveness to random dudes should matter to me in some way.

"Congratulations, you're successful at fulfilling your job as a woman, to be attractive to me, a man."

I don't know how often male interviewers are subject to being flirted with compared to female callers, but I know that it does happen. While gender certainly is an important factor in such interactions, it isn't the only dynamic at play. There is an automatic power dynamic between a service worker and the customer they're serving. When you flirt with a service worker, you're taking advantage of that dynamic.

When guys flirt with me on the phone, it can be pretty uncomfortable. Usually, I can't hang up. I'm not allowed to engage in small-talk. I'm representing my employer and our clients. I have to be pleasant. Because I have to be nice about their advances, these guys think it's okay to keep it up.

I have the comfort of being on the other end of a phone line. The interaction ends with the call. I don't have to worry about getting rid of people or having to deal with them again at some point in the future. I can only imagine what sales people and wait staff have to deal with.

It's not okay to flirt with people who are not in a position to tell you definitively to buzz off. Doing so is not about expressing romantic interest, but about the flirter asserting their power over the flirtee.

Image source

How To Get Rid Of Telemarketers And Survey Researchers

2010-11-18T23:30:00.002-05:00

I was bored at work today, so I thought I'd make a helpful guide for the people who are sick of getting calls from the place where I work. Here's how to get telemarketers and survey researchers to stop calling you.

DO answer the phone.
DON'T ignore calls for days and then finally answer and complain that we keep calling you. We can't tell the difference between you not wanting to answer, and you not being home. You will be called until contact is made.
DON'T just hang up as soon as you realize it's a survey or a telemarketer. You will be called until someone actually talks to you.

DO say you're not interested.
DON'T say "I'm too busy right now," when you mean, "I don't want to hear from you ever again." We will try to call you back when you're not busy.
DON'T explain your lack of interest. Don't tell a long, drawn-out story about how busy you are. You're wasting your time, no one cares. If we ask why, it's to categorize you for a call-back from the refusal team.
DON'T pretend you don't speak English. We speak to tons of people who actually can't speak English, and can tell the difference. You sound like an idiot. And if we happen to be doing an important survey, you might be called back in Cantonese.

DO ask to be taken off the survey researcher's call list, or to be put on the telemarketer's do-not-call list. Do this quickly, before the telemarketer has a chance to read their scripted rebuttals.
DON'T insist to survey researchers that they shouldn't be calling you because you're on the national do-not-call list. The list only applies to telemarketers.
DON'T offer to call us at home. You're not proving anything except your douchiness.
DON'T threaten to sue us. Actually, keep doing that. It's always good for a laugh.
DON'T be rude unless you want us to "accidentally" schedule a call-back.

Guess who's getting called back at
dinner time tomorrow?

Image source

My Brain Is Not Like Your Brain

2010-11-16T23:57:00.002-05:00

One of the annoying things about conservatives is their infatuation with the self-made myth. If people just work hard enough, they can be successful too! You try to talk to them about the systemic obstacles that people face. But if people just work harder, they can overcome those obstacles!

I want to leave social inequality aside for a little while. Lets talk instead about the fact that not everybody looks at an obstacle and sees a challenge to be overcome. Some people try to deal with obstacles and are rewarded with crippling panic attacks. Some people don't see the point of trying at all. Some people, the harder they try to accomplish something, the more the areas of their brain that are needed to complete that task shut down. Some people are incredibly brilliant and talented, but find it difficult as hell to interact in society in a productive way.

The infuriating thing about conservatives is that they chalk this up to personal weakness when it has nothing to do with will power. It has everything to do with brain chemistry.

The images in this post are SPECT scans of the human brain, showing different patterns of brain activity. A person with depression, pictured above, has lower levels of activity in many areas of the brain, and higher levels of activity in others. Overcoming depression is not a simple matter of having determination and toughing it out. The pattern of brain activity means that it's easy to get into cycles of negativity and hopelessness when you have clinical depression. It means that the area of your brain which drives motivation is under-active. It means that conservative adages about bootstraps are useless, and inapplicable.

Here are some other images illustrating the difference between perfectly functioning brains and the brains of people with mood disorders.

An active scan of a healthy brain

A surface scan of a healthy brain

Surface scan of a female with Attention Deficit Disorder -
which I have been diagnosed with.

Active scan of a male with Anxiety and Depression - which
I have also been diagnosed with.

An active scan of a female with Bipolar Disorder - which
several women in my family have been diagnosed with.

Mood disorders and other kinds of neurological disorders can have different causes: substance abuse, physical and emotional trauma, and genetics. They are not always debilitating. People who are bipolar or manic-depressive may tend towards the manic side, and hence, more often than not, be very effective people. Some people effectively self-medicate with alcohol, nicotine, and other drugs. People who come by neurological disorders genetically often tend to be highly intelligent and creative, and may find ways to manage their conditions. To do so requires a lot of effort and insight into one's own personality; not to mention a level of control over one's circumstances in life.

And here's where social inequality re-enters the picture. Proper nutrition and dietary supplements can mitigate the effects of neurological disorders, while a poor diet can exacerbate them. To eat properly people need time and money, not just to buy fresh food and cook, but also to get regular check-ups to see if their diet is lacking in any area, and to buy dietary supplements. Exercise can also have a mitigating effect, if you have the leisure time and facilities to exercise. Having social and financial security can provide someone with a solid grounding from which to manage their disorder, while being deprived of those things can send someone spiraling into depression, anxiety, disphoria and/or apathy. Depending on where you live, getting reliable psychiatric help may be restricted to the very well-off. In Ontario, psychiatrist sessions are covered by OHIP, but medication for many disorders are not; and while there are programs in place to assist with costs, they are not comprehensive. Class privilege lowers the impact of being neurologically atypical. Poverty and neurological disorder feed back on each other.

This is my argument for progressivism. Even if someone does not have a neurological disorder, they still need a nurturing environment - a certain minimum standard of living - to have a healthy mind and to reach their full potential. Until we ensure that minimum standard of living for all people, the conservative panacea of hard work and bootstraps will not in any way be valid.

For more images and information, see The Clements Clinic's section on brain-SPECT imaging, and Alternative Recovery Counselling.

Recommended reading: Dr. Daniel Amen's Magnificent Mind at Any Age, which is partially available for free online.

But You Were Right, Kanye!

2010-11-11T23:27:00.001-05:00

So, Kanye West has said that he should not have called George W. Bush racist. Which makes me cringe in frustration. What Kanye said on the telethon was emotional and spontaneous. But not a single word of it was wrong.

One of the many things that's wrong with how USians deal with race is that they focus on whether an individual feels racist in their heart, instead of the effect of their actions. This is another example of that. Bush Jr. might personally feel that he cares about black people, but his actions in no way backed that up.

Head & Shoulders: For Hair That's Sexually Assault-able!

2010-11-10T05:41:00.020-05:00

There is an ad for Head & Shoulders shampoo and conditioner that's about a year old. I have seen it many, many times, and it is still pissing me off. So now I'm writing about it.

Why does it bother me? Because the ad basically depicts sexual assault.

For those of you who may be unable to watch the video for whatever reason:

A romantic French song is playing throughout the scene. A woman sits in a salon, reading a magazine, waiting to have her hair done. A conventionally attractive man - one would assume, the hair stylist - comes up behind her, and takes her hair in his hands. In the mirror, they smile at each other. The man pulls his fingers through her hair, seemingly fascinated by how "smooth and silky" it is. He lifts her hair and lets it fall. He runs his fingers down a lock of her hair, and rakes across her scalp.

A small, bespectacled, balding man clears his voice. The woman brushes her hair out of her eyes to see that the real hairdresser has arrived. The attractive man looks sheepish and scampers off. He passes by again, pushing a dolly of water cooler jugs, and hands the hairdresser the tab. He smiles at the woman over his shoulder as he leaves, and she shyly smiles back, charmed.

The voice-over says: "When your hair is amazingly soft, and up to 100 percent flake-free, people will find it irresistible. New formula Head & Shoulders smooth and silky shampoo: Eight out of ten hairdressers agree it leaves hair touchably soft. Head & Shoulders: making heads happier."

Personally, I would not be charmed by someone who pretends to be a hairdresser so that he can get off on feeling women's hair. I doubt that many women would be. Because it's not charming. It's creepy and intrusive, and who the fuck do you think you are, touching my hair?!

The ad seems to be based on the idea that if a woman puts herself in a situation where she lets one guy touch her hair, then she's okay with other guys coming along and touching her hair too. Kinda like how if a woman goes out looking sexy, and maybe intending to have sex with someone, then she must be willing to entertain any guy who comes along and tries to impose his company on her. Except, no. It doesn't work that way. One cannot irrevocably cede one's bodily autonomy.

The ad also perpetuates the notion that men are not responsible for their actions, but women are responsible for tempting them. The delivery man couldn't help but feel up the woman's hair! It was just so "irresistible," and "touchable."

Worse, Head & Shoulders is telling women that being sexually assaulted is something that they should aspire to. Don't get upset when complete strangers fondle you - take it as a compliment!

And, the ad contributes to the myth that women don't mind being assaulted by attractive guys, and women are at fault for being so darned shallow and not reacting the same way to the attentions of all men. A myth charmingly captured by YouTube commenter carnifex2005, who wrote, "Of course, if this guy was fat and/or ugly, she would have cried rape." His comment had three thumbs up. No, sexual assault is sexual assault, no matter how much you assume the woman "wants" a guy's attention. What matters is whether the woman was actually consenting, which is a matter of fact, not opinion.

To summarize: This Head & Shoulders ad is horrible in every way. It is basically the embodiment of rape culture. I'm really sick of seeing it on TV.

As if having Ford for a mayor wasn't enough...

2010-11-09T17:39:00.002-05:00

Well, this looks embarrassing.

Anonymous, Sex and Relationships

2010-11-08T05:18:00.005-05:00

I came across this on The Daily What. It's a viral video made by Anonymous, based on a 4chan post proposing a silly method for guys to get their romantically attached female friends to sleep with them. It basically depicts deception leading to sex.

Trigger warning for depictions of suicide.

I'm not sure whether this is a spoof or a half-joking pipe-dream. On the one hand, it's ridiculous. On the other hand, there's lots of ridiculous messages telling guys they should lie in order to sleep with women. On the other hand, the video acknowledges that that kind of deception is really not acceptable. On the other hand, it originated from 4chan.

One thing I know for sure about the video is that it's based on the theme of the guy who's "in love" with his friend.

It's a theme that appears often in pop culture narratives, and on the internet from guys complaining about how they can't get any dates. It's getting really tiresome. Because it perpetuates the idea that men and women can't have genuine friendships. And because it posits the woman as an objective, not an actor. And when she is an actor, she's posed as a weird kind of adversary, preventing the guy from getting into her bed by shunting him into the "friend zone".

The sad thing that the video either nails as a spoof or exemplifies as a pipe-dream, is that the goal of the whole narrative is sex, not a relationship with the woman that the dude is apparently "in love" with. A relationship may or may not result, but the actual goal is to have sex. Once. Adhering to the myth that men want sex and women want romance. The relationship advice that assumes men are only interested in sex is harmful to men because it denies the existence of their emotional lives, and the significance of their relationships with women. I think the video actually touches on this with its twist at the end, since it shows the man actually caring about implications of his actions vis-a-vis his friend's humanity. Dating is going to continue to be frustrating for men who are influenced by standards of masculinity, as long as they're discouraged from exploring what they really want out of a relationship.

Some real advice for guys who are romantically interested in a woman friend:

If you're really into your friend, tell her how you feel. You might be surprised by her reaction. Straight women don't have to be tricked in order to like a guy. In fact, we prefer honesty, and being treated like a person instead of a trophy. And if your friend really is not into you, end the relationship, because it will never be the relationship that either of you want. I've been on both sides of the equation, and neither position is very fun. Don't pretend to be her friend. Get over it, and go meet new people.

Tea Party Bedtime Stories

2010-11-06T01:13:00.001-04:00

Other titles I was considering for this post:
"Seriously,WTF is this?" and "OMG, I can't even..."

As you may have heard, some tea partiers have created a "children's book" called The Liberal Clause. Apparently, it's an allegory for the current state of US politics. You can read more about it here. The book is a mess, visually. The drawings are really, really ugly. If I was a child, I would not want to look at this thing one second longer than I had to. Which is good, because ideologically, it's even worse. It's not parable with a simple lesson to be learned. It's a rant that takes a bunch of policy issues that tea baggers get worked up about and boils them down to sheer stupidity. There's enough wrong with the book to warrant an essay, but I just want to briefly address two pages.

The text on this page reads,

Soon the elves and their polar bears arrived at Christmas Square where they found Mr. Snore.

"As you can see from the hockey stick graph," Mr. Snore announced, "The earth will be consumed by fire within months if we do nothing." As the elves shivered in the cold, Mr. Snore continued, "Because of elf-made global warming, the ice caps are quickly disappearing and there are no more polar bears!"

The story continues,

At this, an elf in the crowd protested, "But Mr. Snore, this is the coldest year on record and we are sitting on polar bears."

With an angry scowl Mr. Snore responded, "You poor little elf, it is obvious that you have not been told the truth. You see, when it comes to elf made global warming, the debate is over!"

What is infuriating about this page is that the actual people who live in the Arctic - not elves - are worried about climate change. The arctic environment is rapidly changing before their eyes. Warmer temperatures are endangering polar bears, making it harder for them to hunt. If the author bothered to do any fact-checking, or y'know, listened to anyone who lives in the Arctic, he would know this.

One thing that this demonstrates is the white tendency to either erase aboriginal populations, or to mythologize them. The Arctic is a real place. Where real people live. Whose way of life is changing forever because of global warming. You'd think that when people who have lived in an area for generations say, "this delicate ecosystem seems to be undergoing dramatic changes," we could listen to them.

Which brings me to the second thing this page demonstrates: the refusal of conservatives to consider the perspective of anyone who is different from themselves.

It reminds me of an opinion survey I conducted with a respondent from Saskatchewan who was convinced that global warming was a conspiracy concocted by the Atlantic provinces to get more money from the federal government.

So, you might not be noticing any environmental changes. But other people are. And their opinions are worth just as much.

On to the next page...

The text reads,

That is exactly what Liberal Clause did. The next day he went to see the Hineese who were very happy to loan money to the North Pole. At a suitable rate of interest that is.

Note how the "Hineese" all look the same. And are ridiculously short. And have evil grins plastered across their faces.

The woman on this page is the Liberal Clause's wife, "Lychelle." Oddly, considering that all the other characters are reasonably recognizable characatures of their real-life analogues, she looks nothing like Michelle Obama. And what in the name of all that is holy is she wearing? And her hair? Would Michelle be caught dead looking like that? No.

More importantly, what does the First Lady have to do with borrowing money from foreign investors? This image is illustrative of the fact that the notion of of women as voracious and destructive consumers is alive and well. See how she's greedily clutching the cash to her chest? She's in the picture because she's a woman, and women want money to buy fancy, wasteful things.

The Liberal Clause is an interesting book, as it provides a portal with which you can see the world through the eyes of a tea bagger. The view is truly repugnant.

I Hope These Folks Found What They Were Looking For...

2010-11-04T12:01:00.001-04:00

A few of the search terms that have brought people to this blog:

man and women naked showing real penis and vagina while doing sex

I imagine this person first typing in "porn" and being dissatisfied with the results, then typing in, "man and women doing sex" and being dissatisfied again, then trying "man and women naked while doing sex" and just getting increasingly frustrated with each attempt.

That paragraph alone is going to dramatically increase the number of hits I get from people looking for porn, isn't it?

furry snakes vagina toilet bathroom

I think this person was looking for porn. I really can't think of what else could inspire such a search.

five things you need to make an milkshaken

I have no clue what connection there is between "five things you need to make an milkshaken" and anything I've written. On the other hand, I know which post drew this search:

mountain climbing

(this post). I just can't imagine how many search results someone has to wade through before they reach my blog. Twice.

anchysterical msrissa

This seems to be a common combination of typos. It brought people to my blog three times over the last month.

picture of half girl half monkey

I was surprised that people google such things. I really shouldn't have been.

feminism and its ruins on society

It is deeply satisfying to me to imagine how disappointed this person would be once they started reading this.

Post idea from Holly at Pervocracy. Her search terms are more amusing than mine. I have about four different posts in the works (ADD is fun!) so keep watching this space for updates!

Fauxgressive

2010-10-28T21:46:00.001-04:00

faux·gres·sive
[foh-gres-iv]

- noun

The type of liberal who defends this shit.
Gawker.

Melissa at Shakesville says it all.

Half-Monkey, Half-Person: Evolution and Equality

2010-10-28T08:15:00.008-04:00

A monkey.

A human.

A bonobo.

Recently, Glenn Beck said this:

I don't think we came from monkeys. I think that's ridiculous. I haven't seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? There's no other species that's developing into half-human?

First, we did not "come from" monkeys. We share a common ancestor with modern monkeys.

Second, I'd like to address right-winger's repulsion at the notion of our common ancestry with other primates, and its relationship to attitudes about equality.

Just to be clear, I'm not planning to argue that accepting the fact of evolution means you're more egalitarian. The notion of "survival of the fittest" and evolutionary psychology have notoriously been used to justify inequality to the extent of genocide. I want to focus on the implications of the fact that we share a common ancestor with other primates.

To be fair to Beck, he didn't seem as offended by the concept as some right wingers do. He did say, "If I get to the other side and God says, yep, you were a monkey once, I'll be shocked, but I'll be cool with it."

I'm sure God is relieved to know that.

Not all conservatives are so, um, "open minded" about our genetic relationship to primates. In 2008, Who Is Your Creator's national campaign put up billboards and signs across several U.S. states asking, "Are They Making a Monkey Out of You?" in an attempt, "to call attention to the 'lack of proof' for the theory of evolution." It's hard to imagine that conservatives don't sputter with anger when they leave comments like,

I have more faith in the biblical account than the you evolved from a monkey account even though you are flinging excrement everywhere.

and,

Jesus has done everything he can to demonstrate and loudly declare God's love to the people he created and offer them another chance for eternal life. But man has become "wise" in his own eyes and wants to belief his glorious ancestor is a monkey.

Such conservatives are like Beck, however, in that they seem preoccupied with monkeys, and ignore the existence of our closer genetic relatives, great apes: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Why? My guess is that the great apes, to a far greater extent than monkeys, are more like humans than religious conservatives care to admit.

You're going to ignore gorillas? Fine. See if they care.

Before going further in this analysis I'd like to take a moment to talk about great apes.

Non-Human People

Frodo the chimpanzee

Great ape societies are as complex as human hunter-gatherer societies, and just as varied in their organization: gorillas are so patriarchal and highly organized that their group members are referred to as "troops"; chimpanzees are likewise patriarchal but much more fluid in their organization; bonobos are matriarchal and more egalitarian; while orangutans are largely solitary. As an explanation for the differences between chimpanzees and bonobos,

It has been hypothesized that bonobos are able to live a more peaceful lifestyle [compared to chimpanzees] in part because of an abundance of nutritious vegetation in their natural habitat, allowing them to travel and forage in large parties (source).

This hypothesis has also been made about human hunter-gatherer societies, to explain the social differences between, for example, the relatively egalitarian !Kung people, and the more violent and hierarchical societies of the Amazon.

In addition to these broad differences between species,

within each species we find, just as in humans, variation from group to group. There are “cultures” of violence and “cultures” of peace. The latter are made possible by the universal primate ability to settle disputes and iron out differences (source).

Gorillas show that like humans, apes are capable of social adaptation and change. Male gorillas usually react aggressively towards male outsiders; but in Central Africa, the development of broader kinship circles has mitigated this tendency.

Another bonobo

Great apes engage in a range of behaviours that, at one time or another, were thought to be unique to humans. Their capacity to learn and understand language is well on its way to being established. Bonobos have sex for pleasure - and a host of other social reasons - rather than just for reproduction. Chimpanzees form bands, invade the territory of other chimpanzees, kill them, and claim the territory as their own - that is, they engage in wars of territorial expansion. While it has been well-known for a while that animals other than humans use tools, for some reason the belief persisted that only humans used weapons for hunting. That vestige of uniqueness was shattered when it was found that chimpanzees make spears for hunting. Orangutans, on the other hand, use tools to avoid being hunted - making leaf-instruments to alter the tone of their voice and trick predators into believing that they are larger than they actually are.

Orangutan!

Great apes have repeatedly shown themselves to be capable of emotion, altruism, and empathy. Chimpanzees bond with kisses and hugs, and "a chimpanzee consoles a victim after a violent attack, placing an arm around him and patting his back." In studies, chimpanzees help researchers with no promise of reward. Bonobos have been observed to be helpful to strangers, assisting companions new to their quarters in zoos, taking them by the hand to show them the layout of their building.

Chimpanzees care for the frail and elderly. And when one of their group dies, they mourn in ways that are very human, holding each other for comfort. Their observed reactions to death can be characterized in the five stages of loss. Denial and isolation as they continue to groom the body of their fellow chimp, and stand watch through the night. Anger, sometimes attacking the corpse. And depression, being subdued following a death (source). Bonobos have also been observed dealing with death and grief, for example protecting dead bodies from zoo-keepers who they believed to be threatening.

Gorillas!

The similarity between humans and great apes in terms of social arrangements, intelligence, and emotional capacity - not to mention genetics - has inspired a movement for great ape personhood rights. In 2008, Spain passed legislation granting chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans legal rights to life and liberty.

I wouldn't call great apes, "half-monkey, half-person," because the phrase mis-represents the way evolution works, and inaccurately implies that humans are the zenith of evolutionary achievement. Were Glenn Beck more scientifically literate, he might have said, "I've never seen a person-like non-human yet." In which case, great apes definitely fit the bill.

Too Close For Comfort

Religious conservatives latch onto the imagery of our tailed, arboreal fellow primates the monkeys as part of an attempt to ignore and deny the fact that we really are just another kind of ape.

Family.

Tellingly, the idea that we "came from monkeys" has been linked to morality. Listing the ways that the United States is losing its moral grounding, Judge Roy Moore complains that, "our children are taught in our public schools that they are descended from monkeys."

It's not simply the absence of god in the theory of evolution that's the problem. There are tons of religious people who have no problem plugging god in as the prime mover of the evolutionary process. The problem is that when you abandon biblical literalism, you have to abandon this little nugget:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28, The King James Bible)

It becomes difficult to justify the belief that humans have a god-given right to dominion over the animal world, if humans are animals ourselves. And that's the undeniable conclusion that evolution leads us to.

Wouldn't you agree?

As Frans de Waal, renowned primatologist, writes,

Those who are in anthropodenial try to build a brick wall to separate humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. They carry on the tradition of René Descartes, who declared that while humans possessed souls, animals were mere automatons. This produced a serious dilemma when Charles Darwin came along: If we descended from such automatons, were we not automatons ourselves? If not, how did we get to be so different? (source)

The distinction between the human world and the natural world is conceptual rather than factual. We are a part of it, we do not exist over and above it. This is most self-evident when we study the behaviour and societies of the great apes. The dichotomy between the animal world and human society is easily debunked by the observation that animals have societies too - and great apes have societies and behaviour that are so like our own.

The, "I didn't come from a monkey!" response to evolution springs from a sense of human exceptionalism, and a presumed license to dominate the animal world.

That's why the conflict over evolution is important not only for the sake of promoting knowledge and combating ignorance (though that certainly is enough), but also for the sake of promoting equality, not to mention environmental responsibility. Because, specifically in the current US context, evolution is pitted against human exceptionalism, and the belief that humans have a god-given right to plunder and exploit the world - ironically enough, given that social-Darwinism was used in support of colonialism and imperial expansion in its heyday. Despite that reversal, domination over nature remains wrapped up with harmful ideals of masculinity (harmful because such ideals are unattainable, encourage risky behaviour, and encourage domineering behaviour in other aspects of life). Images of apes continue to be used to demean and dehumanize people of colour. But dehumanizing someone loses some of its power when you acknowledge that being human isn't so special.

That's just grazing the surface of the way that attitudes towards nature and animals interact with notions of gender and race. Barely grazing the surface. (If you have any thoughts on the topic, please contribute them in the comments!)

We are genetically related to monkeys. The notion that that relationship is somehow beneath us as human beings needs to be challenged, because it supports human domination of the animal world, which in turn supports other kinds of privilege and domination.

Now, some cute pictures of apes and monkeys! (click on images to appreciate them full-size)

Left column: Rhesus monkeys, vervet monkeys,
baby langur, red-faced spider monkey. Right
column: macaques, a black howler monkey, a
baby gibbon

Doing History Badly

2010-10-26T16:25:00.000-04:00

I'm watching this show on History Television called Ancients Behaving Badly. It examines the behaviour of historic figures and places them on a scale between psychopath and goal-driven killer. It's incredibly cheesily done. The episode is about Julius Caesar.

The show acknowledges that Caesar used sex to demonstrate his dominance over the husbands of the women he slept with. So they get the sex-power relationship. However, they completely miss the mark when discussing Caesar's conquest of the Gauls.

After one major siege, Caesar let his soldiers loose amid the local population. The show refers to this as, "R&R, Roman style." And shows a montage of neon signs and modern-day women walking down the streets in short skirts.

It's not "R&R". It's rape as a tactic of war and conquest. It's easy to grasp the concept - the show acknowledged that sex is used as a sign of dominance, this is the same thing on a larger scale. The visuals they chose where just gross. It wasn't a good time on a Saturday night. It was war.

The Suspense is Killing Me ... RAGE!

2010-10-25T19:23:00.001-04:00

Voted for Smitherman. Waiting with baited breath to see who wins. If Ford is the next mayor of Toronto, I will seriously cry.

UPDATE: Fucking fuck. How the fuck do we go from David Miller to Rob fucking Ford? HOW?!?!?!

I can't believe we've got this asshole with his shitty useless pound-stupid ideas, homophobia, killing Transit City... Ford is a god-damned fucking embarrassment to the city and people voted for him!

WORDS CANNOT EXPRESS MY RAGE RIGHT NOW. HVGV;og3hhbnrw09H VRGEiage09w4bghng4 THAT WAS ME POUNDING ON THE KEYBOARD IN FRUSTRATION.

I'm done. Good god-damned fucking night.

Funny

2010-10-23T00:32:00.001-04:00

So apparently some researchers determined the 50 funniest (English language) jokes, some how. Here is the list. Most of them are not that funny. Only a couple are sexist or racist. A couple of them did make me smile:

34. There was a man who entered a local paper's pun contest. He sent in ten different puns, in the hope that at least one of the puns would win. Unfortunately, no pun in ten did.

And:

48. Went to the corner shop - bought 4 corners.

Reading these made me want to share a couple of my favourite jokes.

What's green, fuzzy, has four legs, and if it falls out of a tree and onto your head, it'll kill you?

A pool table!

Stop it, stop it, you're so funny!

I like it because it's absurd.

Okay, a better joke:

A man was driving along a winding mountain road. Another car approached him, and as it drove by a woman leaned out the window and yelled at him, "Pig!" He shouted back at her, "Bitch!"

Then he turned the corner and hit a pig in the middle of the road.

Yeah, it's been a while since I posted something substantive. I'm working on it! Until then, please share your favourite jokes in the comments!

New Comment Policy!

2010-10-22T17:24:00.000-04:00

You might notice that I've added a comment policy (see tabs above). It's pretty simple: Don't be an obvious troll. See the policy for examples and to leave comments.

Pretty

2010-10-19T17:05:00.000-04:00

Okay, is it just me, or does this:

make you picture this:

Just wondering

A Message to Men

2010-10-18T09:17:00.001-04:00

So, this is on Postsecret this week:

First of all, if a woman with Barbie's proportions existed in real life, she would snap in half at the waist. A real life Ken would not. Just wanted to get that out there.

But that's besides the point.

The point is - why the resentment? Does the postcard writer think women should be bitching about Ken too? Because Ken doesn't distort our body image the way Barbie does. It's men's job to bitch about Ken (and G.I. Joe et. al.). Does the postcard writer think that because men in general don't bitch about Ken that women should suck it up when it comes to Barbie? Because, no, nuh-uh, ain't gonna happen.

This postcard is representative of a certain attitude towards feminism found among a certain segment of men. I have a message for these men:

Please, go on and bitch about Ken! Bitch about G.I. Joe! These fellows do you no favours! Please, bitch about unattainable standards of masculinity! Feminists aren't stopping you. In fact, you may find some good theoretical background for your bitching from feminist writers!

Linkage! XY Online, And you think feminists hate men?, Hugo Schwyzer, Micheal Kimmel, there's more, but if you're reading this you clearly have access to the internet and probably know how to use Google!

You can bitch about Ken, we can bitch about Barbie, and then we can join forces to bitch about how patriarchy hurts everybody together.

A Picture of US Politics

2010-10-18T00:08:00.000-04:00

Not infrequently do I comment that there is no left wing in USian party politics to speak of. Not infrequently, people argue about this fact with me. The website The Political Compass has given me the means to illustrate what I'm talking about. Instead of placing people on a simple left-right spectrum, the political compass maps people's economic positions along a left-right axis, and people's social positions along an authoritarian-libertarian axis. Here is where US Senators fell as of 2008:

Blue is democrat, grey is independent, orange is republican. Not much variety, is there? Here is where presidential candidates fell that same year:

I have a feeling that Obama has shifted up and to the right since then.

US politics is heavily skewed to the right and towards authoritarianism. All those orange republicans? Are extremists. They're so extreme, that centre-right looks like socialism to them. US politics is skewed, because it does not represent the full range of political views in that country. For example, Resist Racism has plotted out where his readers fall, and it is not in the quadrant dominated by US politicians.

So, yeah. US politics is skewed and extremist, and there is no representation of the left to speak of. End of argument.

You can take the quiz to see where you're situated on the political compass.

Here is where I fell:

Princess Boy

2010-10-16T13:38:00.004-04:00

~~I might not have new posts up over the next week. In the meantime I'll just post interesting stuff without comment.~~ Like this video, about a boy who prefers to wear dresses, and his mom, who wrote a book about it that is now being used as an anti-bullying tool. Please share your thoughts on the video in the comments.

As of this moment, the comments on YouTube are actually kind of interesting,if you're inclined to check them out. The comments at The Daily What, which is where I found this, have devolved into a flame war, and Godwin's law has even come into play.

The Case For Hyphenated Identities

2010-10-13T19:45:00.002-04:00

Back in July I read this article, "What Are We Supposed To Call White People?" by Adriel Luis, in the Race In America section of Change.org. The writer relates an incident where a white classmate got offended by the phrase "white folks". Luis notes that while visible minorities have put time and energy into debating what to call themselves collectively, the same can't really be said for whites. He lists some suggestions for alternatives to "white". The point of the article was not so much to actually raise the question of what white people should be called as to get people thinking about who gets to name whom what and within what framework - Luis points out that not being white himself, it's not really his question to raise.

I, however, am white, and I actually do think that it's a question worth raising. One that I think might possibly have the potential to de-normalize whiteness in some small way. (Equivocal!)

I think it would be a positive step if white Canadians (and Americans, and Australians, and New Zealanders) hyphenated their identities, and encouraged other whites to do the same. No matter how long your family has lived here. Instead of just "Canadian," whites would identify as Polish-, or German-Lithuanian-, or British-, or European-Canadian.

The main logic is that this is already how we identify visible minorities - we ask or expect them to identify or identify them ourselves as African-Canadian, Jamaican-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian - so shouldn't we apply the same standard to ourselves?

Full disclosure: I already identify as Ukrainian-Canadian. So what I'm suggesting would not be a major effort or sacrifice for me. I could identify as just "Canadian" if I wanted to. My family has been in the country for several generations; and unlike some Ukrainians there's no trace of Asian-ness in my looks that would prompt people to ask, "what are you really." But it would not be accurate to identify that way. My background has shaped my family's experience and my experience in Canada - and I have a feeling that the same is true of other Canadians-of-European-origin, whether or not they are aware of the fact.

I think it would be beneficial if whites got used to the idea that we are not "just Canadian". I've seen it written about American politics that African Americans, by their group name, are excluded from the phrase "regular Americans" - though white people would conceptually exclude people of colour no matter what they call themselves. Broadly speaking the same is true of Canada. Those who advocate colour-blind strategies would argue that it is black people who should drop the "African" from their identities, that people of colour should de-hypheante. Of course, trying to pretend that there's no difference between the experiences of people of colour and white people is no solution; it just papers over racial inequality.

However, if European-Canadians embrace hyphenated identities, and commonly came to be referred to as such, then "Canadian" could only be used to refer to all Canadians collectively. In other words, only when no single group identifies as "Canadian," will "Canadian" include us all.

I also tend to think that having hyphenated identities would force European-Canadians to acknowledge their immigrant origins, and hence the fact that no one person has a better claim to Canadian-ness than another, with the exception of aboriginal peoples; it would force us to regularly and frequently acknowledge that this land was someone else's home before we got here.

What do you think?

Rejecting Binaries: Men Have Curves Too

2010-10-08T16:00:00.002-04:00

In my post on washroom signs, I noticed that one of the variations on the male-as-universal/female as specific trope was, men are people and women are people with waists.

I was reminded of that the other day when I was walking downtown and passed this sculpture, "The Pillars of Justice" in front of a courthouse:

Again the male figures do not have waists and hips.

Then I saw photos from this fashion show, the theme of which was, "men's wardrobe meets women's bodies". Apparently, this is from the designer's ready to wear collection.

The line didn't just consist of stylized menswear - there were a number of skirts and dresses as well

It seems like the idea was to make women look like actual wardrobes.

All of these images illustrate that the construction of gender as a binary extends to the way we think about men's and women's bodies. Men's bodies are hard and angular; women's bodies are soft and curvy.

The thing is, men's and women's bodies aren't all that different. There are differences, yes. But they aren't as different as, say, the fashion show pictured above would have you believe.

Bodies are socially constructed. The hard-and-angular vs. soft-and-curvy dichotomy in particular is socially constructed. In popular images women are dressed, posed, dieted, surgically altered and photoshopped to emphasized curviness.

How often do you see guys posed with their hips jutting out? You don't. Men in popular images are dressed, trained, dieted, posed, and photoshopped to look solid, and rectangular.

When we have so many images of photoshopped models apparently illustrating the differences between men's and women's bodies, it can be easy to forget that there is tremendous overlap between the two, and that our bodies are what we make them. Our notions of what gendered bodies ought to look like don't reflect the full range of possibilities.

Both men and women can be "flat" and skinny...

"Poster" by blackharlet

... well-toned and broad-shouldered...

... muscular and built-up...

... heavy...

"Getting ready for the show" by ch3rlie

"City Girl" by drainoutmylungs

... or more "average" looking.

"Flying to fall" by rubYANK

"Phazers on SEXY" by FatBottomedGirl

Some cis men can be "curvier" than some cis women.

Men's bodies have curves of their own.

"all over again" by gyrocam

Before anyone starts explaining to me why women's bodies are described as "curvier" than men's, why abstract representations of men and women are designed they way they are, or anything elses: I already know.

I am suggesting this: The nature of our bodies ought not be taken for granted. To some degree we are born with our bodies. But it is too often overlooked that our bodies are shaped by societal expectations, lifestyle, and individual agency. The supposedly innate difference between men and women in terms of strength and physical capability is constructed. The way we code bodies by sex and gender - soft and hard, curvy and solid - is constructed. In actuality those qualities are not exclusive of each other, and are not exclusive to either sex. There is much more diversity and overlap between men and women than the gender binary allows for. We are the same in many more ways than we are different.

What A Picture Is Worth

2010-10-06T22:30:00.001-04:00

This photo was taken in Copenhagen, by someone who goes by Hanjosan on Flickr. The context of the photo is not given. We don't know where the women are or what they're doing. We don't know what their relationship is or how they're interacting. We don't know what their daily lives are like.

We read our own assumptions into those blank spaces. People look at the Muslim woman's inscrutable expression and see very different things.

"She doesn't look happy."

She looks "timid."

"She looks like she wanted to cry at any minute. Maybe she knows what will come if she gets home..."

"She has a look on her face like 'Where's the stone gonna be coming from???'"

She's a "brave girl."

She's "powerful."

"This sista's got the sass!"

"This girl is a badass. I would not fuck with her."

"The girl holds onto her values but somehow makes her look and her life her own."

What we think we already know determines what we make of new information. Our prejudices are self-reinforcing. We construct other people in our minds and determine who they are before we ever meet them.

If you're reading this blog, you've likely experienced this truth. The different comments that this photo has received are just another demonstration of that.

This Is Hysteria!

"Tact"

Tumblr Round-Up: Sept 1 - 9

Stupid Products That Endorse Sexism

Tumbler Roundup: Aug 24- 31, 2011

The Loss Of A Leader

What Ever Happened To...?

Fucking Fuck Fuck Fuck

Weekly Joy

This Election is Important

An Anti-Choice Fantasy

Look South To See Harper's Vision For Canada

Canadians Against Harper

Quick Thoughts on Slutwalk

Instersectional Oppression, Intersectional Privilege: White Female Privilege

How To Wallow In Your Privilege

"The Harper Government" Meme!

The Invisibility of Women Warriors

It's Election Time!

To My Fellow Privileged Feminists...

Hey, Torontonians!

And I'm Also On Tumblr Now

On Black People Being Held To A Special Standard Of Goodness: A Message To White People

WTF Cleverbot?

I'm On Twitter!

It's About Power

A Radical Idea

Bits and Pieces

New Meme Alert!

Recommended Reading

For Trans Equality Write To Your Senators

9 Reasons Not To Spank Your Kids

Crazy: Addendum

An Open Letter To Lady Gaga, From A Fan And Fellow Feminist

Weekly Joy

Racism Isn't Ironic

The "No Abortions For Floozies!" Stance

To My American Readers...

Weekly Joy

Marketing Diversity: WINdows and FAILdows at Holt Renfrew

Weekly Joy

Weekly Joy

Crazy

Weekly Joy

On Gay People Being Held To A Special Standard Of Goodness

A Message To Christmas Warriors

Weekly Joy

Stupid Christmas Songs

Weekly Joy

Weekly Joy

Weekly Joy

Attention Whores

Foot

Weekly Joy

Fuck FCUK

WUT?

It's Not My Job To Flirt With You

How To Get Rid Of Telemarketers And Survey Researchers

My Brain Is Not Like Your Brain

But You Were Right, Kanye!

Head & Shoulders: For Hair That's Sexually Assault-able!

As if having Ford for a mayor wasn't enough...

Anonymous, Sex and Relationships

Tea Party Bedtime Stories

I Hope These Folks Found What They Were Looking For...

Fauxgressive

Half-Monkey, Half-Person: Evolution and Equality

Doing History Badly

The Suspense is Killing Me ... RAGE!

Funny

New Comment Policy!

Pretty

A Message to Men

A Picture of US Politics

Princess Boy

The Case For Hyphenated Identities

Rejecting Binaries: Men Have Curves Too

What A Picture Is Worth