Check this out.
It's a fantastic video featuring interviews with two Muslim women talking about their choice to cover their faces and hair.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
So what next...?
A few months ago I was listening to the radio and I heard an ad for the Brick Brewing Company that made me want to vomit. The ad featured two guys fishing at a cottage having a great time before a "dumb blonde" woman showed up, complained about bad cell reception and bugs and essentially ruined the fun. An announcer then tells us that "There's a perfect blonde for every situation -- Red Baron Blonde Lager!" Wow.
I sent a letter to Y108 - the radio station I heard the ad on - and told them that this ad was sexist. I told them that it suggested, due to the lack of a counterpart advertisement with the genders reversed, that this product was only for men and that the "dumb blonde" stereotype applies only to women. I told them that reducing women to objects - in this case, a bottle of beer - is nothing new, and that reducing humans to objects is a huge step in justifying violence towards them. My letter was quite direct, but not unkind. I told the folks at Y108 that I'd been listening to their station for a long time and I told them that I appreciated that their morning show was less offensive than other morning shows targetted to a young demographic. This is what I got back:
All I could pull from this response was "People will interpret songs, spoken word content and commercials in different ways." Different ways. Different fucking ways? Ok, well I guess it's absolutely ok, then, for you to just broadcast whatever you want and relinquish responsibility for the acutal real-life repercussions of your sexist crap, because people will interpret things in different ways. Right. Why even bother adhering to the CBSC? If people interpret things in different ways, then maybe we should just scrap the CBSC all together? Because, you know, people who are completely offended by -isms should just lighten up, right? People who have to deal with the consequences - EVERY DAY - of being consistently reduced to a collection of body parts, a cock-sheath, or an object, should probably just learn to interpret things differently? If I were to tell you that you were a complete asshole who exhibits utter disregard for women, could you please interpret that for me?
I took a deep breath. Maybe Derm is just a total weiner. Maybe my letter didn't explain things as thoroughly as it should have. I sent a second letter, this time to Y108 and to the Brick Brewing Company. It was a longer letter and it explained in more detail - with citations! - why this ad was completely unacceptable. I referenced scholars who had studied sexist advertising, and I said - even more directly this time - that I wouldn't listen to Y108 or drink Red Baron beer until this ad was pulled. I didn't hear back from Y108. This is what I recieved from Brick Brewery:
Oh... Mygod, I thought. Did Derm Carnduff and Sean Dennis get together and write these letters over a luncheon so that they could borrow each other's material? Why can no one just say "Fuck, you're right - this ad crosses the line and we're sorry that we've offended someone." Even if the ad wasn't pulled, an admission that the content was sexist would have gone a long way. Even if the ad stayed on the air and one of these guys had admitted to me that they saw where I was coming from and that yes, the ad was insensitive, I would have felt a little better. But no. Because people have come to believe so strongly that sexism doesn't exist, that people - even those who flagrantly exhibit sexism - won't admit to being misogynist. It's totally ok to debase, violate, catcall, harass and stereotype women... but "misogynist"? Not I! Sexism can be wriggled out of with enough mansplaining and "what about the men?" People, especially men, will fight tooth and nail that they didn't do anything wrong without for a second stopping to consider their privilege as men. As it stands right now, this privilege runs so thick that they can afford to blindfold themselves to the casual, pervasive, everyday sexism that they live with, perpetuate, and - to some degree - enjoy. It is a privilege to be able to think that feminism is dead. It is a privilege to believe - misguidedly - that we live in a post-patriarchy.
So then, a few weeks later my friend Megan saw an ad that offended her. She, too, wrote a letter to say that the ad was offensive and that until it was removed from stores, she would no longer be a patron to this company. This is what she got in response:
...So is it just a stock response? Is there a text book out there called "How to thinly disguise your dismissive attitude when responding to complaints of sexism"?
So here's where I run out of ideas. What do you do? When you see an ad that is so offensive that it makes your skin crawl, what do you do? When you write letters that are met only with benevolent dismissal, where do you go? I thought that taking my complaint to Advertising Standards Canada would yield some result. That was in June - it's now the end of August and I've heard nothing.
It's discouraging, to say the least. We live in a time when not only can ads like this pass censors and be accepted as appropriate, but that as a society, people can't admit to their own biases, prejudices, and privilege. It's depressing that it's somehow seen as more acceptable to deny, argue and fight your way out of an accusation of sexism than to just take the high road, apologize, and actually learn something from it.
I sent a letter to Y108 - the radio station I heard the ad on - and told them that this ad was sexist. I told them that it suggested, due to the lack of a counterpart advertisement with the genders reversed, that this product was only for men and that the "dumb blonde" stereotype applies only to women. I told them that reducing women to objects - in this case, a bottle of beer - is nothing new, and that reducing humans to objects is a huge step in justifying violence towards them. My letter was quite direct, but not unkind. I told the folks at Y108 that I'd been listening to their station for a long time and I told them that I appreciated that their morning show was less offensive than other morning shows targetted to a young demographic. This is what I got back:
Dear Kelsey [sic],
Thank you for the note in regards to Y108. We appreciate all listener
feedback and do take all said feedback seriously.
Thank you for the kind comments in regards to Ben & Kerry. They work
very hard, are very talented and we’re glad to hear that you do enjoy their
show.
In regards to the Red Baron beer commercial you heard on Y108 – we respect
your opinions in regards to your interpretation of the commercial. We are
certainly sensitive to the content and messages of the commercials we air. We
subscribe to the Canadian Standards Broadcast Council and do follow the codes under which all broadcasters adhere to as set out by the CBSC.
People will interpret songs, spoken word content and commercials in
different ways.
We will certainly review the Red Baron commercial as per your
request.
Thanks again for the e-mail Kelsey and for listening to Y108.
Respectfully,
Derm
All I could pull from this response was "People will interpret songs, spoken word content and commercials in different ways." Different ways. Different fucking ways? Ok, well I guess it's absolutely ok, then, for you to just broadcast whatever you want and relinquish responsibility for the acutal real-life repercussions of your sexist crap, because people will interpret things in different ways. Right. Why even bother adhering to the CBSC? If people interpret things in different ways, then maybe we should just scrap the CBSC all together? Because, you know, people who are completely offended by -isms should just lighten up, right? People who have to deal with the consequences - EVERY DAY - of being consistently reduced to a collection of body parts, a cock-sheath, or an object, should probably just learn to interpret things differently? If I were to tell you that you were a complete asshole who exhibits utter disregard for women, could you please interpret that for me?
I took a deep breath. Maybe Derm is just a total weiner. Maybe my letter didn't explain things as thoroughly as it should have. I sent a second letter, this time to Y108 and to the Brick Brewing Company. It was a longer letter and it explained in more detail - with citations! - why this ad was completely unacceptable. I referenced scholars who had studied sexist advertising, and I said - even more directly this time - that I wouldn't listen to Y108 or drink Red Baron beer until this ad was pulled. I didn't hear back from Y108. This is what I recieved from Brick Brewery:
Dear xxxx,
Since 1984, Brick Brewing Company has been a proud, supportive community member in Kitchener-Waterloo. For over a quarter century, have been committed to being more than just a brewer of great beer, we’ve also supported thousands of great cultural, charitable and community organizations and events throughout Ontario. It has been our goal to connect with our community and consumers, whether it is through the great charitable and community organizations and events that we support, or through our general advertising, we’ve taken great pride in letting Ontario beer consumers know about our products and our company. So much so, that we ensure that all advertising is approved by all regulatory boards, including Advertising Standards Canada.
We regret that you feel as you have outlined within your note below and
value all consumer input. We will take your comments into consideration when we
develop our future advertising concepts.
Thank you for your interest in Brick Brewing Co.
Sean Dennis
Director of Marketing
Oh... Mygod, I thought. Did Derm Carnduff and Sean Dennis get together and write these letters over a luncheon so that they could borrow each other's material? Why can no one just say "Fuck, you're right - this ad crosses the line and we're sorry that we've offended someone." Even if the ad wasn't pulled, an admission that the content was sexist would have gone a long way. Even if the ad stayed on the air and one of these guys had admitted to me that they saw where I was coming from and that yes, the ad was insensitive, I would have felt a little better. But no. Because people have come to believe so strongly that sexism doesn't exist, that people - even those who flagrantly exhibit sexism - won't admit to being misogynist. It's totally ok to debase, violate, catcall, harass and stereotype women... but "misogynist"? Not I! Sexism can be wriggled out of with enough mansplaining and "what about the men?" People, especially men, will fight tooth and nail that they didn't do anything wrong without for a second stopping to consider their privilege as men. As it stands right now, this privilege runs so thick that they can afford to blindfold themselves to the casual, pervasive, everyday sexism that they live with, perpetuate, and - to some degree - enjoy. It is a privilege to be able to think that feminism is dead. It is a privilege to believe - misguidedly - that we live in a post-patriarchy.
So then, a few weeks later my friend Megan saw an ad that offended her. She, too, wrote a letter to say that the ad was offensive and that until it was removed from stores, she would no longer be a patron to this company. This is what she got in response:
Dear Megan,
Thank you for your email about our current store window marketing campaign.
We are sorry to hear that you are unhappy with our new 'Pants' campaign. We
appreciate knowing how our advertising is being received and comments from loyal
customers like you are valuable. We have several different campaigns a year
and each is designed to target various segments of our consumer base. We
regularly evaluate our ads for effectiveness and reach to ensure our advertising
is appropriate for our customers and our brand. We have forwarded your valuable
comments to the marketing manager responsible for these decisions.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. If we may be of further
assistance, please contact us
Sincerely,Tylerann
Customer Service Consultant
...So is it just a stock response? Is there a text book out there called "How to thinly disguise your dismissive attitude when responding to complaints of sexism"?
So here's where I run out of ideas. What do you do? When you see an ad that is so offensive that it makes your skin crawl, what do you do? When you write letters that are met only with benevolent dismissal, where do you go? I thought that taking my complaint to Advertising Standards Canada would yield some result. That was in June - it's now the end of August and I've heard nothing.
It's discouraging, to say the least. We live in a time when not only can ads like this pass censors and be accepted as appropriate, but that as a society, people can't admit to their own biases, prejudices, and privilege. It's depressing that it's somehow seen as more acceptable to deny, argue and fight your way out of an accusation of sexism than to just take the high road, apologize, and actually learn something from it.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Opinions are like assholes... everyone's got one.
So in the last week, I've twice heard of this new terror that white people face: an ultimate Brown-slamic takeover. Initially in this post I was going to tackle exactly what I think of this idiocy by quoting from what people have said to me, but I think what I'll do instead is address this video, which I have a feeling may be the root of all this completely baseless terror.
I'll just get this right out of the way at the beginning - I laughed really hard at the waaay over dramatic music and the sinister, shadowy text. We must be watching something REALLY serious if they were able to get a Michael-Moore-meets-Zeitgeist look and feel. This youtube clip must be absolutely legit.
Ok. Moving on.
"According to research..." You know, I learned while writing my thesis last year that when you use a phrase like "according to research," you should probably provide evidence that this research actually exists. Because, really, otherwise I could say things like "According to research, being a racist will make your toenails fall off," and people - silly people - people who will believe anything you tell them amidst shadowy text and ominous music - might acutally think it was the truth when (unfortunately) it isn't. Saying that something is backed up by research without providing a citation of that research is like me telling you I bought you a birthday gift and that it's in the mail... and then it never showing up.
"In order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family... As of 2007, the fertility rate in France was 1.8; England, 1.6; Greece, 1.3... Across the entire European Union of 31 countries, the fertility rate is a mere 1.38."
I'll just get this right out of the way at the beginning - I laughed really hard at the waaay over dramatic music and the sinister, shadowy text. We must be watching something REALLY serious if they were able to get a Michael-Moore-meets-Zeitgeist look and feel. This youtube clip must be absolutely legit.
Ok. Moving on.
"According to research..." You know, I learned while writing my thesis last year that when you use a phrase like "according to research," you should probably provide evidence that this research actually exists. Because, really, otherwise I could say things like "According to research, being a racist will make your toenails fall off," and people - silly people - people who will believe anything you tell them amidst shadowy text and ominous music - might acutally think it was the truth when (unfortunately) it isn't. Saying that something is backed up by research without providing a citation of that research is like me telling you I bought you a birthday gift and that it's in the mail... and then it never showing up.
"In order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, there must be a fertility rate of 2.11 children per family... As of 2007, the fertility rate in France was 1.8; England, 1.6; Greece, 1.3... Across the entire European Union of 31 countries, the fertility rate is a mere 1.38."
Hmm. Weird. Because it says here that the fertility rate in Canada has been no higher than 1.7 since 1980... which, if I'm not mistaken was 30 years ago, and I'm pretty sure Canada still has people in it... Well, here's some clarity:
"Yet the population of Europe is not declining. Why? Immigration. Islamic Immigration."
Ok, so we can have a low fertility rate of less than 1.7, and the population won't shrink because immigration will fill the gap.
...But, doesn't it make sense that some Muslims were here already? And that they were having babies within Canada and that births of those babies contributed to the fertility rate that you cited before? So isn't it skewed when you're talking about the fertility rate of a whole country, but claiming to exclude a particular race or religion? It seems to me that we're trying to talk about the fertility rate of white people in a country, and then using the overall statistic for the whole land mass to lump all people together. Isn't that a little convenient?
And, let's be honest, it is white people we're talking about here, right? What about immigration Asian countries? Or how about African countries? Surely they aren't all Muslim, so maybe we should count them in there as well? No? Oh, right. Because we're talking about white people here. We aren't talking about the survival of non-Muslims - we're talking about the survival of the whites. Really, the fertility rate for white Canadians might actually be much lower than the 1.7, or it could be much higher and we don't know from this video, because the fact is that the fertility rates that they've cited for whole countries include citizens of all ethnicities and religions.
When you think about it, if a population can't survive for more than 25 years with a fertility rate of less than 2.11/family, and Canada still has a diverse population after 30 years with an overall birth rate of less than 1.7/family, and there are still white people in Canada... then it stands to reason that either a) the fertility rate for whites is actually higher than 2.11 and this has been hidden by this video's use of a larger statistic, or b) immigration of white people to Canada has been enough to fill the gap caused by the fertility deficit. Either way, this situation doesn't seem quite as "dire" as this video would have us believe.
"Between 2001 and 2006 Canada's population incresed by 1.6 million, 1.2 of those - immigration."
But Islamic immigration? Or just plain old immigration? Do you have any idea what percentage of the population of Canada are immigrants? Or whose parents were immigrants? People move all over the world... it's what happened when boats and planes were invented. Also, you do understand that whites weren't the first ones here, don't you? I'm sure that back in the days of Columbus, the American Native peoples were thinking that they didn't really want the Europeans to come colonize them - but colonize them we did, and treat them like crap we still do. And it looks like we're back to my favorite blog-ism - we need to LOOK AT OURSELVES before we start pointing the finger at other groups and labelling them a problem.
Further in the video we're told that apparently there was a meeting of 24 Islamic organizations in Chicago, during which someone said, "We must prepare ourselves for the reality that in 30 years there will be 50 million Muslims living in America." It doesn't, however, specify how we should prepare. Perhaps the Islamic organizations were talking about how to further educate people about ethnodiversity so that we could quash some of the rampant racism that's going to divide nations instead of uniting them, and that's going to make life very unpleasant for those 50 million Muslims.
"In 5-7 years [Islam] will be the dominant religion of the world." So? Right now it's some other religion - and I'll bet the HUGE OPPRESSIVE ISSUES you're dealing with because of that religion are about the same in scope as the HUGE OPPRESSIVE ISSUES you'll deal with when (if) Islam becomes dominant.
But Islamic immigration? Or just plain old immigration? Do you have any idea what percentage of the population of Canada are immigrants? Or whose parents were immigrants? People move all over the world... it's what happened when boats and planes were invented. Also, you do understand that whites weren't the first ones here, don't you? I'm sure that back in the days of Columbus, the American Native peoples were thinking that they didn't really want the Europeans to come colonize them - but colonize them we did, and treat them like crap we still do. And it looks like we're back to my favorite blog-ism - we need to LOOK AT OURSELVES before we start pointing the finger at other groups and labelling them a problem.
Further in the video we're told that apparently there was a meeting of 24 Islamic organizations in Chicago, during which someone said, "We must prepare ourselves for the reality that in 30 years there will be 50 million Muslims living in America." It doesn't, however, specify how we should prepare. Perhaps the Islamic organizations were talking about how to further educate people about ethnodiversity so that we could quash some of the rampant racism that's going to divide nations instead of uniting them, and that's going to make life very unpleasant for those 50 million Muslims.
"In 5-7 years [Islam] will be the dominant religion of the world." So? Right now it's some other religion - and I'll bet the HUGE OPPRESSIVE ISSUES you're dealing with because of that religion are about the same in scope as the HUGE OPPRESSIVE ISSUES you'll deal with when (if) Islam becomes dominant.
Not to mention, can we remember for a second that not all Muslims who move to Canada are actively practicing religion, and that many people who do move here from other countries make an effort to assimilate? And hell, even if they do continue to practice their religion - which is entirely within their rights - there's no need to fear Muslims. Save for a few outliers, Muslims are NOT terrorists, extremists, or suicide bombers. They are not out to convert you or oppress your wife, daughter, mother or girlfriend. They aren't out to stone you to death. They just want to live their lives in peace.
The video ends with this gem:
"As believers we call upon you to join the effort, share the gospel message with the changing world. This is a call to action."
Uhh... a call to action? What action would that be? I'm assuming that when you say you want me to share this message, you're hoping that the message I share will be the call to action for others - so what exactly are you hoping to do? This sounds threatening... this sounds like it could be violent. And, if I'm not mistaken, the threat of violence was what started all of this ridiculous, unwarranted fear in the first place.
Still terrified? Check this out. With information taken from Statistics Canada.
The video ends with this gem:
"As believers we call upon you to join the effort, share the gospel message with the changing world. This is a call to action."
Uhh... a call to action? What action would that be? I'm assuming that when you say you want me to share this message, you're hoping that the message I share will be the call to action for others - so what exactly are you hoping to do? This sounds threatening... this sounds like it could be violent. And, if I'm not mistaken, the threat of violence was what started all of this ridiculous, unwarranted fear in the first place.
Still terrified? Check this out. With information taken from Statistics Canada.
I just want to throw it out there right now, that in the past, people oppressed Jews... and now are humiliated about it. People oppressed blacks... and are now humiliated about it. People oppressed Aboriginal peoples... and now, for the most part, are humiliated about it. Always in hindsight, racism becomes a stain on a culture - and a few years from now, white people will be absolutely humiliated that the racist wool was pulled over their eyes once again, and that once again they punished an entire group by virtue of their skin colour.
The definition of Racism is NOT limited to 'hatred of blacks'. The definition of Racism is much larger.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
I still won't cycle either way, but...
So there's some big controversy on the CBC right now about bike helmets. Apparently Toronto is going to begin a bike-share program and there's a concern that there's no accompanying 'helmet share' program. People have been weighing in for 2 days now about whether or not they think there should be a mandatory bike helmet law for people over 18.
Yesterday two people were on CBC - one supporting a law, the other not so much. To summarize, the first person said that he thinks it's unfair to expect tax money to go towards paying for treatment for head injuries when someone was silly and didn't wear a helmet. The second person said that she's seen statistics that say that if you aren't wearing a helmet, drivers are more likely to leave a large gap because they assume that you're a less experienced rider. She said that she rides confidently and that she chooses not to wear a helmet.
This morning on CBC, Matt Galloway played a recording of the listeners responses to this show. It was overwhelming how many people not only thought that there should be a mandatory bike helmet law for adults, but how many of them were willing to resort to discrediting the person who had spoken against this law, citing that she hadn't provided evidence of her findings (she had) or asking "what's her problem?" and calling her insane. It was quite vicious.
Know where I stand on this? Right in the middle. Should there be a law? No frickin' way. Is cycling safer when people wear helmets? Abso-goddamn-lutely.
The people on the radio this morning were arguing everything from "But you're going to get hurt!" to "How am I supposed to show my kids that helmets are good if no adults will wear them??" to "They're just like seatbelts, and those are required!" I'll start at the beginning.... Yes, people may get hurt if they don't wear a helmet. No, it's not my job to be a role model for your kids (if I wanted to be a role model for someone's kids I'd go have my own thankyouverymuch). Yes, they are kind of like seatbelts - my dad told me that he had a friend who was in a car accident and was trapped in his car by his seatbelt. Never wore one again. I think that should be his prerogative.
The thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that we're talking about adults here - people with enough life experience under their belts that they're assumed to be able to make their own decisions. Is it hurting anyone other than me if I don't wear a helmet on a bike? Nope. Well, not really. Unless you want to make the argument - like a couple of people did this morning - that it hurts tax payers who have to cover the cost of treatment for brain injuries. Those people should probably check their daily routines before making such stupid statements. Do you smoke? Drink? Walk up stairs without holding the rail? Drive above the speed limit? J-walk? Eat dairy, meat, processed or GMO foods? Tailgate? Use a cell phone? A cordless phone? Wireless internet? Listen to an ipod while crossing streets? Smoke in the car or in bed? Wear chemical make up? Wash your face with commercial soap? Use fluoride toothpaste? Aluminum deodorant? Should I go on? Although some of these things are illegal, people do them every day without a second thought to whether the tax payers are covering the damages. In the case of cell phones, cordless phones, wifi, smoking, drinking, chemical products and toxic food - the government sanctions your decision to do these things as an adult. In fact, for some of these things, the government will let you do them as a child. And all of these things have the potential to kill you. If we're going to suggest that everyone take the same precaution while riding a bike, maybe - like I've said so many freaking times - we should look to ourselves before pointing the finger at other people.
I'm taking the same stand on this as I do on abortion. If you want to wear a helmet on your bike, be my guest, but don't force me or anyone else to just because you think it's what's best for me. You're an adult and you're capable of making a choice. Respect that I'm an adult with the same capability. Definitely helmets are safer - definitely - but society doesn't suffer if individuals choose not to wear them. It would be impossible to outlaw everything that is unsafe, and it looks hypocritical to try to when so many things fly under the radar.
If you're worried about cyclists being killed, lobby for more driver awareness - people should probably be made aware of how awful and dangerous their driving is anyway. And why not lobby for bike lanes, or for cyclists to be allowed to ride on the sidewalk where the risk of being hit by a car is limited and the injury severity (a bike hitting a pedestrian vs. a car hitting a bike) is reduced? Make people aware of the risk taken when you don't wear a helmet, for sure, but don't implement a law that's going to stop people from using bike-share, and that'll make the old lady riding down the bike path quietly on a sunday afternoon sad. Because that's invasive.
Yesterday two people were on CBC - one supporting a law, the other not so much. To summarize, the first person said that he thinks it's unfair to expect tax money to go towards paying for treatment for head injuries when someone was silly and didn't wear a helmet. The second person said that she's seen statistics that say that if you aren't wearing a helmet, drivers are more likely to leave a large gap because they assume that you're a less experienced rider. She said that she rides confidently and that she chooses not to wear a helmet.
This morning on CBC, Matt Galloway played a recording of the listeners responses to this show. It was overwhelming how many people not only thought that there should be a mandatory bike helmet law for adults, but how many of them were willing to resort to discrediting the person who had spoken against this law, citing that she hadn't provided evidence of her findings (she had) or asking "what's her problem?" and calling her insane. It was quite vicious.
Know where I stand on this? Right in the middle. Should there be a law? No frickin' way. Is cycling safer when people wear helmets? Abso-goddamn-lutely.
The people on the radio this morning were arguing everything from "But you're going to get hurt!" to "How am I supposed to show my kids that helmets are good if no adults will wear them??" to "They're just like seatbelts, and those are required!" I'll start at the beginning.... Yes, people may get hurt if they don't wear a helmet. No, it's not my job to be a role model for your kids (if I wanted to be a role model for someone's kids I'd go have my own thankyouverymuch). Yes, they are kind of like seatbelts - my dad told me that he had a friend who was in a car accident and was trapped in his car by his seatbelt. Never wore one again. I think that should be his prerogative.
The thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that we're talking about adults here - people with enough life experience under their belts that they're assumed to be able to make their own decisions. Is it hurting anyone other than me if I don't wear a helmet on a bike? Nope. Well, not really. Unless you want to make the argument - like a couple of people did this morning - that it hurts tax payers who have to cover the cost of treatment for brain injuries. Those people should probably check their daily routines before making such stupid statements. Do you smoke? Drink? Walk up stairs without holding the rail? Drive above the speed limit? J-walk? Eat dairy, meat, processed or GMO foods? Tailgate? Use a cell phone? A cordless phone? Wireless internet? Listen to an ipod while crossing streets? Smoke in the car or in bed? Wear chemical make up? Wash your face with commercial soap? Use fluoride toothpaste? Aluminum deodorant? Should I go on? Although some of these things are illegal, people do them every day without a second thought to whether the tax payers are covering the damages. In the case of cell phones, cordless phones, wifi, smoking, drinking, chemical products and toxic food - the government sanctions your decision to do these things as an adult. In fact, for some of these things, the government will let you do them as a child. And all of these things have the potential to kill you. If we're going to suggest that everyone take the same precaution while riding a bike, maybe - like I've said so many freaking times - we should look to ourselves before pointing the finger at other people.
I'm taking the same stand on this as I do on abortion. If you want to wear a helmet on your bike, be my guest, but don't force me or anyone else to just because you think it's what's best for me. You're an adult and you're capable of making a choice. Respect that I'm an adult with the same capability. Definitely helmets are safer - definitely - but society doesn't suffer if individuals choose not to wear them. It would be impossible to outlaw everything that is unsafe, and it looks hypocritical to try to when so many things fly under the radar.
If you're worried about cyclists being killed, lobby for more driver awareness - people should probably be made aware of how awful and dangerous their driving is anyway. And why not lobby for bike lanes, or for cyclists to be allowed to ride on the sidewalk where the risk of being hit by a car is limited and the injury severity (a bike hitting a pedestrian vs. a car hitting a bike) is reduced? Make people aware of the risk taken when you don't wear a helmet, for sure, but don't implement a law that's going to stop people from using bike-share, and that'll make the old lady riding down the bike path quietly on a sunday afternoon sad. Because that's invasive.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
American('t) Apparel
AAAAAHAHAHAHA!!! HAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!
Oh wow.
That's awesome.
I love being able to take a company off of my "Do NOT support" list because they went out of business.
Forgive me, but ads like this and this and this (the tip of the iceburg!) just don't sit well.
Oh wow.
That's awesome.
I love being able to take a company off of my "Do NOT support" list because they went out of business.
Forgive me, but ads like this and this and this (the tip of the iceburg!) just don't sit well.
It's about time I talked about Tucker...
I think I'm going to dedicate this post to some self criticism. Specifically, I'm going to criticize my previous enjoyment of Tucker Max. I don't know how in hell I could have been so entirely misguided.
I was first introduced to Tucker through his website. I think I was in high school at the time and a friend of a friend introduced it to the circle I hung out with. I read some of the stories, thought they were too long, and abandoned it.
In University, someone mentioned the name 'Tucker Max,' and I gave the website another shot. A couple of my friends read it as well, and probably because one of them was so enthusiastic about it and I saw this as a chance to bond over something, I started getting enthused as well. We'd stay up at night reading stories from the website over the phone to each other, and eventually we went on a day trip to Chapters and both bought copies of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell.
I read the book, I lent it to another friend, I read stories from the book to other people, I laughed at the term "Tuckermaxed" (my friends and I went so far as to make tshirts with this phrase on it to represent our parody drama-club), and I saw the movie when it came out on video (large apology to the person I made watch it with me.)
I'll admit, some of these stories have an element of comedy in them. Drinking stories are funny to me - especially when the person telling the story is the one who is embarassed in it. What I don't think is funny - and that I can't figure out why I EVER thought was funny - are the stories in which Tucker Max involves women in his drunken exploits. Because he doesn't respect them, and he dehumanizes them. He contributes to a flourishing rape-culture by acting the way he does and publicizing it as if he's proud of his behaviour.
Tucker Max maintains that what he does and how he tells it is "just a joke" and that rape "fucking sucks." Thing is, when a joke actually mirrors what goes on in real life... when the joke isn't just a verbal joke, but a story acted out to the detriment of a person or a group of people... and when, in Tucker's case, he objectifies, uses, humiliates, discards and then writes about women as if all women are just kleenex for him to ejaculate into... then it's no longer a joke, and it presents rape as inviting. A joke is funny. If it were a joke, no one would be hurt.
He's trying to be subversive, but in reality, Tucker Max is doing to women what mainstream (read: violent, heteronormative, made for men) porn does to women, what advertising does to women, and what a lot of men who buy into this shit would like to do to women. He's making a joke that degrades women and allows others to degrade them, too. How on earth he doesn't think this has a real-life impact is beyond me... especially being that he is actually committing the acts he writes about in real life (or at least claiming to.)
There were plenty of clues to this that should have tipped me off. Had I internalized sexism so thoroughly that this didn't even register?
To begin with, the ads for the movie featured Tucker Max with his arm around a blonde with her face cut out and the words "Your face here." Anonymous woman, suggestion that all women wish they were with Tucker, mysogyny... why weren't bells going off for me? This was pre-490, but fuck, seriously?
The second ad for the movie, "Because blind girls can't see you coming/Deaf girls can't hear you coming." Rape jokes, violence against disabled people, sexism, ableism... all over the sides of buses providing a roaming trigger for anyone who has been raped.... And somehow I still didn't notice.
Then the book - secretly filming coerced anal sex, secretly opening the door during sex with a drunken girl at a casino so everyone outside the door can peek in, harassing fat girls at parties... and these are just off the top of my head. I can't bring myself to go look for the book to find more examples. I think I've given enough. And I somehow thought this was ok enough that I kept that book on a shelf by my bed for 2 years.
The movie - "Fat girls aren't real people." "I'm going to carve another fuck-hole in your torso." And is it just me or do the examples get worse as the franchise expands?
And finally, I saw the movie. And this was post-490 and I didn't know quite what to do. In honesty, I was sickened by it, but I couldn't bring myself to just suck it up and admit that for years I'd been a patron to something as everything-ist as this piece of shit, Tucker. So what did I do? I tried to make excuses for it in my mind so that I wouldn't have to deal with the embarassment of liking - worse, publicly liking and promoting and reccomending to friends - Tucker fucking Max. In fact, I think I even tried to sell those excuses to other people. They weren't having any of it.
So here it is - in cyberspace - my apology. Tucker Max is a piece of shit and so is everything he's ever made. I'm embarassed to have not figured it out sooner, and to not have admitted to it when I did figure it out, and I feel god awful for suggesting that other people read this book. I contributed to rape-culture by promoting him. I feel like I did the world a disservice.
I was first introduced to Tucker through his website. I think I was in high school at the time and a friend of a friend introduced it to the circle I hung out with. I read some of the stories, thought they were too long, and abandoned it.
In University, someone mentioned the name 'Tucker Max,' and I gave the website another shot. A couple of my friends read it as well, and probably because one of them was so enthusiastic about it and I saw this as a chance to bond over something, I started getting enthused as well. We'd stay up at night reading stories from the website over the phone to each other, and eventually we went on a day trip to Chapters and both bought copies of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell.
I read the book, I lent it to another friend, I read stories from the book to other people, I laughed at the term "Tuckermaxed" (my friends and I went so far as to make tshirts with this phrase on it to represent our parody drama-club), and I saw the movie when it came out on video (large apology to the person I made watch it with me.)
I'll admit, some of these stories have an element of comedy in them. Drinking stories are funny to me - especially when the person telling the story is the one who is embarassed in it. What I don't think is funny - and that I can't figure out why I EVER thought was funny - are the stories in which Tucker Max involves women in his drunken exploits. Because he doesn't respect them, and he dehumanizes them. He contributes to a flourishing rape-culture by acting the way he does and publicizing it as if he's proud of his behaviour.
Tucker Max maintains that what he does and how he tells it is "just a joke" and that rape "fucking sucks." Thing is, when a joke actually mirrors what goes on in real life... when the joke isn't just a verbal joke, but a story acted out to the detriment of a person or a group of people... and when, in Tucker's case, he objectifies, uses, humiliates, discards and then writes about women as if all women are just kleenex for him to ejaculate into... then it's no longer a joke, and it presents rape as inviting. A joke is funny. If it were a joke, no one would be hurt.
He's trying to be subversive, but in reality, Tucker Max is doing to women what mainstream (read: violent, heteronormative, made for men) porn does to women, what advertising does to women, and what a lot of men who buy into this shit would like to do to women. He's making a joke that degrades women and allows others to degrade them, too. How on earth he doesn't think this has a real-life impact is beyond me... especially being that he is actually committing the acts he writes about in real life (or at least claiming to.)
There were plenty of clues to this that should have tipped me off. Had I internalized sexism so thoroughly that this didn't even register?
To begin with, the ads for the movie featured Tucker Max with his arm around a blonde with her face cut out and the words "Your face here." Anonymous woman, suggestion that all women wish they were with Tucker, mysogyny... why weren't bells going off for me? This was pre-490, but fuck, seriously?
The second ad for the movie, "Because blind girls can't see you coming/Deaf girls can't hear you coming." Rape jokes, violence against disabled people, sexism, ableism... all over the sides of buses providing a roaming trigger for anyone who has been raped.... And somehow I still didn't notice.
Then the book - secretly filming coerced anal sex, secretly opening the door during sex with a drunken girl at a casino so everyone outside the door can peek in, harassing fat girls at parties... and these are just off the top of my head. I can't bring myself to go look for the book to find more examples. I think I've given enough. And I somehow thought this was ok enough that I kept that book on a shelf by my bed for 2 years.
The movie - "Fat girls aren't real people." "I'm going to carve another fuck-hole in your torso." And is it just me or do the examples get worse as the franchise expands?
And finally, I saw the movie. And this was post-490 and I didn't know quite what to do. In honesty, I was sickened by it, but I couldn't bring myself to just suck it up and admit that for years I'd been a patron to something as everything-ist as this piece of shit, Tucker. So what did I do? I tried to make excuses for it in my mind so that I wouldn't have to deal with the embarassment of liking - worse, publicly liking and promoting and reccomending to friends - Tucker fucking Max. In fact, I think I even tried to sell those excuses to other people. They weren't having any of it.
So here it is - in cyberspace - my apology. Tucker Max is a piece of shit and so is everything he's ever made. I'm embarassed to have not figured it out sooner, and to not have admitted to it when I did figure it out, and I feel god awful for suggesting that other people read this book. I contributed to rape-culture by promoting him. I feel like I did the world a disservice.
Friday, August 13, 2010
You may call me INCUBATRON
I heard about this on CBC on my way to work this morning.
There are some parts of this that I'd like to look at.
Firstly, the opening sentence:
"Health providers should routinely ask women of child-bearing age about their alcohol consumption as a first step in trying to prevent fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in children"
Women of child-bearing age. No qualifier... just all women of child-bearing age.
Then:
"...[Guidelines were released to help healthcare practitioners] broach the subject of drinking with women who are already pregnant or those who could become pregnant."
...Again, no qualifier. Not only 'those who are trying to become pregnant,' just those who could become pregnant. Those who have the ability to. Young, fertile women within a certain age bracket.
And finally this:
"The problem here is that very many physicians do not even ask the question," he said. "It's not an easy thing to ask. Here you have a patient, who comes to you for something else, to ask about drinking."
Not an easy thing to ask. Yep. I'd imagine it wouldn't be. Know why? Because it's none of your damn business. That's why.
The problem isn't that they're not asking - the problem is that it's considered a problem that they're not asking. If I go to the doctor for something entirely unrelated to my reproductive health, that doctor absolutely has no right or reason to ask me about my drinking habits based on his assumption that I might become pregnant.
I like to think that I function as more than just a baby receptacle, or the potential to become one. I like to think that my body has value as something other that an incubator from the time that I hit menarche to the time I reach menopause. I like to think that if I choose not to have children that I'm not an anomaly. If you have a female patient who comes to you, as the article says, "for something else," then how about respecting her privacy, her personal choices regarding family planning, and her ability to function as a responsible person. If these women had reproduction-related questions, then I'd bet they would come to you asking those questions so why not just treat them for what it is they came to you for and leave the onus of discussing pregnancy-related issues with the woman - you know - the one whose body is actually involved. I know this may come as a shock to some, but not every aspect of a young woman's life circulates around the possibility that someday they may become pregnant - I know mine doesn't. It's insulting to insert unsolicited information regarding pregnancy during doctor's appointments to women who neither asked for it, nor required it. In fact, to do so is disrespectful and assumes quite a narrow range of function for female bodies.
Furthermore, as if we didn't already know that drinking during pregnancy was bad. How about trusting that women aren't stupid and can figure out - after the widely circulated ad campaigns - that there are certain things we shouldn't consume while pregnant. If we ask for information, hand it over. When we don't, mind your own business.
Some food for thought:
"What we do know is that women who abuse alcohol tend to associate with men who also drink excessively. We know that a woman is much more successful in her ability to stop drinking and to stay sober if her male partner... also stop[s] drinking. So, the role of men in the prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders is significant—all prevention efforts should address both men and women, parents, friends, family members and the community- at-large. While a male’s drinking cannot cause FASD, it can certainly attribute to children being born with FASD, and their support for their partner to stop drinking can decrease the likelihood of women continuing to drink during pregnancy. "
Found here.
There are some parts of this that I'd like to look at.
Firstly, the opening sentence:
"Health providers should routinely ask women of child-bearing age about their alcohol consumption as a first step in trying to prevent fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in children"
Women of child-bearing age. No qualifier... just all women of child-bearing age.
Then:
"...[Guidelines were released to help healthcare practitioners] broach the subject of drinking with women who are already pregnant or those who could become pregnant."
...Again, no qualifier. Not only 'those who are trying to become pregnant,' just those who could become pregnant. Those who have the ability to. Young, fertile women within a certain age bracket.
And finally this:
"The problem here is that very many physicians do not even ask the question," he said. "It's not an easy thing to ask. Here you have a patient, who comes to you for something else, to ask about drinking."
Not an easy thing to ask. Yep. I'd imagine it wouldn't be. Know why? Because it's none of your damn business. That's why.
The problem isn't that they're not asking - the problem is that it's considered a problem that they're not asking. If I go to the doctor for something entirely unrelated to my reproductive health, that doctor absolutely has no right or reason to ask me about my drinking habits based on his assumption that I might become pregnant.
I like to think that I function as more than just a baby receptacle, or the potential to become one. I like to think that my body has value as something other that an incubator from the time that I hit menarche to the time I reach menopause. I like to think that if I choose not to have children that I'm not an anomaly. If you have a female patient who comes to you, as the article says, "for something else," then how about respecting her privacy, her personal choices regarding family planning, and her ability to function as a responsible person. If these women had reproduction-related questions, then I'd bet they would come to you asking those questions so why not just treat them for what it is they came to you for and leave the onus of discussing pregnancy-related issues with the woman - you know - the one whose body is actually involved. I know this may come as a shock to some, but not every aspect of a young woman's life circulates around the possibility that someday they may become pregnant - I know mine doesn't. It's insulting to insert unsolicited information regarding pregnancy during doctor's appointments to women who neither asked for it, nor required it. In fact, to do so is disrespectful and assumes quite a narrow range of function for female bodies.
Furthermore, as if we didn't already know that drinking during pregnancy was bad. How about trusting that women aren't stupid and can figure out - after the widely circulated ad campaigns - that there are certain things we shouldn't consume while pregnant. If we ask for information, hand it over. When we don't, mind your own business.
Some food for thought:
"What we do know is that women who abuse alcohol tend to associate with men who also drink excessively. We know that a woman is much more successful in her ability to stop drinking and to stay sober if her male partner... also stop[s] drinking. So, the role of men in the prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders is significant—all prevention efforts should address both men and women, parents, friends, family members and the community- at-large. While a male’s drinking cannot cause FASD, it can certainly attribute to children being born with FASD, and their support for their partner to stop drinking can decrease the likelihood of women continuing to drink during pregnancy. "
Found here.
Friday, August 6, 2010
0.008lowme
From MacLeans.com:
"Kevin Wiener, a 20-year-old student at the University of Western Ontario, has filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to challenge anti-drunk-driving legislation that he says discriminates based on age. The new legislation requires Ontarians under 22 years old to have no alcohol in their blood while driving. The law is in addition to laws already on the books that punish drivers of all ages whose roadside blood-alcohol content is above 0.05. Wiener says the rules, which allow for 24-hour roadside suspensions, plus fines of up to $500 and 30-day suspensions, violate the Canadian Carter [sic] of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against age discrimination. Ontario’s Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne said the law is necessary because drivers aged 19-21 who are involved in crashes are 1.5 times more likely to have some level of alcohol in their blood."
Hoo-fucking-RAY! I'm so glad someone finally called this as what it is - discriminatory bullshit. If black people were statistically more likely to get in accidents would we ban them from having alcohol in their blood? How about if it was boys more than girls (and insurance companies believe that statistically, it is)? Discriminatory laws based on anything - age, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc. - are just that. Discriminatory. No matter what group is targeted.
Plus, if the limit right now is 0.08, and the people who are out driving drunkenly and irresponsibly are over this limit, why would a lower limit stop them? People who drink to excess and drive already know they're doing something wrong. This law doesn't discourage irresponsible behaviour, it just puts limits on the people who stay within the allowed 0.08 blood alcohol level... you know, the ones more likely to be the designated drivers. This is just so counter intuitive. How about just making it a zero alcohol policy for new drivers with less than 5 years experience? Or how about targetting other distractions while driving - like big goddamn billboards with near-naked women on them? The vast majority of DWIs are repeat offenders, so how about better rehabilitation programs for people who are caught driving impaired? Or why not insist that anyone charged with a DWI must have zero blood-alcohol from that point forward? It'd be a deterrant, at least.
Besides this, only 30% of DWIs are people under 22 - so what about that other 70%? Or do we divide that into groups as well so that it doesn't look so bad? This is where the logic of "21 and under" fails me. You can bend statistics to look however you want them to by expanding and contracting your sample group (for example, I could say that 30% of DWIs are from people 21 and under, and I could say that 70% are 22 and over, OR if I wanted to create a bullshit discriminatory law, I could use a control group of 30 and under to make my percentage look bigger. Or I could divide the remainder into smaller groups like 22-25, 25-30, 30-25, etc. so that it looks like their percentages are less.) A lot of people are being punished with this new law, and a lot of them haven't done a thing wrong. If the government is so concerned with drunk driving and saving lives then how about this: instead of pussy-footing around the issue, make it a ZERO BLOOD ALCOHOL POLICY FOR EVERYONE. That way, you're not discriminating and you're actually doing something to save lives instead of just making it look like you are. Just because one "group" has "more" DWIs than another, doesn't mean that the second group has none. If we agree that driving under the influence is bad for people under 22, then maybe we should agree that it's universally bad for everybody.
'Smoking Man' on the MacLeans website comments section also brings up an excellent point - that this law is a thinly disguised money grab by insurance companies. If someone gets pulled over and their car suspended because their blood alcohol was 0.0001 their insurance will skyrocket because this is an 'alcohol related offense'. Sick.
"Kevin Wiener, a 20-year-old student at the University of Western Ontario, has filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to challenge anti-drunk-driving legislation that he says discriminates based on age. The new legislation requires Ontarians under 22 years old to have no alcohol in their blood while driving. The law is in addition to laws already on the books that punish drivers of all ages whose roadside blood-alcohol content is above 0.05. Wiener says the rules, which allow for 24-hour roadside suspensions, plus fines of up to $500 and 30-day suspensions, violate the Canadian Carter [sic] of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against age discrimination. Ontario’s Transportation Minister Kathleen Wynne said the law is necessary because drivers aged 19-21 who are involved in crashes are 1.5 times more likely to have some level of alcohol in their blood."
Hoo-fucking-RAY! I'm so glad someone finally called this as what it is - discriminatory bullshit. If black people were statistically more likely to get in accidents would we ban them from having alcohol in their blood? How about if it was boys more than girls (and insurance companies believe that statistically, it is)? Discriminatory laws based on anything - age, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, etc. - are just that. Discriminatory. No matter what group is targeted.
Plus, if the limit right now is 0.08, and the people who are out driving drunkenly and irresponsibly are over this limit, why would a lower limit stop them? People who drink to excess and drive already know they're doing something wrong. This law doesn't discourage irresponsible behaviour, it just puts limits on the people who stay within the allowed 0.08 blood alcohol level... you know, the ones more likely to be the designated drivers. This is just so counter intuitive. How about just making it a zero alcohol policy for new drivers with less than 5 years experience? Or how about targetting other distractions while driving - like big goddamn billboards with near-naked women on them? The vast majority of DWIs are repeat offenders, so how about better rehabilitation programs for people who are caught driving impaired? Or why not insist that anyone charged with a DWI must have zero blood-alcohol from that point forward? It'd be a deterrant, at least.
Besides this, only 30% of DWIs are people under 22 - so what about that other 70%? Or do we divide that into groups as well so that it doesn't look so bad? This is where the logic of "21 and under" fails me. You can bend statistics to look however you want them to by expanding and contracting your sample group (for example, I could say that 30% of DWIs are from people 21 and under, and I could say that 70% are 22 and over, OR if I wanted to create a bullshit discriminatory law, I could use a control group of 30 and under to make my percentage look bigger. Or I could divide the remainder into smaller groups like 22-25, 25-30, 30-25, etc. so that it looks like their percentages are less.) A lot of people are being punished with this new law, and a lot of them haven't done a thing wrong. If the government is so concerned with drunk driving and saving lives then how about this: instead of pussy-footing around the issue, make it a ZERO BLOOD ALCOHOL POLICY FOR EVERYONE. That way, you're not discriminating and you're actually doing something to save lives instead of just making it look like you are. Just because one "group" has "more" DWIs than another, doesn't mean that the second group has none. If we agree that driving under the influence is bad for people under 22, then maybe we should agree that it's universally bad for everybody.
'Smoking Man' on the MacLeans website comments section also brings up an excellent point - that this law is a thinly disguised money grab by insurance companies. If someone gets pulled over and their car suspended because their blood alcohol was 0.0001 their insurance will skyrocket because this is an 'alcohol related offense'. Sick.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Honestly...
GRAAAH!
And here's yet another reason to hate the Toronto Sun. As if the Sunshine Girl feature isn't quite bad enough (and it undoubtedly is.)
Today, the issue of the Islamic Centre being built near Ground Zero was brought up. The conversation started when someone suggested that this was insensitive. I fully expected this to be affirmed by the other two, but one of the others retorted that it isn't insensitive because not all Muslims are violent, to which the first person responded that all Muslims ARE in fact violent because the Qur'an has a passage that says something to the effect of "go forth and kill the infidels." Here we go...
Completely stepping over the fact that I was quite possibly being baited, I told them that this was not an act comitted by Muslims, it was an act comitted by a group of violent extremists that by no means represent the whole of the Muslim community. I told them that if we were going to assign the blame for 9/11 to any group who share characteristics with the offending group of terrorists involved and ban them from ground zero, then I'm pretty sure we can't have men, the able-bodied, young people, humans, anyone with a skin tone darker than tan, etc. etc. etc. Besides this, I'm pretty sure there's no group on earth that you could look at and not find a skeleton somewhere in their many closets. Every group has some kind of shame somewhere in their history if you look hard enough, and Muslims are no exception.
I went on to tell them (in probably the most shit-disturbing move since "boob-gate 2010" [again, fodder for another post]) that if we're going to target religion, then we need to look at all of them and not just the ones who have obvious and well-publicized manifestations of their violent undertones. I told them that we should probably take another look at the Bible if we're so sure that the Muslims are the only violent ones. And then the shitgate broke.
Two people who have - up until now - vehemently denied their association with Christianity ("it's so stupid!") dove in to let me know that Christian violence is just history and not something supported by the Bible. You know when you know someone's wrong but you don't have the memorized quotes to prove it to them (or perhaps just don't have the nerve?)
For the sake of getting this off my chest (because as soon as I realized that there was no convincing a group of three people who didn't want to listen I stopped talking all together), here's some passages to look at:
2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8 -- the "right" and "just" Lot hands over his two virgin daughters to be raped and brutalized rather than giving them two male angels.
Exodus 21:15, 17 We should execute children who hit or curse their parents
Exodus 22:18 'Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.'
Exodus 22:19 'Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death'
And now... for my PERSONAL favorite:
"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22:20
But... doesn't that sound an awful lot like "Kill the infidels"? In fact, isn't that the exact same sentiment? Isn't it worse when coupled with 31:14 "Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed"? The worst part is, I could keep going with this list. Just go read Exodus.
What I'm getting at is that I think it's really too bad that there's so much Islamaphobia floating around right now in the newspapers, the news and apparently in casual conversation. Instead of Othering these people and using their culture as a foil to make our own look better, wouldn't it be more productive to use this as an opportunity to self-reflect? If we're going to point fingers and assign blame and call one group 'bad' (and I absolutely do not deny here that there aren't some actions that Muslim extremists have taken that are entirely bad) then should we maybe not take a long, hard look at ourselves and use the violent actions of others as a mirror to examine our own? We're not perfect, you know. We have violent scriptures, bombs, weapons. We commit violent acts and racism and sexism. We have hatred for other groups. We certainly don't live in a perfect society, and to use the acts of a small sect of another group to make the entirety of our often bleak culture look better is irresponsible and dangerous.
Pardon the sarcastic and bitter post. Sometimes it's all just a bit much, you know?
And here's yet another reason to hate the Toronto Sun. As if the Sunshine Girl feature isn't quite bad enough (and it undoubtedly is.)
Today, the issue of the Islamic Centre being built near Ground Zero was brought up. The conversation started when someone suggested that this was insensitive. I fully expected this to be affirmed by the other two, but one of the others retorted that it isn't insensitive because not all Muslims are violent, to which the first person responded that all Muslims ARE in fact violent because the Qur'an has a passage that says something to the effect of "go forth and kill the infidels." Here we go...
Completely stepping over the fact that I was quite possibly being baited, I told them that this was not an act comitted by Muslims, it was an act comitted by a group of violent extremists that by no means represent the whole of the Muslim community. I told them that if we were going to assign the blame for 9/11 to any group who share characteristics with the offending group of terrorists involved and ban them from ground zero, then I'm pretty sure we can't have men, the able-bodied, young people, humans, anyone with a skin tone darker than tan, etc. etc. etc. Besides this, I'm pretty sure there's no group on earth that you could look at and not find a skeleton somewhere in their many closets. Every group has some kind of shame somewhere in their history if you look hard enough, and Muslims are no exception.
I went on to tell them (in probably the most shit-disturbing move since "boob-gate 2010" [again, fodder for another post]) that if we're going to target religion, then we need to look at all of them and not just the ones who have obvious and well-publicized manifestations of their violent undertones. I told them that we should probably take another look at the Bible if we're so sure that the Muslims are the only violent ones. And then the shitgate broke.
Two people who have - up until now - vehemently denied their association with Christianity ("it's so stupid!") dove in to let me know that Christian violence is just history and not something supported by the Bible. You know when you know someone's wrong but you don't have the memorized quotes to prove it to them (or perhaps just don't have the nerve?)
For the sake of getting this off my chest (because as soon as I realized that there was no convincing a group of three people who didn't want to listen I stopped talking all together), here's some passages to look at:
2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8 -- the "right" and "just" Lot hands over his two virgin daughters to be raped and brutalized rather than giving them two male angels.
Exodus 21:15, 17 We should execute children who hit or curse their parents
Exodus 22:18 'Thou shall not suffer a witch to live.'
Exodus 22:19 'Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death'
And now... for my PERSONAL favorite:
"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22:20
But... doesn't that sound an awful lot like "Kill the infidels"? In fact, isn't that the exact same sentiment? Isn't it worse when coupled with 31:14 "Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed"? The worst part is, I could keep going with this list. Just go read Exodus.
What I'm getting at is that I think it's really too bad that there's so much Islamaphobia floating around right now in the newspapers, the news and apparently in casual conversation. Instead of Othering these people and using their culture as a foil to make our own look better, wouldn't it be more productive to use this as an opportunity to self-reflect? If we're going to point fingers and assign blame and call one group 'bad' (and I absolutely do not deny here that there aren't some actions that Muslim extremists have taken that are entirely bad) then should we maybe not take a long, hard look at ourselves and use the violent actions of others as a mirror to examine our own? We're not perfect, you know. We have violent scriptures, bombs, weapons. We commit violent acts and racism and sexism. We have hatred for other groups. We certainly don't live in a perfect society, and to use the acts of a small sect of another group to make the entirety of our often bleak culture look better is irresponsible and dangerous.
Pardon the sarcastic and bitter post. Sometimes it's all just a bit much, you know?
Sunday, August 1, 2010
"So if we're all equal, then..."
I was talking to Megan the other night and she mentioned to me that she was reading one of Jessica Valenti's books at work. I told her that sometimes I get embarassed to talk about feminism openly because it's seen as somewhat of an 'f-word' - the minute you admit to aligning yourself with this movement it seems you open yourself up to all kinds of criticism and ridicule. The kind of ridicule that men discussing "men's rights" seem to avoid. What shock. This discussion led to another which led to another which eventually spawned the idea for our new website - but that's for another post.
What Megan told me is that she has no problem leaving this book open on her desk (Megan, if you're reading this, I really admire how open you are about this. I love that you're dying to start sporting a "This is what a Feminist looks like" tshirt.) She told me that she's been asked about it by the guys she works with in that typical "Haha - you're a Feminist??" kind of way. Her response so far has been "Yep." It's working well for her - she's able to engage people in conversations this way.
What she told me the other day about one response really got me thinking. A guy said to her, "So if we're all equal, is it ok if I punch you in the face?" This is something that comes up in feminist discussions a lot, it seems. "If we're equal, then..." and it's followed by anything from "why do women get hired more than men??" to "how come girls are ahead of boys in literacy testing during grade school??" (Just for the purpose of not starting something and then leaving it unfinished - women are hired more than men in certain jobs, yes. These jobs, though, are often low-paying because they are typically associated with females. Teachers, secretaries, cashiers, waitresses, that kind of thing. "Pink-collar jobs." Men are more likely to be hired in higher paying jobs. This may suck for the guy trying to become a kindergarten teacher, but it sucks even more for a woman trying not to be. The literacy thing is upsetting - we definitely shouldn't leave boys behind. But does that necessarily mean that young women doing well with literacy testing is a bad thing?)
Anyway, back to "So can I punch you in the face?" Umm, no. You can't. And I'm quite embarassed to say it took me a few days to figure out the full scope of why.
If someone had asked me this a few days ago, I would have told them this:
1. It's not ok to hit ANYONE in the face.
2. Men are statistically bigger and physically stronger than women, and hitting anyone in the face who is smaller than you is REALLY not ok.
If they asked me this morning, I probably would have started with the above two reasons and then added a few things. Firstly, we're not equal in this society. Not yet. I mean, fundamentally in the universe we are and always have been, but not in our contemporary world. It would be nice if we were, and that we could just erase the history of women's oppression, but we can't, and that history informs violent actions that are committed by men against women. It's not ok to hit anyone, and it's especially not ok to hit someone smaller than you. But it has been historically ok to hit women - ever heard of the 'rule of thumb'? Know where that comes from? Google it. I don't mean to suggest that men can't be victims of intimate partner violence because they can, but statistically much less than women are (only 1% directed at men while 76% of family abuse is directed towards wives.) That said, when a man hits a woman, in my opinion, it brings with it the history of women being 'diciplined' by their boyfriends, husbands, fathers, brothers, and bosses (See this ad.)
When a woman hits a man, she's a woman hitting a man. When a man hits a woman, it's society, history and all men hitting that woman. It's the difference between calling a gay person a 'fag' and calling a straight person a 'breeder.' It's a reinforcement of an attitude that gets played out every day, every where, and to the detriment of every woman. It's about physical pain, yes, and that's why a person should never hit someone smaller than them, but it's about more than just physical pain. It's about control, oppression, and entitlement and about staking a claim to that entitlement by hitting and intimidating. It's about reinforcing a male privilege that we live with every day already, that says that men can have more, be more, do more and acheive more and that women should sit down, shut up and smile. It's like a sticky note to remind you that historically, when your father walked you down the isle, you were his property, and when he left you at the alter, you were a husband's property.
What I would love to ask this person is why he'd like to hit me in the face. I think his answers would be pretty telling. What reason would you have for wanting to hit a woman in the face. Did she 'piss you off'? Was she behaving 'out of line'? Did she hit you first, and was it that painful that you thought you'd just put her back in her place?
And why the face? Because if you leave a mark, it's more damaging on the face? So that everyone can see the humiliation associated with a woman's punishment? So other people can degrade her by looking at this mark and wondering if she deserved it? Or maybe because if you mark her face it leaves her looking less attractive, and the worst thing you can do to a woman is apparently to destroy her physical beauty?
Here's a couple more facts on domestic violence, just for good measure:
In 1982, the Canadian House of Commons officially adopted that 1 out of 10 Canadian women are battered by their husbands or live-in partners. Other studies suggest 1 out of 8 Canadian women are physically, sexually or psychologically abused by their partners.
Most wife assaults happen in private places, away from the eyes of neighbours, friends, and any potential help for the victim. Most cases occur in the family home. The kitchen and master bedroom are the most dangerous rooms.
See holysmoke for more.
What Megan told me is that she has no problem leaving this book open on her desk (Megan, if you're reading this, I really admire how open you are about this. I love that you're dying to start sporting a "This is what a Feminist looks like" tshirt.) She told me that she's been asked about it by the guys she works with in that typical "Haha - you're a Feminist??" kind of way. Her response so far has been "Yep." It's working well for her - she's able to engage people in conversations this way.
What she told me the other day about one response really got me thinking. A guy said to her, "So if we're all equal, is it ok if I punch you in the face?" This is something that comes up in feminist discussions a lot, it seems. "If we're equal, then..." and it's followed by anything from "why do women get hired more than men??" to "how come girls are ahead of boys in literacy testing during grade school??" (Just for the purpose of not starting something and then leaving it unfinished - women are hired more than men in certain jobs, yes. These jobs, though, are often low-paying because they are typically associated with females. Teachers, secretaries, cashiers, waitresses, that kind of thing. "Pink-collar jobs." Men are more likely to be hired in higher paying jobs. This may suck for the guy trying to become a kindergarten teacher, but it sucks even more for a woman trying not to be. The literacy thing is upsetting - we definitely shouldn't leave boys behind. But does that necessarily mean that young women doing well with literacy testing is a bad thing?)
Anyway, back to "So can I punch you in the face?" Umm, no. You can't. And I'm quite embarassed to say it took me a few days to figure out the full scope of why.
If someone had asked me this a few days ago, I would have told them this:
1. It's not ok to hit ANYONE in the face.
2. Men are statistically bigger and physically stronger than women, and hitting anyone in the face who is smaller than you is REALLY not ok.
If they asked me this morning, I probably would have started with the above two reasons and then added a few things. Firstly, we're not equal in this society. Not yet. I mean, fundamentally in the universe we are and always have been, but not in our contemporary world. It would be nice if we were, and that we could just erase the history of women's oppression, but we can't, and that history informs violent actions that are committed by men against women. It's not ok to hit anyone, and it's especially not ok to hit someone smaller than you. But it has been historically ok to hit women - ever heard of the 'rule of thumb'? Know where that comes from? Google it. I don't mean to suggest that men can't be victims of intimate partner violence because they can, but statistically much less than women are (only 1% directed at men while 76% of family abuse is directed towards wives.) That said, when a man hits a woman, in my opinion, it brings with it the history of women being 'diciplined' by their boyfriends, husbands, fathers, brothers, and bosses (See this ad.)
When a woman hits a man, she's a woman hitting a man. When a man hits a woman, it's society, history and all men hitting that woman. It's the difference between calling a gay person a 'fag' and calling a straight person a 'breeder.' It's a reinforcement of an attitude that gets played out every day, every where, and to the detriment of every woman. It's about physical pain, yes, and that's why a person should never hit someone smaller than them, but it's about more than just physical pain. It's about control, oppression, and entitlement and about staking a claim to that entitlement by hitting and intimidating. It's about reinforcing a male privilege that we live with every day already, that says that men can have more, be more, do more and acheive more and that women should sit down, shut up and smile. It's like a sticky note to remind you that historically, when your father walked you down the isle, you were his property, and when he left you at the alter, you were a husband's property.
What I would love to ask this person is why he'd like to hit me in the face. I think his answers would be pretty telling. What reason would you have for wanting to hit a woman in the face. Did she 'piss you off'? Was she behaving 'out of line'? Did she hit you first, and was it that painful that you thought you'd just put her back in her place?
And why the face? Because if you leave a mark, it's more damaging on the face? So that everyone can see the humiliation associated with a woman's punishment? So other people can degrade her by looking at this mark and wondering if she deserved it? Or maybe because if you mark her face it leaves her looking less attractive, and the worst thing you can do to a woman is apparently to destroy her physical beauty?
Here's a couple more facts on domestic violence, just for good measure:
In 1982, the Canadian House of Commons officially adopted that 1 out of 10 Canadian women are battered by their husbands or live-in partners. Other studies suggest 1 out of 8 Canadian women are physically, sexually or psychologically abused by their partners.
Most wife assaults happen in private places, away from the eyes of neighbours, friends, and any potential help for the victim. Most cases occur in the family home. The kitchen and master bedroom are the most dangerous rooms.
See holysmoke for more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)