Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Advertising...
If I were in a 'clever play on words' mood, then this post would be called "SADvertising." Alas...
Ok, so I want to discuss how every time I walk into the subway in Toronto, I feel like I'm walking into a sexist man-cave. As a matter of fact, there are some days where I feel as though when I step out into the world (or turn on the tv, or visit youtube.com, or fuck - just open my eyes) then I feel the very same way, but the concentration of this shit in the relatively small space of the subway station seems to really help me to focus on its overwhelming sexism. Is this intentional? I don't know or care. It's sure irritating, though.
First things first; Megan just wrote a spectacular piece on the Bic Soleil ads. She's definitely articulated her feelings about that particular ad better than I could, so I suggest reading her post.
Now, another ad that I've seen down there in the past few days has been one for Victoria's Secret, which is apparently opening soon/did recently open, and the ad wants to let me know that 'The Angels Have Landed.' Wow, really? They did? Underwear angels?? How exciting for me!! What a great way to appeal to a female demographic! /sarcasm. Honestly. We have ads here that feature nearly naked, emaciated and airbrushed women being touted as 'angels' without any mention of just why it is that Victoria's Secret lingerie is so top notch. Will it make your average woman look like a Victoria's Secret model? Uh, probably not. Will it somehow introduce your average woman into the elite, secret society of Victoria's Secret consumers? Well, not in any meaningful way. So what the hell, then, does this half-naked, emaciated, airbrushed woman have to do with me? Oh, right. Shame.
All I can gather from these ads is that I'm supposed to feel as though I'm not quite as fabulous as these women, that if I try hard enough then I just might become as fabulous as these women, and that in the meanwhile if I don't want my man to be stolen by one of these fabulous women, then I'd better start boosting my titties and workin' that thong just like them so that maybe - just maybe - he can squint his eyes a little bit... and pretend I'm one of them. I will say that I have no problem with these women - no problem with their thongs, and no problem with their bodies. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this is the ONLY FEMALE BODY we EVER see in advertising for every product ever. And seriously - this is an ad campaign that appeals almost entirely to a heterosexual male, and yet it's supposed to be selling a product to me. The only other reason I can think of that someone would pitch this campaign is that women will hear men talking about the Victoria's Secret models and sexualizing them, and somehow feel jealous enough that they'd buy underwear to try to emulate them. This ad pretty much uses the generation of sexist and commodifying discussions and the cultivation of feelings of inadequacy to guilt and shame me into buying underwear. How is this healthy?
Then there's the Levi's ads. The first one I saw looked -awesome.- It was two men and a woman standing together and it read something like "Everyone's work is equally important." I was so impressed with this that I decided to take a walk down the platform to look at the other ads in the series... only to be sorely disappointed. All of the other ads featured men, and men only. To add insult to exclusion, they all featured slogans about work, hard work, and the working person. So apparently only men work these days. Thanks Bic and Levi's - you've officially kicked us so hard in the ovaries that we've been pushed right back to the 1950's again. Good for you.
Then, finally, there's the ad for Burn Notice, which from what I gather is a new show that will air on Showcase sometime in the near future. This is the ad. It's a man pretty much wearing a woman. Specifically what bothers me is this: He's wearing a practical suit, she's wearing an impractical lingerie-style dress and heels; we see about 1% of his body, we see about 90% of hers; he is facing the camera, she is facing him; he is making eye contact with the viewer, she is staring flirtatiously at his face; he is holding the gun at his side, she is drawing attention to her ass by holding it behind her back; all of his focus is on us, all of her focus is on him. See a trend? We've got a thick line drawn right down the middle of the gender binary that reinforces that women are a, b and c, and men are x, y and z. And they're the same tired, traditional gender signifiers that we've been seeing forever.
Oh, and don't try to escape this shit by staying home and watching tv - because the new Burger King ad pretty much beats the hell out of all of them. Guys go to work, women stay home and water the lawn in slow motion wearing short shorts and drinking milk shakes. Wow. How subversive and revolutionary. I've definitely never seen that before.
Ok, so I want to discuss how every time I walk into the subway in Toronto, I feel like I'm walking into a sexist man-cave. As a matter of fact, there are some days where I feel as though when I step out into the world (or turn on the tv, or visit youtube.com, or fuck - just open my eyes) then I feel the very same way, but the concentration of this shit in the relatively small space of the subway station seems to really help me to focus on its overwhelming sexism. Is this intentional? I don't know or care. It's sure irritating, though.
First things first; Megan just wrote a spectacular piece on the Bic Soleil ads. She's definitely articulated her feelings about that particular ad better than I could, so I suggest reading her post.
Now, another ad that I've seen down there in the past few days has been one for Victoria's Secret, which is apparently opening soon/did recently open, and the ad wants to let me know that 'The Angels Have Landed.' Wow, really? They did? Underwear angels?? How exciting for me!! What a great way to appeal to a female demographic! /sarcasm. Honestly. We have ads here that feature nearly naked, emaciated and airbrushed women being touted as 'angels' without any mention of just why it is that Victoria's Secret lingerie is so top notch. Will it make your average woman look like a Victoria's Secret model? Uh, probably not. Will it somehow introduce your average woman into the elite, secret society of Victoria's Secret consumers? Well, not in any meaningful way. So what the hell, then, does this half-naked, emaciated, airbrushed woman have to do with me? Oh, right. Shame.
All I can gather from these ads is that I'm supposed to feel as though I'm not quite as fabulous as these women, that if I try hard enough then I just might become as fabulous as these women, and that in the meanwhile if I don't want my man to be stolen by one of these fabulous women, then I'd better start boosting my titties and workin' that thong just like them so that maybe - just maybe - he can squint his eyes a little bit... and pretend I'm one of them. I will say that I have no problem with these women - no problem with their thongs, and no problem with their bodies. What I do have a problem with is the fact that this is the ONLY FEMALE BODY we EVER see in advertising for every product ever. And seriously - this is an ad campaign that appeals almost entirely to a heterosexual male, and yet it's supposed to be selling a product to me. The only other reason I can think of that someone would pitch this campaign is that women will hear men talking about the Victoria's Secret models and sexualizing them, and somehow feel jealous enough that they'd buy underwear to try to emulate them. This ad pretty much uses the generation of sexist and commodifying discussions and the cultivation of feelings of inadequacy to guilt and shame me into buying underwear. How is this healthy?
Then there's the Levi's ads. The first one I saw looked -awesome.- It was two men and a woman standing together and it read something like "Everyone's work is equally important." I was so impressed with this that I decided to take a walk down the platform to look at the other ads in the series... only to be sorely disappointed. All of the other ads featured men, and men only. To add insult to exclusion, they all featured slogans about work, hard work, and the working person. So apparently only men work these days. Thanks Bic and Levi's - you've officially kicked us so hard in the ovaries that we've been pushed right back to the 1950's again. Good for you.
Then, finally, there's the ad for Burn Notice, which from what I gather is a new show that will air on Showcase sometime in the near future. This is the ad. It's a man pretty much wearing a woman. Specifically what bothers me is this: He's wearing a practical suit, she's wearing an impractical lingerie-style dress and heels; we see about 1% of his body, we see about 90% of hers; he is facing the camera, she is facing him; he is making eye contact with the viewer, she is staring flirtatiously at his face; he is holding the gun at his side, she is drawing attention to her ass by holding it behind her back; all of his focus is on us, all of her focus is on him. See a trend? We've got a thick line drawn right down the middle of the gender binary that reinforces that women are a, b and c, and men are x, y and z. And they're the same tired, traditional gender signifiers that we've been seeing forever.
Oh, and don't try to escape this shit by staying home and watching tv - because the new Burger King ad pretty much beats the hell out of all of them. Guys go to work, women stay home and water the lawn in slow motion wearing short shorts and drinking milk shakes. Wow. How subversive and revolutionary. I've definitely never seen that before.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The case for bathroom humour.
Ok, firstly, I understand that we, as a society, have a fear of bodies. I'll actually go as far as to say that it's a bad thing that we have a fear of what bodies do and what bodies produce. In fact, I'm completely guilty of this myself. Everyone who knows me knows that I'm notorious for experiencing intense disgust (we call it a fear) when I come into contact with bodily fluids - including, occasionally, my own. I will say that I've been getting a lot better with this within the last few months, but every so often it resurfaces... so I understand where this comes from.
This fear of all-things-body becomes a negative, I think, when it gets out of hand. As an example, I'll use myself. There's someone in my life who started to help me turn around and face my fear of fluids and smells, but there was a time about a year ago when if I smelled - even a little - I was massively self conscious. I would announce to everyone that I was smelly just in case they thought I didn't know - that I was inadvertantly offending people - that this was just normal for me. I needed to make sure that they knew this was an anomaly. That I didn't always smell. I would use industrial deodorant - the megascented Secret brand stuff that was advertised as being particularly extra-strength. I would be humiliated about my pit-stains. I would heap makeup onto my face in order that no one would notice a blemish, and I would keep tictacs by my bed in case someone stayed the night and might be subjected to... omigod... morning breath.
This led to nothing but anxiety. And let me tell you, in the last year I've switched to all natural deodorant that doesn't stop perspiration and that lets my own smell through by the end of the day. I've stopped wearing almost all makeup, and I've ditched the tictacs. I learned, in fact, that a lot of the products that I was using every day were full of chemicals and that with prolonged use woudn't be particularly good for me. Know how many people noticed or cared when I stopped using this stuff? Yep, none. We get ourselves in a tizzy about our bodies and it's all due to advertising. We really do subject ourselves to daily doses of aluminum, petroleum, bleaches, manufactured fragrances and a host of preservatives only to avoid smelling or facing that our bodies natually produce hairs, smells, fluids and grosseties, and this is definitely not good.
My point here, is that we fear our bodies irrationally already, so what I'm about to propose might seem a bit off kilter. What I'm about to propose is that although bathroom-type comedy and insults might provoke fear of normal bodily functioning, perhaps bathroom insults are the best possible insults we can use in a world without prejudice.
Here's how I figure. Below is a list of things that I hear people call each other every day. In brackets beside each one is why this particular insult is some kind of -ism.
-Fag (Homophobic)
-Gay (Homophobic)
-Homo/homosexual (Homophobic)
-Cocksucker (Particularly egregious because it straddles both homophobia and misogyny, as for the most part, the only people sucking cocks are homosexuals and women)
-Bitch (Sexist - I would argue even when 'reclaimed' as the word actually refers to a female dog. Why women would want to reclaim this is beyond me.)
-Cunt/pussy/twat/vagina (Sexist. Generally these terms are applied to a person who is weak, timid or irritating, which suggests that these things are associated only with being female.)
-Dick/cock/prick/dickhead (Sexist, also. The reason being that these terms are generally applied to a person who is aggressive, arrogant, or stubborn, suggesting that these more assertive traits are associated only with men. Genitalia slurrs as insults generally serve to draw a clear line between Male and Female without leaving any space in between, and generally articulate clear-cut yet stereotypical differences between the genders.)
-Idiot (Ableist - because if I'm not mistaken, this was a term that was once applied to developmentally challenged people)
-Lame (One that I commonly use, but ableist no less)
-Dumb (Albeist)
-Tard/retard (Ableist)
-Motherfucker (Sexist. There are two possible meanings for this insult and both are sexist. The first would be Fucker of mothers which is offensive because it suggests that having sex with a mother, or, I suppose, a woman of advanced years, is somehow undesireable. The second would be The mother of all fuckers which is offensive because without an equivalent 'Fatherfucker,' it assigns all blame for the behaviour of all the Fucker offspring to the matriarch.)
-Douche/douchebag* (Possibly sexist, or possibly a fabulous feminist insult. It has been argued that this term is only considered an insult because of its affiliation with female genitalia. It has also been argued, however, that the term could refer to a useless object given to women to solve a problem that they don't have. I choose to think that this is a fantastic insult and I use it all the time, but for the sake of those who disagree I've added it to this list with a star to denote that it has a place on this list, but that it's different from the rest.)
Now, think of the bathroom-esque insults:
-Shit/shithead/shit disturber/shitface/shitbreath/shitmouth/etc.
-Fart/farthead/fartbrains/fartbreath
-Pissant/pissbrain
And, as Megan and I discovered earlier this evening, there's lots of wonderful creative insults to be made here that are sadly being left undiscovered:
-"You are an unflushed toilet."
-"You are the slickness I feel after someone has pissed in the shower."
-"You are ring of soil around the bottom of a bathtub."
I don't know that any of these really offend any particular group... they sort of apply to everyone. They really are just universal meannesses that have somehow never really attached themselves to one one group or another. As immature as they are, and as much as they foster a fear of our poops and pees and sweats, perhaps a fear of things that come out of our bodies is healther than a fear of a group of people. Maybe, obscene-ness aside, it would be safer to utter these insults on the bus than it would be to call someone 'lame' or a 'pussy.'
In a perfect world, we'd have classes in school that actually told us what poop was. In grade 6 science, a teacher would draw us a shit molecule and we'd all sit there and giggle and come to learn what this bodily function actually means. We'd talk about how everyone takes a shit, and we'd agree that because everyone does it, there's nothing wrong or embarassing about it. No one would feel the need to cough to cover a fart, or sneeze to cover the opening of a tampon wrapper. We'd talk, at length, about body odours and we'd all learn that really, no one can smell it if you sweat a little and that there's no need for concern if you shower regularly. We'd find out that germs that come from someone else's sweat won't corrode your skin and that someone else's spit doesn't necessarily carry bacteria that will kill you instantly. We'd learn that a woman's menstrual blood isn't poisonous and that it's not 'ohmygodsoGROSS' to have sex with her while she's bleeding. This would be so helpful.
We don't, though. And yes, bathroom insults may just make all of this worse. But I truly think that fearing sweat is better than denying marriage rights to LGBTQ people in the US. I really think that turning on the taps while I take a dump at my friend's house is a step up from being labelled irrational, hysterical and emotional by virtue of being female. I think that doing a pit check a few times a day is infinitely preferrable to alienating and lessening the worth of disabled people.
Maybe the answer is throwing these insults around like it's going out of style, and hoping as hard as we can that eventually the corporate world will stop praying on our bodily fears in order to sell us chemical-ridden crap that we don't really need.
This fear of all-things-body becomes a negative, I think, when it gets out of hand. As an example, I'll use myself. There's someone in my life who started to help me turn around and face my fear of fluids and smells, but there was a time about a year ago when if I smelled - even a little - I was massively self conscious. I would announce to everyone that I was smelly just in case they thought I didn't know - that I was inadvertantly offending people - that this was just normal for me. I needed to make sure that they knew this was an anomaly. That I didn't always smell. I would use industrial deodorant - the megascented Secret brand stuff that was advertised as being particularly extra-strength. I would be humiliated about my pit-stains. I would heap makeup onto my face in order that no one would notice a blemish, and I would keep tictacs by my bed in case someone stayed the night and might be subjected to... omigod... morning breath.
This led to nothing but anxiety. And let me tell you, in the last year I've switched to all natural deodorant that doesn't stop perspiration and that lets my own smell through by the end of the day. I've stopped wearing almost all makeup, and I've ditched the tictacs. I learned, in fact, that a lot of the products that I was using every day were full of chemicals and that with prolonged use woudn't be particularly good for me. Know how many people noticed or cared when I stopped using this stuff? Yep, none. We get ourselves in a tizzy about our bodies and it's all due to advertising. We really do subject ourselves to daily doses of aluminum, petroleum, bleaches, manufactured fragrances and a host of preservatives only to avoid smelling or facing that our bodies natually produce hairs, smells, fluids and grosseties, and this is definitely not good.
My point here, is that we fear our bodies irrationally already, so what I'm about to propose might seem a bit off kilter. What I'm about to propose is that although bathroom-type comedy and insults might provoke fear of normal bodily functioning, perhaps bathroom insults are the best possible insults we can use in a world without prejudice.
Here's how I figure. Below is a list of things that I hear people call each other every day. In brackets beside each one is why this particular insult is some kind of -ism.
-Fag (Homophobic)
-Gay (Homophobic)
-Homo/homosexual (Homophobic)
-Cocksucker (Particularly egregious because it straddles both homophobia and misogyny, as for the most part, the only people sucking cocks are homosexuals and women)
-Bitch (Sexist - I would argue even when 'reclaimed' as the word actually refers to a female dog. Why women would want to reclaim this is beyond me.)
-Cunt/pussy/twat/vagina (Sexist. Generally these terms are applied to a person who is weak, timid or irritating, which suggests that these things are associated only with being female.)
-Dick/cock/prick/dickhead (Sexist, also. The reason being that these terms are generally applied to a person who is aggressive, arrogant, or stubborn, suggesting that these more assertive traits are associated only with men. Genitalia slurrs as insults generally serve to draw a clear line between Male and Female without leaving any space in between, and generally articulate clear-cut yet stereotypical differences between the genders.)
-Idiot (Ableist - because if I'm not mistaken, this was a term that was once applied to developmentally challenged people)
-Lame (One that I commonly use, but ableist no less)
-Dumb (Albeist)
-Tard/retard (Ableist)
-Motherfucker (Sexist. There are two possible meanings for this insult and both are sexist. The first would be Fucker of mothers which is offensive because it suggests that having sex with a mother, or, I suppose, a woman of advanced years, is somehow undesireable. The second would be The mother of all fuckers which is offensive because without an equivalent 'Fatherfucker,' it assigns all blame for the behaviour of all the Fucker offspring to the matriarch.)
-Douche/douchebag* (Possibly sexist, or possibly a fabulous feminist insult. It has been argued that this term is only considered an insult because of its affiliation with female genitalia. It has also been argued, however, that the term could refer to a useless object given to women to solve a problem that they don't have. I choose to think that this is a fantastic insult and I use it all the time, but for the sake of those who disagree I've added it to this list with a star to denote that it has a place on this list, but that it's different from the rest.)
Now, think of the bathroom-esque insults:
-Shit/shithead/shit disturber/shitface/shitbreath/shitmouth/etc.
-Fart/farthead/fartbrains/fartbreath
-Pissant/pissbrain
And, as Megan and I discovered earlier this evening, there's lots of wonderful creative insults to be made here that are sadly being left undiscovered:
-"You are an unflushed toilet."
-"You are the slickness I feel after someone has pissed in the shower."
-"You are ring of soil around the bottom of a bathtub."
I don't know that any of these really offend any particular group... they sort of apply to everyone. They really are just universal meannesses that have somehow never really attached themselves to one one group or another. As immature as they are, and as much as they foster a fear of our poops and pees and sweats, perhaps a fear of things that come out of our bodies is healther than a fear of a group of people. Maybe, obscene-ness aside, it would be safer to utter these insults on the bus than it would be to call someone 'lame' or a 'pussy.'
In a perfect world, we'd have classes in school that actually told us what poop was. In grade 6 science, a teacher would draw us a shit molecule and we'd all sit there and giggle and come to learn what this bodily function actually means. We'd talk about how everyone takes a shit, and we'd agree that because everyone does it, there's nothing wrong or embarassing about it. No one would feel the need to cough to cover a fart, or sneeze to cover the opening of a tampon wrapper. We'd talk, at length, about body odours and we'd all learn that really, no one can smell it if you sweat a little and that there's no need for concern if you shower regularly. We'd find out that germs that come from someone else's sweat won't corrode your skin and that someone else's spit doesn't necessarily carry bacteria that will kill you instantly. We'd learn that a woman's menstrual blood isn't poisonous and that it's not 'ohmygodsoGROSS' to have sex with her while she's bleeding. This would be so helpful.
We don't, though. And yes, bathroom insults may just make all of this worse. But I truly think that fearing sweat is better than denying marriage rights to LGBTQ people in the US. I really think that turning on the taps while I take a dump at my friend's house is a step up from being labelled irrational, hysterical and emotional by virtue of being female. I think that doing a pit check a few times a day is infinitely preferrable to alienating and lessening the worth of disabled people.
Maybe the answer is throwing these insults around like it's going out of style, and hoping as hard as we can that eventually the corporate world will stop praying on our bodily fears in order to sell us chemical-ridden crap that we don't really need.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
In case you're looking for something awesome to watch...
Check this out.
It's a fantastic video featuring interviews with two Muslim women talking about their choice to cover their faces and hair.
It's a fantastic video featuring interviews with two Muslim women talking about their choice to cover their faces and hair.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)