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.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Bullfighting... bullshit
The sweet news!
I am absolutely fucking THRILLED to hear this news. Bullfighting is something that makes me want to vomit and it's always felt vaguely like internalized racism that a number of Spanish people would claim this barbarism as part of their cultural heritage.
Bullfighting is often represented as a Disney-esque playtime between a matador and a bull, but the reality of this practice is actually quite sickening. Bulls are brought into a ring (often with vaseline rubbed into their eyes to disorient and blind them) where they are baited, tormented, cut and stuck with spears. The matador's function is to excite the bull with a brightly coloured cape until it is close enough for the matador to stab it with spears. This continues until the bull is so fatigued from blood loss that it collapses, at which point the matador beheads it with a knife.
Sadly, due in part to the media representations of this as a 'harmless' tease akin to a circus-act, rarely is anything done about it. No one seems to know what exactly bull fighting is. Thankfully, now that it is banned in Catalonia and is getting some legitimate and accurate media attention, perhaps it will become a larger issue.
I am absolutely fucking THRILLED to hear this news. Bullfighting is something that makes me want to vomit and it's always felt vaguely like internalized racism that a number of Spanish people would claim this barbarism as part of their cultural heritage.
Bullfighting is often represented as a Disney-esque playtime between a matador and a bull, but the reality of this practice is actually quite sickening. Bulls are brought into a ring (often with vaseline rubbed into their eyes to disorient and blind them) where they are baited, tormented, cut and stuck with spears. The matador's function is to excite the bull with a brightly coloured cape until it is close enough for the matador to stab it with spears. This continues until the bull is so fatigued from blood loss that it collapses, at which point the matador beheads it with a knife.
Sadly, due in part to the media representations of this as a 'harmless' tease akin to a circus-act, rarely is anything done about it. No one seems to know what exactly bull fighting is. Thankfully, now that it is banned in Catalonia and is getting some legitimate and accurate media attention, perhaps it will become a larger issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)