[Author's note: the article contained herein does roll with a very gender binary based theme and I should point out that any of the issues that I've listed here as being problematic for female-identified people are often magnified for anyone who falls outside of traditional binaries regarding gender or sexuality or who is non-white]
A favorite anti-feminist argument is often made that since there are female-identified people in positions that were traditionally held by male-identified people and that these positions happen to be powerful ones, feminism's cause is long over and activists should just shut up already.
Unfortunately, a lot of the people that make this argument don't take an extra moment to listen to the feminist rebuttal which states that just because women are in positions of authority, it doesn't mean that issues of systemic sexism are solved. There are countless articles, books, blog posts, and so on that have been written by feminists who are trying to call attention to the more subtle forms of systemic sexism that face female-identified people in certain fields.
In video games and the tech industry, there's rampant entitled misogyny that can make work environments, cons, expos, and just the everyday experience feel extremely unsafe for female-identified people. There are many examples of attempts to call out these attitudes being met with an extremely hostile and violent defense, which often conclude with some statement claiming that this is just the way the industry is and you either put up with it or quit.
In the business world, women's bodies, family aspirations (if any), and professional aspirations are heavily policed. From archaic sexist notions around birth control coverage and maternity leave in the United States to the whole concept of "Having it All" only ever being applied to female-identified people pretty much globally, female-identified people are routinely made to feel unwelcome; often shamed/encouraged to have children, but rarely given support to do so.
Finally, and here's the main focus of this post, in the political world female-identified politicians are likely to be analyzed/scrutinized on their appearance, emotional demeanor, and personal history. When Allison Redford was found out to have been misusing tax payer money Albertans were, understandably, frustrated and many people rushed to criticize her and her choices. While her actions were certainly worthy of criticism I felt the type and amount of criticism failed to match the crime; Redford wasn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, politician to misuse tax payer funds.
Now I'm not a PC minded person and I have to admit I experience a dash of schadenfreude when politicians of parties I don't align with screw up and are lambasted for it; however, even in situations where I don't particularly like the person or what they said it seems society really lays into female-identified politicians when they mess up. I'm thinking specifically of a comparison involving, say, Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin as compared with Rand Paul or Todd Akin (funny sidenote: I couldn't remember his name so I typed "legitimate rape guy" into google and got his name).
For Bachmann or Palin, there is almost a consensus when they screw up and it is far less likely that people would be willing to forgive or make excuses for their actions; moreover, there is a greater likelihood that society will start dredging up every other mistake and screw up Bachmann or Palin made, further lambasting their character. Whereas for Paul or Akin, while the feminist/social justice community will remember their actions, there is a far greater likelihood their actions with be either forgotten, ignored, or excused with the likely claim of whatever it was they said/did being "taken out of context." For the record, it is a frightening thought, for me, that any of Bachmann, Palin, Paul, or Akin have, or have had, political power. However, I can't help but notice the different ways they end up being treated in society.
Now I am a bit biased in the sense that I do happen to consider politicians to be people (they are, seriously, go look it up) so I'm always willing to give them a bit of wiggle room in terms of their ability to move through the world and make decisions. Given that I accept that they are people and given that people are imperfect, one must expect the odd screw up here and there and be willing to forgive on a case by case basis. In fact, a screw up here and there is likely to make me more interested and sympathetic towards the politician and make me more likely to believe stuff when they say it; I am far more interested in hearing a person's opinion about a policy than I am hearing a political parties position parroted through a human shaped puppet.
So how does MLA Deborah Drever factor in.
Well, I'm seeing the same trend that I saw with Redford; she's being lambasted by the media from all sides, she's been suspended by her party, constituents are crying for a recall option to get her removed from office, and she's being tasked with "making it up to everyone." As with Bachmann, Palin, or Redford, I doubt she'll ever be able to make it up to people because people are already campaigning for her resignation from political office altogether. Hell, even after Redford had resigned from political office in disgrace I remember seeing continued criticism of her life well after the fact. The fact that we linger on female-identified politicians indicates a subtle, yet powerful, systemic misogyny that is in play in our daily lives and probably effects each of us regardless of the state of any progressive mindsets.
There have been male-identified politicians who have made homophobic comments and who were removed from office or encouraged to resign, but society didn't linger. After the customary attempts to ensure people that whatever it was was "taken out of context" failed, the media and community at large concluded that the next reasonable step was to get them out of political power. I would say that Deborah Drever's comments were on the same continuum of homophobic comments, but I would not say that they were coming from the same place and with as much systemically instilled hatred as other comments.
Yet, no one rushed to convince people that Drever's instagram was "taken out of context."
In fact, many rushed to drudge up every other questionable piece of her social media, cathartically critiquing each one. Moreover, she's been made to apologize for each and every "mistake" as society lingers on her faults, savoring each moment. And finally, to complete the catharsis, polticial analysts are now suggesting:
"The controversy around Deborah Drever has shown that, going forward
into the digital world, politicians will be under a lot more scrutiny
online. Political scientist Melanee Thomas says that it will only become more vital as representatives are younger."
To which I can't help but ask: what was so unique about Deborah Drever that only now will "all" politicians be under more online scrutiny? And what's with the shot about younger politicians?
I have a real problem with this negative fascination with young politicians and the idea that they're somehow inferior to the "experience" of older ones; that "young people" don't know what they're doing if they're doing something other than what the older generations want them to be doing. Are we really suggesting that dumb decisions become more understandable or worthy of our forgiveness the greater the time difference is between when the decision got made and when the person decides to run for office? If Deborah Drever was 36, instead of 26, would we not be having this conversation? Or is 46 the magic number? 47? 50?
Moreover, I can't help but wonder about the male-identified MLAs. Are we not talking about their bad decisions and how young they are because they haven't made any bad decisions and youth doesn't negatively impact them in the same way it does for female-identified people? Or are people just not inclined to look because it feels "normal" to have male-identified politicians so there's no need to search for something to undermine their character?
Food for thought.
Quote Source Here
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
The discussion we should be having about Josh Duggar
I'm going to be upfront about something. I had no clue who the hell Josh Duggar was or why everyone was talking about him until there was so many different articles about what went down that I could no longer ignore it. The Learning Channel was something I stopped watching long before I gave up on cable television altogether so there is a lot that I've missed out on.
Or not, I suppose.
Combing through the various articles detailing the actions of Josh Duggar and the subsequent societal skewering of him, the family, the show, and TLC there's a major discussion that I feel is not being had.
Yes, Duggar's actions are not "mistakes."
Yes, Duggar's actions are criminal.
Yes, the fact that many rushed to his defense is a clear indicator of rape culture.
All of those discussions are good. However, there is a major problem in how his choices are being talked about and the category of offender that he's being lumped in to. For the record, I don't have a problem with him being labeled an 'offender' given that he's admitted to his behavior and the choices he made.
He also apologized and recognized how harmful they were...granted only in the context of how those actions could ruin his life, but I'll take anything I can get given the state of things.
The discussion that's not happening is that Josh Duggar is being placed into an 'offender' category, in addition to his religious background, that is starting to 'other' him in the sense that people are not feeling surprised at his actions. Any time we talk about someone who chooses to abuse children terms are brought in that villainize them, which is a product of the human desire to inflict harm on those that we think deserve it. The Duggar Family's bigotry makes the catharsis all the more sweet and makes it easier to think of Josh Duggar as a monster who deserves all the negativity we can muster.
However, by turning Josh Duggar into a Pariah we also turn his choices as well as the attitudes & beliefs that motivated them into a Pariah as well, removing them from our life experience. Once we've done that it's easier to think of Josh Duggar as sick and twisted and his actions are equally perverse and horrific, which allows us to distance them from ourselves and our own actions. I get the impulse, I share it, but this process is something we're going to have to get away from if we're ever going to start reducing the amount of sexualized violence in the world.
By distancing the attitudes & beliefs, including the behaviors they ultimately motivate, from ourselves we hinder our ability to figure out where they coming from and what is perpetuating them. Josh Duggar is not a monster from another realm, he is a human that grew up in Western society much like millions of other people. There is a case to be made for certain mental conditions that some people may have that mean they're attracted to children, but not all of these people choose to act on their desires. The molestation term is being used in conjunction with Josh Duggar's actions, but regardless of whether or not he has a psychological condition his choice to commit abuse against multiple people is not a product of being unable to control his desires. Josh Duggar felt that sexually abusing was a choice he was entitled to make; that the boundaries of another person were not worth respecting. This entitlement is not 'monstrous' it's, sadly, an everyday thing.
From Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" to the rampant sexual objectification in movies and video games to Sebastian Vettel being a little disappointed there were no Grid Girls, society tells men that women's bodies are for their enjoyment. Given Josh Duggar grew up in this world and grew up in a family who has traditionally divided gender roles that give more social standing to male identified people, his choice to sexually abuse five girls shouldn't seem that shocking.
Josh Duggar is an easy target: his family's bigoted views, his choice to sexually abuse young girls, and the fact he's part of a rather unorthodox family mean he's already 'othered' for a lot of people. Make no mistake, Duggar should be held legally accountable for his crimes, but society is not gaining anything by vilifying the actions of a person who admits that what they did was wrong. We don't get points for punishing the obvious. We need to look at the less obvious, the parts of society and ourselves that are the source of sexualized violence.
Until the public outcry is as unified regarding Josh Duggar as it is about Formula 1 Grid Girls (or other normalized sexual objectification), until people are not willing to let professional athletes get away with sexual assault, until the majority of society stops dismissing Feminism, until we start believing people who have experience sexualized violence and not imply that they somehow brought it on themselves, until we recognize that violence against women should not have become a normalized experience, until society really starts looking inward and in places that are personal we're not going to get anywhere.
Or not, I suppose.
Combing through the various articles detailing the actions of Josh Duggar and the subsequent societal skewering of him, the family, the show, and TLC there's a major discussion that I feel is not being had.
Yes, Duggar's actions are not "mistakes."
Yes, Duggar's actions are criminal.
Yes, the fact that many rushed to his defense is a clear indicator of rape culture.
All of those discussions are good. However, there is a major problem in how his choices are being talked about and the category of offender that he's being lumped in to. For the record, I don't have a problem with him being labeled an 'offender' given that he's admitted to his behavior and the choices he made.
He also apologized and recognized how harmful they were...granted only in the context of how those actions could ruin his life, but I'll take anything I can get given the state of things.
The discussion that's not happening is that Josh Duggar is being placed into an 'offender' category, in addition to his religious background, that is starting to 'other' him in the sense that people are not feeling surprised at his actions. Any time we talk about someone who chooses to abuse children terms are brought in that villainize them, which is a product of the human desire to inflict harm on those that we think deserve it. The Duggar Family's bigotry makes the catharsis all the more sweet and makes it easier to think of Josh Duggar as a monster who deserves all the negativity we can muster.
However, by turning Josh Duggar into a Pariah we also turn his choices as well as the attitudes & beliefs that motivated them into a Pariah as well, removing them from our life experience. Once we've done that it's easier to think of Josh Duggar as sick and twisted and his actions are equally perverse and horrific, which allows us to distance them from ourselves and our own actions. I get the impulse, I share it, but this process is something we're going to have to get away from if we're ever going to start reducing the amount of sexualized violence in the world.
By distancing the attitudes & beliefs, including the behaviors they ultimately motivate, from ourselves we hinder our ability to figure out where they coming from and what is perpetuating them. Josh Duggar is not a monster from another realm, he is a human that grew up in Western society much like millions of other people. There is a case to be made for certain mental conditions that some people may have that mean they're attracted to children, but not all of these people choose to act on their desires. The molestation term is being used in conjunction with Josh Duggar's actions, but regardless of whether or not he has a psychological condition his choice to commit abuse against multiple people is not a product of being unable to control his desires. Josh Duggar felt that sexually abusing was a choice he was entitled to make; that the boundaries of another person were not worth respecting. This entitlement is not 'monstrous' it's, sadly, an everyday thing.
From Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" to the rampant sexual objectification in movies and video games to Sebastian Vettel being a little disappointed there were no Grid Girls, society tells men that women's bodies are for their enjoyment. Given Josh Duggar grew up in this world and grew up in a family who has traditionally divided gender roles that give more social standing to male identified people, his choice to sexually abuse five girls shouldn't seem that shocking.
Josh Duggar is an easy target: his family's bigoted views, his choice to sexually abuse young girls, and the fact he's part of a rather unorthodox family mean he's already 'othered' for a lot of people. Make no mistake, Duggar should be held legally accountable for his crimes, but society is not gaining anything by vilifying the actions of a person who admits that what they did was wrong. We don't get points for punishing the obvious. We need to look at the less obvious, the parts of society and ourselves that are the source of sexualized violence.
Until the public outcry is as unified regarding Josh Duggar as it is about Formula 1 Grid Girls (or other normalized sexual objectification), until people are not willing to let professional athletes get away with sexual assault, until the majority of society stops dismissing Feminism, until we start believing people who have experience sexualized violence and not imply that they somehow brought it on themselves, until we recognize that violence against women should not have become a normalized experience, until society really starts looking inward and in places that are personal we're not going to get anywhere.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Fun with analogies! A Bill C-51 approach to bike safety!
I don't like head injuries.
My friends don't like head injuries.
The NHL doesn't like head injuries. (or class-action complaints for that matter)
Head injuries, quite generally, do not have the greatest reputation of being very fun.
Naturally, wherever there are situations where there is a chance one might experience a head injury there are often measures put into place to avoid such an experience; one such famous and beloved measure to preventing a head injury is known as a helmet. Helmets come in all kinds of sizes and shapes and can be found in may different contexts: construction sites, hockey, american football, biking (motor and human powered), and so on. For the purposes of this particular analogy I will be rolling with the biking context (again, either motor or human powered) and I will be applying the Bill C-51 logic to bike safety.
From the moment where the ability to operate a bike first comes into our lived experience we're taught to wear a helmet to avoid experiencing a serious head injury; for many this was explained through fear as we watched many a video of unfortunate watermelons having rather explosive interactions with pavement. With a healthy dose of fear most of us grabbed a helmet and then set out to experience what it was like to operate a vehicle with only two wheels. Everyone seemed to have a pretty good understanding of what the helmet was going to provide for us and wearing one didn't mean we went around with a perpetual fear of potentially needing to use it. Biking is risky and while a helmet may prevent the worst of the worst, there is still a chance that one might experience a rather serious head injury as we meander about.
However, despite the risk, many did and many do make the choice to operate bikes on a daily basis; millions of people, in fact, engage with bikes accepting the reality that there is still a chance they might come to significant harm while operating one. Helmets are also thought to be good things to have, even though they are not guaranteed to make one invulnerable to harm. We take advantage of a freedom that's available to us, accepting the fact that while we can reduce the risk of significant harm, we're never completely guaranteed to prevent harm from ever coming to us.
Our illustrious government has other ideas about bike safety. Our government is very afraid of head injuries, more so than your average bike operator. They are so fearful of head injuries while operating a bike that they have become fixated on the chance that a head injury might occur even while wearing protective equipment. Exactly why or how they've become to be so paranoid about the potential for head injuries is anyone's guess; however, they have come to the point when they are desperate to convince the rest of us that their fear is justified and they are going to extreme lengths to do so. Much like the traumatizing videos of happy watermelons meeting an early demise, the government has been stirring the pot when it comes to head injuries by cherry-picking evidence about the prevalence of them. They're at a point, now, in their propaganda where they're even suggesting that one might experience a biking head injury completely out of the blue or even just randomly experiencing a head injury.
Helmets are no longer adequate.
More extreme measures are required.
So, the government puts into place Bill C-51 to improve bike safety for all Canadians. This bill gives them the power to intervene in citizens lives whenever they choose should the government feel that a potential head injury is remotely possible sometime in the very near future or sometime in the very far future. For individuals deemed at risk of experiencing a bike related head injury the government is prepared to confiscate their bike, helmet, riding paraphernalia, and anything in that person's life that may lead them to think about engaging with a bike. By preventing these individuals, and applying the regulations broadly, from experiencing a bike related head injury they are, subsequently, making it safe for the rest of us to not experience a bike related head injury.
Well intentioned? Perhaps.
Practical? Hardly.
One cannot monitor every single person in this country for bike related thoughts. The government has to know this. So the only result of such an over-reaching and impractical bill is for the government to become hyper-vigilant when it comes to putting this bill into practice. Will it prevent bike related head injuries? Well if you don't allow anyone to ever do anything related to bikes ever again, remove all mention of bikes from history, and discretely eliminate anyone who has heard, knows, or is aware of the existence, past or present, of bikes then...yes, you will prevent all future instances of bike related head injuries.
Bottom line is this: If you want to have a country where the people are, generally, free then you have to accept the risk that some will find a way to exploit the system. You have to accept the risk that despite your risk reduction tactics, you may still find yourself in a harmful or hurtful situation.
If, however, you are NOT interested in having a country where people are, generally, free then, by all means, impose blanket restrictions on the people, reducing their freedoms to the point where every second of their lives is controlled by you. Just don't sit there and try and tell us that this is actually "for our own good" and is really all about "protecting" freedom.
Post inspiration/source: http://thinkpol.ca/2015/05/09/supporters-publicly-abandoning-liberal-party-over-trudeaus-support-for-bill-c-51/
My friends don't like head injuries.
The NHL doesn't like head injuries. (or class-action complaints for that matter)
Head injuries, quite generally, do not have the greatest reputation of being very fun.
Naturally, wherever there are situations where there is a chance one might experience a head injury there are often measures put into place to avoid such an experience; one such famous and beloved measure to preventing a head injury is known as a helmet. Helmets come in all kinds of sizes and shapes and can be found in may different contexts: construction sites, hockey, american football, biking (motor and human powered), and so on. For the purposes of this particular analogy I will be rolling with the biking context (again, either motor or human powered) and I will be applying the Bill C-51 logic to bike safety.
From the moment where the ability to operate a bike first comes into our lived experience we're taught to wear a helmet to avoid experiencing a serious head injury; for many this was explained through fear as we watched many a video of unfortunate watermelons having rather explosive interactions with pavement. With a healthy dose of fear most of us grabbed a helmet and then set out to experience what it was like to operate a vehicle with only two wheels. Everyone seemed to have a pretty good understanding of what the helmet was going to provide for us and wearing one didn't mean we went around with a perpetual fear of potentially needing to use it. Biking is risky and while a helmet may prevent the worst of the worst, there is still a chance that one might experience a rather serious head injury as we meander about.
However, despite the risk, many did and many do make the choice to operate bikes on a daily basis; millions of people, in fact, engage with bikes accepting the reality that there is still a chance they might come to significant harm while operating one. Helmets are also thought to be good things to have, even though they are not guaranteed to make one invulnerable to harm. We take advantage of a freedom that's available to us, accepting the fact that while we can reduce the risk of significant harm, we're never completely guaranteed to prevent harm from ever coming to us.
Our illustrious government has other ideas about bike safety. Our government is very afraid of head injuries, more so than your average bike operator. They are so fearful of head injuries while operating a bike that they have become fixated on the chance that a head injury might occur even while wearing protective equipment. Exactly why or how they've become to be so paranoid about the potential for head injuries is anyone's guess; however, they have come to the point when they are desperate to convince the rest of us that their fear is justified and they are going to extreme lengths to do so. Much like the traumatizing videos of happy watermelons meeting an early demise, the government has been stirring the pot when it comes to head injuries by cherry-picking evidence about the prevalence of them. They're at a point, now, in their propaganda where they're even suggesting that one might experience a biking head injury completely out of the blue or even just randomly experiencing a head injury.
Helmets are no longer adequate.
More extreme measures are required.
So, the government puts into place Bill C-51 to improve bike safety for all Canadians. This bill gives them the power to intervene in citizens lives whenever they choose should the government feel that a potential head injury is remotely possible sometime in the very near future or sometime in the very far future. For individuals deemed at risk of experiencing a bike related head injury the government is prepared to confiscate their bike, helmet, riding paraphernalia, and anything in that person's life that may lead them to think about engaging with a bike. By preventing these individuals, and applying the regulations broadly, from experiencing a bike related head injury they are, subsequently, making it safe for the rest of us to not experience a bike related head injury.
Well intentioned? Perhaps.
Practical? Hardly.
One cannot monitor every single person in this country for bike related thoughts. The government has to know this. So the only result of such an over-reaching and impractical bill is for the government to become hyper-vigilant when it comes to putting this bill into practice. Will it prevent bike related head injuries? Well if you don't allow anyone to ever do anything related to bikes ever again, remove all mention of bikes from history, and discretely eliminate anyone who has heard, knows, or is aware of the existence, past or present, of bikes then...yes, you will prevent all future instances of bike related head injuries.
Bottom line is this: If you want to have a country where the people are, generally, free then you have to accept the risk that some will find a way to exploit the system. You have to accept the risk that despite your risk reduction tactics, you may still find yourself in a harmful or hurtful situation.
If, however, you are NOT interested in having a country where people are, generally, free then, by all means, impose blanket restrictions on the people, reducing their freedoms to the point where every second of their lives is controlled by you. Just don't sit there and try and tell us that this is actually "for our own good" and is really all about "protecting" freedom.
Post inspiration/source: http://thinkpol.ca/2015/05/09/supporters-publicly-abandoning-liberal-party-over-trudeaus-support-for-bill-c-51/