You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Culture’ category.
“The oppressive effect of privilege is often so insidious that dominant groups complain whenever it’s brought up for discussion. They feel impatient and imposed on. “Come on,” they say, “stop whining. Things aren’t that bad. Maybe they used to be, but not anymore. It’s time to move on. Get over it” But people who are white or heterosexual or male or nondisabled or middle- or upper-class have to ask themselves how they would know how bad it really is to be a person of color or a lesbian or a woman or gay or disabled or working- or lower-class. What life experience, for example, would qualify a white person to know the day-to-day reality of racism? People of color are, by comparison, experts in the dynamics of race privilege, because they live with the oppressive consequences of it twenty-four hours a day.”
— Allan G. Johnson
It is nice to see that the revived Star Wars franchise is moving in the right direction with regards to the portrayal of women in movies. Because most of the time we get this:
Titillating for the male gaze, but piss-poor at the actual function of armour.
There is a controversy in Canada going on with with regards to the issue of free speech, Bill C-16, and the refusal of a Professor at the U of T to use the alternate pronouns people choose for themselves. This is the video that started it all (1h).
Three viewing options depending on your time frame. A long panel debate (1h), a dual format interview (15m), and a one on one interview with Peterson alone (4m).
Also see the transcript to his interview on CBC radio here, and a look from an alt-right publication here, and from a local Toronto publication. This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the sources available – just a sample and please bear that in mind while thinking about the issues being raised. I’ll quote Peterson describing his position:
“This week, University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson released a video online criticizing political correctness on campus. He also said he doesn’t recognize a person’s right to be addressed using genderless pronouns like “they” instead of “he” or “she.”
Under the proposed Federal law Bill C-16, it will become illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression. As It Happens host Carol Off spoke with Peterson about his position.
Carol Off: Professor Peterson, why have you said you don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns you use to address them?
Jordan Peterson: That’s right. I don’t recognize that. I don’t recognize another person’s right to decide what words I’m going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people. They might have a point but I’m not going to say their words for them.
CO: There are a lot of words that you can’t say even though you may want to, that may be considered, not just offensive, but even illegal. So you’re not entirely free to use whatever words you want in any context…
JP: No, that’s certainly true. I’m not claiming that a person is free to use any words, in any context. But what I’m saying is that I’m not willing to mouth words that I think have been created for ideological purposes.
CO: Even if it’s the law that says you should do that?
JP: Well, I guess we’re going to find out exactly what the law says and it’s one of the reasons that I don’t like Bill C-16. I think that it’s loosely written enough that the kinds of things that I’m talking about could be transformed into hate speech almost immediately.
CO: You have said that you don’t believe that there is enough evidence that non-binary gender identities even exist?
JP: No. I didn’t say that actually. If I’m going to be accused of saying things I have to be accused of exactly what I said. There’s not enough evidence to make the case that gender identity and biological sexuality are independently varying constructs. In fact, all the evidence suggests that they’re not independently varying constructs. I can tell you that transgender people make the same argument. They make the argument that a man can be born in a woman’s body and that’s actually an argument that specifies a biological linkage between gender identity and biological sex. I’m also not objecting to transgender people. I’m objecting to poorly written legislation and the foisting of ideological motivated legislation on a population that’s not ready for it.
CO: Well, transgender people are ready for it and they have been feeling a great deal of discrimination and that’s why they were seeking this type of redress in the law. Do you appreciate that?
JP: I don’t believe that the redress that they’re seeking in the law is going to actually improve their status materially. I think, in fact, it will have the opposite effect. I believe that the principles on which the legislation is predicated are sufficiently incoherent and vague to cause endless legal trouble in a matter that will not benefit transgender people.”
[from the CBC interview on As It Happens]
The core of Peterson’s argument is this: “I don’t recognize another person’s right to decide what words I’m going to use, especially when the words they want me to use, first of all, are non-standard elements of the English language and they are constructs of a small coterie of ideologically motivated people.“
An important distinction to be noted here is that Peterson is not arguing against the exclusion of certain words (n*****) for example, but rather the mandatory and legislated inclusion of words.
Here is a conversation gleaned from the comment sections of the article entitled – “Non-Binary Students React to the U of T Prof Who Won’t Acknowledge Their Pronouns”:
The comment thread is some 500 responses long and there are several instances of exchanges between Micheal H and other people. Several of the arguments present mirror how this debate often unfolds and the positions taken on the free-speech/discrimination issue. If you have time, the article and comment section is a worthy use of your time.
Summarizing Micheal H’s position:
“Using someone’s preferred name doesn’t place an obligation on me to deny my appreciation of objective reality and affirm someone else’s.
What I find ‘somewhat wrong’ is someone expecting that his completely subjective, idiosyncratic self-conception should be validated by other people at the expense of their own foundational conception of reality.”
Micheal certainly has the arguments working for him. What seems to be missing is the social realization that each person experiences society differently and that sometimes mere arguments cannot adequately capture all of the nuance of the interactions that take place in society – consider his phrasing here ‘And the hypocrisy here is to conceive of the dynamic between two autonomous individuals […]’
Once in society the phrase ‘two autonomous individuals’ becomes a less useful term because all of the social encumbrances and dynamics at play (race,class,sex,). Not appreciating, or accounting for the ‘societal noise’ makes the arguments seem very clear cut and straightforward. Perhaps a bit too easy.
Let’s take a look at some raw footage at Peterson’s gathering. The interactions are haphazard at best, but the video gives some background onto what both sides are saying in the argument.
Vice – weighs in on the topic essentially saying that the entire Peterson episode is quite like a tempest in a teapot:
“The bill would do nothing to restrict people’s freedom to their own beliefs or to teach their own children,” Garrison told Albrecht during the debate. “What it would do is try to protect the expression of hatred and the kind of discrimination in public that takes place each and every day against transgender Canadians.”
C-16 will also update Canada’s Criminal Code, criminalizing “advocating genocide” and the “public incitement of hatred” based on gender identity or gender expression—adding those two classes to the current list of protected classes: colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, and mental or physical ability.
“The use of pronouns is not about advocating genocide,” said Cossman.
The bill also means that assault or murder, motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate against people with a certain gender identity or expression, could come with a stricter sentence.
“It’s not creating a new offense,” said Cossman. “It’s saying if there’s a hate crime, if there’s an assault, and you find that it was motivated by hatred on the basis of gender identity and expression, that could affect your sentencing in the same way that race or ethnicity or sexual orientation already do.”
It’s also highly unlikely that the failure to use gender-neutral pronouns will rise to the level of hate speech in Canada, Cossman said.
“The way hate speech has been interpreted by the courts is that it’s only applied to very extreme speech,” she said. “[The misuse of pronouns] is nowhere close.”
Cossman, who says reasonable people can disagree on whether or not hate speech laws are a good thing, says adding one ground to the list of identifiable groups isn’t a major change.
“It’s significant for the trans community, but it’s such a small addition that the idea that this is the most egregious just doesn’t add up.”
I’d have to agree this debate is a tempest for sure – the grist for the mill is how big the teapot happens to be. It would seem, if the Vice analysis is correct, that we have little to worry about with regards to Free Speech. Drawing the line between what is hate speech and what is a difference of opinion, will as always be the next contentious issue.
All members of Canadian society have the right to be free of discrimination. At the very same time though, we all have the right to disagree with people’s opinions and evaluate them on the truth value they carry. As the situation stands, it looks like both camps are still protected under the legislation as it stands.
Further reading: A critique of Peterson’s CBC interview can be found here. Also, another professor against the alleged PC culture on campus.
—–
“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”—Ralph Waldo Emerson
We start our lives as the whole of the universe. Reality is completely comprised of our perceptions and any “outside” object that is blocked from our senses puffs out of existence. Eventually, we learn object permanence, and we recognized that things outside us actually do exist on their own, but we are still the centre of the universe. Then our universe grows a little bit and we can relate to those closest to us and we start to look out for our tiny group. And here, unfortunately, is were too many of us stop.
Empathy is hard. Damn hard. We may well have an innate ability for it, but it is only through a great deal of instruction, practice, and nurturing that empathy can develop and extend beyond our immediate circles. The ability to understand your fellow humans, to see how we’re connected, to look beyond one’s own limited perspective – these are skills that require much honing. They need to be taught.
Here is a short documentary on an empathy class in Japan. It is amazing. These 4th graders display moments of clarity, responsibility, and understanding that outshine many adults in the world. This is an immensely important project, one that needs to be adopted by schools around the world. Grab some tissues, this one is full of all kinds of strong emotions.
The story from the other side, to feel what others feel and appreciate and understand what their experience is like is the first step in resolving the injustices that mar our history and continue to sicken our experiences as we move forward.
“I remember well when the shadow crept across me.
I was a little thing, away up in the hills of New England, where the dark Housatonic winds between Hoosac and Taghkanic to the sea. In a wee wooden schoolhouse, something put it into the boys’ and girls’ heads to buy gorgeous visiting-cards – ten cents a package – and exchange. The exchange was merry, till one girl, a tall newcomer, refused my card, – refused it peremptorily, with a glance.
Then it dawned upon me with a certain suddenness that I was different from the others; or like, mayhap, in heart and life and longing, but shut out from their world by a vast veil. I had thereafter no desire to tear down that veil, to creep through; I held all beyond it in common contempt, and live above it in a region of blue sky and great wandering shadows.
That sky was bluest when I could beat my mates at examination time, or beat them at a foot-race, or even beat their stingy heads. Alas, with years all this fine contempt began to fade; for the worlds I longed for, and all their dazzling opportunities, were theirs, not mine. But they should not keep these prizes, I said; some, all, I would wrest from them.
Just how I would do it I could never decide: by reading law, by healing the sick, by telling the wonderful tales that swam in my head, – someway. With other black boys the strife was not so fiercely sunny: their youth shrunk into tasteless sycophancy, or into silent hatred of the pale world about them and mocking distrust of everything white; or wasted itself in a bitter cry, Why did God make me an outcast and a stranger in mine own house? The shades of the prison-house closed round about us all: walls strait and stubborn to the whitest, but relentlessly narrow, tall, and unscalable to sons of night who must plod darkly on in resignation, or beat unavailing palms against the stone, or steadily, half hopelessly watch the streak of blue above.
After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with a second-sight in this American world, – a world which yields him no true self consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this send of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of the world that looks on in contempt and pity.
One ever feels his two-ness, – an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; to warring ideals in one dark body, who dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.”
– The Souls of Black Folk. W.E.B. Du Bois p.2
Women share this double-consciousness, with different actors, but the results are the same.
Well, time for a different sort of cringe-worthy news item. The United Nations has made an Onion worthy press release. Unfortunately, this isn’t satire.
“The United Nations just rejected seven female candidates vying to lead the global organization.
Now, to promote women and girls, it is picking a cartoon character as its mascot: Wonder Woman.
Yes, the comic book figure.”
*headesk* What the ever-living-frack is going on in the UN? I mean is this throwing over half the population of the world a ‘bone’ for overlooking them with regards to leadership positions in the UN.
Uh…sorry, those female parts you have – you know the unmentionable ones because of religion in the East and the po-mo gender politics in the West (stage whisper: “Vagina, Uterus, Ovaries” – duck and cover) – that exclude you from positions in power. Let’s not deal with that problem, let’s get serious about fighting for women’s rights by making a comic book character our mascot.
How very fucking empowerful of the UN and their bold team of deciders.
“Dozens of countries pushed this year for a woman to be chosen as the next Secretary General, pointing out that the United Nations pledges to promote gender equality around the world and arguing that it needed to “lead by example.”
After months of internal jockeying, the Security Council last week picked António Guterres, who ran the United Nations refugee agency for 10 years, to be the world’s top diplomat.
Then on Wednesday, the United Nations announced that it would appoint Wonder Woman as an honorary ambassador for “the empowerment of women and girls.”
The appointment of the heroine will be made official on Oct. 21, when Wonder Woman turns 75, only slightly older than the United Nations itself.”
Leading by example indeed. :/
“Too bad Wonder Woman will not actually traipse through the halls of the United Nations headquarters. If she did she would inevitably have to vanquish a few problems, like peacekeepers who sexually abuse civilians and major military powers that bomb schools.
The United Nations, in making the announcement, said that Diane Nelson, the president of DC Entertainment, would come to the United Nations to accept the designation, along with “surprise guests.”
Surprise guests? – Is the liberation of women some sort celebrity cause that needs to be ‘punched up’ with some ‘star power’? I keep looking for the Onion tag line somewhere in this story.
“Wonder Woman’s avatar, Mr. Nasser said, would be used on social media platforms to promote important messages about women’s empowerment, including on gender-based violence and the fuller participation of women in public life.
That, too, is a bit awkward. The United Nations is woefully behind on its pledge of gender parity in senior appointments. One analysis found that nine of 10 senior leadership jobs last year went to men.”
*Looking through fingers as this train wreck plunges over cliff* – Oh, this *IS* the UN leading by example – the problem is that its the wrong farking example. Replicating normative patriarchal society with a high-sheen glossy-dross of “equality” is precisely the message denatured neo-liberal feminists rally-on about. 
Prattling on about supporting gender equality while leaving the systems in place that objectively prevent gender equality and then having this boondoggle of a position mirrored at the UN under the auspices of ’empowering’ women….
*sproing* – My irony meter just shorted out. :/
“Not to mention, a woman has never led the United Nations system, and none will for at least the next five years. The Security Council chose Mr. Guterres, a former prime minister of Portugal, to be the next Secretary General, dismissing the candidacies of seven women and five other men. Mr. Guterres, who is expected to be approved on Thursday morning by the General Assembly, has promised gender parity in senior appointments.”
Well of course, we should wait for the gender parity to be given to us, by the class of people who have no interest in achieving gender parity. I’m as pleased as punch, honest.
“Wonder Woman is not the only fictional character to be celebrated by the United Nations: Winnie the Pooh served as its honorary Ambassador of Friendship in 1998; Tinker Bell was its honorary Ambassador of Green in 2009; and Angry Birds dared fans on Twitter last year to make the game’s characters happy by conserving water and energy.”
I, for one, am grateful that the symbol for the advancement of women in the world shares such auspicious company.
Dear United Nations, if this is your idea of advancing the cause of Women – please just stop.
This is the same RCMP that just got its ass sued for $100 million dollars because of its misogynistic treatment of women. A quick snip from that story –
“We hurt you. For that, I am truly sorry.”
Those were the words from RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson to every woman who was ever harassed, belittled, demeaned or assaulted in the RCMP, as he announced a stunning $100 million compensation package at a news conference in Ottawa Thursday.
“It’s an acknowledgement of the culture that has existed since its inception,” said Catherine Galliford.”
So, one of the most iconic and venerable institutions in Canada – one that is supposed to uphold the LAWS OF THE LAND and stand on the side of justice – also happens to be rife with patriarchal misogyny (the cosmic background radiation of our society). And they just admitted it. This settlement will get its own post, of course, but it helps set the stage for the other story which is the focus of this post.
Let’s mull over this headline and article from the Calgary Sun.
Male Mounties Launched Suicide Pool for Bullied Female co-worker, Lawsuit Claims
“One of the first female members of the RCMP Musical Ride was bullied, hazed and sexually abused by her male colleagues to the point they launched a suicide pool and took bets on when she would kill herself, according to a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.
It was like a dream come true for Caroline O’Farrell when, at 25 years old, she was accepted to the famed Mountie Musical Ride.
But the dream quickly became a nightmare.
The alleged abuse from 1986 to 1987 included being repeatedly doused with cold water and then dragged face down by the arms and legs through stall shavings which included horse urine and manure. Others would then kick the wood chips, dirt, urine and feces onto O’Farrell’s head and body.
One of the hazings allegedly occurred just before her bachelorette party.
In one humiliating episode, her male colleagues locked her in a tack room and held a mock trial – including costumes, a judge, prosecutor and defence lawyer – and demanded she give them her underwear.
In another incident in 1987, a fellow RCMP officer stuck his finger out of the fly of his pants and stuck it near her ear as she slept while another member filmed it, the lawsuit alleged.”
Shit like this is what patriarchy is for women. It is systemic attack on their worth as human beings and it happens in nearly every facet of society. Patriarchy is ubiquitous and sadly remains fundamental to our society. Did you know what the best part is? Dudes that deny the existence of patriarchy – it’s 2016 for heaven’s sake – we certainly don’t need feminism calling out the grave injustices against women and fighting to change them. (/s …FML)
Let’s look to AuntieWanda for feminist analysis of this situation.
“Oh but women just aren’t suited for law enforcement, that’s why there aren’t that many women in the fiel-” SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ WHAT WOMEN GO THROUGH IN MALE DOMINATED CAREERS.
Even those who are charged with protecting others will savagely use their power against women in horrific ways. And this was a member of their team. Imagine what sort of abuses these assholes subjected ordinary folks to.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police started a suicide pool because of their abuses and torture of their fellow officer. It is not like they did not know the damaging effects of what they were doing, they made a fucking game out of it.
Beyond that, their conduct only lost O’Farrell her position. She was removed “for her safety”.
They [the higher ups] were aware of the problem, but instead of actually punishing those responsible, they punished the victim. They remove women from these positions for their own safety, but allow the perpetrators of violence and humiliation to keep their positions.
What does that say other than “Women don’t belong here”? What does that say other than “You will be hurt and abused by us and the only one punished for it will be you, by losing your job”?
And people wonder why there are still male-dominated fields, people blame women for not being interested, for not being strong enough, for not being able to handle positions of power. People blame women for their own abuses at the hands of the men in these fields, for them losing their jobs, for them leaving of their own volition when the situations are so much more complicated and horrific than any of that implies.
No one who knew of what was happening deserves to still be an officer. Even if they didn’t participate, if they did not fight against what was happening with every ounce of their power, if they didn’t stand up for their fellow officer and denounce the abuses she was facing, if they never spoke up or if they helped cover up it doesn’t matter, they do not deserve their position of power if that is how they will use it.
This is the most frustrating thing. “Well why don’t women just go into those fields then?” This is why. Because men will threaten, harass, and even physically assault us for having the audacity of wanting particular careers.
Why aren’t more women in construction, the military, law enforcement etc.? This is fucking why. Men make us fear for our lives.”
Well said Wanda. Any questions?
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…