Some thoughts on Paris

I've been trying to formulate some thoughts on the recent events in Paris and the following media tidal wave of articles, commentary, and editorials that have filled my social media news stream.  I've been encouraged by the fact that many people have been reaching beyond the mainstream news wire articles and have been pointing to the fact that the tragic events in Paris a few days ago were not the only tragic events in recent days.  What troubles me is that much of the discussion is centered on othering the people who have chosen to commit such violent acts as it does each time humans commit such large scale acts of violence against each other.

What I would like to say in the aftermath of all of these recent tragedies, specifically about the events involving human choices, is that the source of this violence is nothing we haven't seen before.  Recognizing that these people who have carried out these attacks as being people who do not represent any kind of majority is important but we have to be careful not to put them into a category that hints at them being unique, one-off extremists.  What must be in place for someone to commit an act of violence against another is a firm belief that what they're about to do is justified and okay.  To get there one must find a way to dehumanize the person or group of people they're preparing to commit the act of violence against.

Make no mistake, the ingredients of dehumanization and justification that motivated the decision making process for those who carried out the attacks in Paris, Beirut, and Baghdad (as well as for the many other violent acts committed that did not make the news) are also present in our own communities.  Those same ingredients are a factor when our government openly declares that an official inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is "not on their radar."  Those same ingredients are a factor when our media tries to place the blame on people of color who have been the victims of police brutality.  Those same ingredients are a factor when a judge openly blames a person who experienced a sexual assault that they're the one at fault.  Those same ingredients are a factor when our society as a whole believes that violence against women is "just the way things are."  Those same ingredients are a factor when People of Stature (professional athletes, actors, etc) are not held to the same level of accountability the rest of us would be.

Those same ingredients are a factor in every instance where one person is deciding to commit an act of violence against another.

The repetition is intentional because too often the link is not clear and putting theses kinds of violent acts into their own containers only contributes to a society that is tolerant of violence.  It is also important to be clear that this kind of dehumanization and justification does not just manifest out of thin air, it is the product of attitudes and beliefs that inform a persons world view as they come up and into their own sense of who they are.  These attitudes and beliefs are informed by a multitude of factors that include, but are not limited to, our peer groups, media, educational systems, the communities we're born into, our own degrees of privilege, our own willingness to self-educate, and so on.

My only ask here is that we all put energy into not only sending our positive thoughts to those who have recently experienced violence but into continuing that push to challenge and change the harmful attitudes and beliefs that contribute to the dehumanization of others.

How mainstream media erases social justice progress

I can't really put into words how much the attitude of "this world is too politically correct these days" or "people really can't take a joke any more" bothers me; it's like trying to explain a colour or emotion to someone.  The closest I can really think of, and it's more of an explanation through example, comes from Byron Clark who ran a little experiment, replacing the term "political correctness" with the phrase "treating people with respect" and showed how off-base political correctness critics are with their comments (a link to an article about this is here).

What I want to write about today, however, is more on how this sort of dialog players out in mainstream media and how I see it ultimately harming any progress that has been made in any social justice movement.  I have seen it play out the same way regardless of what the context is although my primary exposure to this whole thing is around trigger warnings and sexual violence since that's what was my entry point to the social justice movement.

Recently, Amy Poehler's TV show made a very tasteless and harmful joke about child sexual abuse (a link to the article is here) and many people, rightly, turned to social media to voice their frustration.  Now comedy is, and has been, a very touchy topic because apparently there are people out there who think that because we're supposed to laugh at this stuff that it should fall outside the realm of critical analysis.  Part of this, I would imagine, has to do with the fact that comedy is very closely tied to a very normal human need for laughter; there are a fair amount of examples out there of laughter being tied to positive overall mental health.  Moreover, who we find funny and what we laugh at tends to be unique to an individual so critical analysis of whatever it is we're laughing at can feel like a critical analysis of us as individuals.  With that said I'd like to bring in what Anita Sarkeesian has said, repeatedly: it is possible to enjoy a piece of media while still being critical of that same piece of media.  Also, if you find yourself getting defensive because a comedian, show, or piece of media is receiving criticism I'd ask that you check in with yourself and do a little self-exploration into where that is coming from.  After all, you're not the one receiving the criticism, the piece of media you consume is, so there's something else that's really bothering you and I would suggest it has something to do with your own privilege being challenged.

Getting back on track.

Amy Poehler has taken some heat for what happened on the show and I believe that criticism to be completely justified.  "Jokes" about child sexual abuse, sexual assault, or any sexual violence should not be something mainstream media employs as a tool to build character, create suspense, or raise the proverbial stakes in their stories.  Sexual violence, in general, is something that many people have experienced and seeing it trivialized in popular media can being triggering, traumatizing, and provoke victim blaming.  Sexual violence can be shown but a great deal of care and thought must be involved to ensure that what is being depicted is being done for clear and honest reasons, while also ensuring that what's depicted does not sensationalize or eroticize sexual violence.  From what I understand, the child sexual abuse comment in Poehler's show was meant as a way to communicate to the audience that the comic in the show is a particularly inept comic.

If the only way you can communicate that a fictional comic is "inept" is by having them make a "joke" about child sexual abuse then I don't believe you're a very good writer.  This goes for any depiction of sexual violence in the media as well, if you can't make a joke, develop a character, or move a story forward without employing instances of sexual violence I would suggest picking a different career.

Unfortunately, mainstream media loves this sort of thing because it can take legitimate criticism of a very harmful mistake by producers and use it to dismiss and belittle the criticism and it's source.  Amy Poehler has been anointed by mainstream media as a feminist icon, which is something they like to do, and like every other "leader" mainstream media has picked out for feminism they tend to evaluate the merits of feminism by this person and this person alone.  So long as their successful the narrative tends to ignore the feminist support or involvement and does so until this "leader" makes a mistake in some form or another.  Then one of two things tends to happen: they dismiss the leader entirely or they dismiss the criticism as being a sign of a movement being "too sensitive" and prone to "toxic infighting."

With the articles cited above, we're seeing the latter of the two in this case.

Mainstream media is happy to tow the social justice movement's line so long as it's not making anyone uncomfortable (like Emma Watson's UN address, for instance) but the moment some critical dialogue is needed mainstream media cuts bait and, ironically, overreacts.  A large aspect of the feminist movement, as well as any social justice movement (although it's hard to honestly separate them if we consider intersectionality), is accountability.  Accountability is key because it means that at any given time care is being taken to acknowledge privilege and take steps that are being motivated by an intention to dismantle systemic oppression.  Accountability isn't, however, a fun or comfortable thing; in fact, if comfort and fun is a factor then I'd argue that accountability isn't precisely being consciously involved.

Unfortunately for social justice movements, the nuances of accountability are not sexy and are hard to fit into short, punchy, "click-baity" headlines or quick buzzfeed-esque, pseudo-social consciousness raising articles that mainstream media rely on so heavily.  If they can't summarize it in two minutes they're not interested.  Moreover, if they can paint it as in-fighting then they can dismiss the movement and maintain the status quo in one fell swoop.  So, once again, we are seeing critics of Amy Poehler's show being written off as "over-sensitive" and the movements they represent being dismissed as childishly unfocused.

I've often wondered how certain things like how the feminist movement has carried this stigma of being entirely about "man hating" through the decades, well I would have to say that situations like this seem to offer, at least, a partial explanation.

I would encourage anyone who's seen articles on this situation to look a little deeper and read a little more about the criticism.  Mainstream media is lying to you and they are attempting to manipulate you, there's a much more important discussion we need to be having.

So much for #safestampede

So I seem to be following rather decent people on facebook as I had to find out through someone else that apparently there's a video being shared around that depicts a woman and two men apparently having sex.  Since it's surfaced many people have been gleefully sharing the video and/or slut-shaming the woman in the video relentlessly.

If you're one of those people, congratulations, you're the worst.

There's many, many different things wrong with how this situation is playing out.

First off, we have no idea whether or not consent was given for any of the people in the video and I don't seriously believe anyone in the video agreed to be filmed or for it to be shared to facebook.  So, again congratulations, if you've shared or slut-shamed the woman in the video you've shared a video of a sexual assault or shamed someone for experiencing a sexual assault.

Of course it is entirely possible that everyone in the video consented to the experience, although I still don't get the sense they would've consented to being filmed or having the video shared on facebook.  If it is, in fact, true that there was consent and you're one of those people who have shared the video or slut-shamed the woman in it, congratulations: you're still the worst.  Thinking less of a women because she engages in sex with two partners is textbook slut-shaming and says more about you than it does about her.  Putting women's sexuality on a pedestal, creating some ridiculous notions of purity/virginity, and shaming them if they deviate in any way from our expectations is one of the ways our society tells women that their bodies are not their own and their sexuality is not their own.

How come you're not targeting the men in the video?  Why are they allowed to participate in something like this freely without criticism while you direct all your shame towards the woman?  If it's because you think it's okay for men to behave in this way and not okay for women to behave in this way, well then you're sending the message to men that they are not responsible for their sexual behaviors and that they have much more leniency when it comes to their sexuality.

If you've shared this video or slut-shamed the woman you're demonstrating why we needed something like #safestampede in the first place.  Sexual harassment and/or sexual assault have been stampede staples for a long time (well technically they've been staples of our society in general but that's for another time) and part of the reason we've come to this point is deeply connected to how society holds men and women to very different standards when it comes to sex.  From "boys will be boys" when people are growing up to slut-shaming women when they're older, we've routinely sent the message to male-identified people that there is a great deal they can get away with and that even if they do step out of line they're going to not experience the same level of scrutiny.

Those men people who chose to sexually harass or assault others during stampede that we have in mind when we tweet #safestampede are men people who have likely grown up with certain sexist views normalized and they've likely not been challenged on those views when they've expressed them.  Sexual harassment occurs because men people believe that women are dressing for them and, because of this, they feel they have a right to then comment on her body and dress.  Slut-shaming this woman validates the idea that women's bodies and sexuality are up for public scrutiny while their own bodies and sexuality are not.  We needed #safestampede because we didn't hold men accountable for their behavior and we needed #safestampede because of how women's bodies and sexuality are policed.

But now? After having engaged in some communal slut-shaming? Well, it'll be hard to take that hashtag seriously...yay us!

Male body image and male privilege

Two articles in as many days have addressed the issue of male body image and part of me is intrigued while another part of me remains dubious.  I remain dubious because of what I've learned about the extent to which women's bodies are policed (just consider all the talk that's been had lately around dress codes in schools) as well as the timing of another article that has made it's way into the mainstream media detailing how an 8 year old girl was told to cover up at a pool.

The headline for the two news bites on male body image are: "Stop ridiculing small penises, says winner of subversive pageant" and "Adam Scott on the naked truth about male body image."  As a male-identified person who has not really measured up to certain male body image standards, I am interested to have a more extensive discussion on how male-identified people feel about their own bodies.  There's certainly some discussion that hasn't been had around this topic and I can tell you, from personal experience, that not having had this discussion has been cause for some frustration and shame.  However, I can't help but notice a difference in how this topic is being approached in these two articles to how body image is approached when were talking about femininity and body image.

It's only in recent months that the discussion around dress codes has taken steps into a more positive direction by focusing on how sexist dress codes actually are because they only ever apply to female-identified people; a quick google search will show that almost all school dress code policies are much more restrictive when it comes to attire that it's traditionally seen as feminine than it is when it comes to attire that's traditionally seen as masculine.  Moreover, the rational for dress codes often cites reasons that generally revolve on "being distracting to male students," which fits into the "boys will be boys" standard that a patriarchal society holds. The assumption is made that the behaviors of male-identified people is not something that can, or should, be looked at, so the responsibility falls to female-identified people to control and manage the behavior of male-identified people.

It's a standard that is blindingly sexist but it has become so normalized that it's difficult to have a discussion around it without falling into patriarchal patterns that invoke rigid, traditional gender stereotypes.  Historically, before the efforts of Feminist activists in this discussion were recognized by mainstream media, the discussion around dress code tended to involve depressingly "balanced" discussion as media folks tried to dismiss the camp that questioned dress codes without looking like they were being dismissive.  It is common practice for the privileged to pit the oppressed group against a voice of the oppressive group and paint the issue as essentially subjective which allows the people of the status quo to dismiss the discussion entirely; when presented with a debate on an issue that has the potential to affect the status quo, people are more inclined to side with the voice maintaining the status quo if they are, or have been, beneficiaries of it.

What we have with these two articles discussing male body image issues, is we have a privileged group finding out, probably for the first time, that there's an issue with how male-identified people view their own bodies.  The winner of the small penis pageant hints at a positive train of thought, although it's not further explored, when he speculates that the reason a woman came up with the idea for the pageant was because women "probably" (his words) have had to think more about body image in their lives.  The narrative is the same in the other article that's an interview with Adam Scott who cites his own personal history with not feeling comfortable with his own body growing up.  There is an awareness that something is wrong and that men do feel insecure about their own bodies, but it doesn't go down the road of discussing why that is and only really stops at "stop making us feel insecure."  These two articles feel more like they're placating the male ego and expressing an element of "me-too-ism" when it comes to the ever growing discussion feminists have been having around how women's bodies are policed.

I should state outright that my issue isn't with the two articles themselves, more so in consideration with the greater context of how mainstream media approaches body image issues these days.  It's hard to be enthusiastic about a topic like male body image, that does need to be discussed in greater depth, when the medium that it's happening in is still running articles that suggest that, for instance, an 8 year old girl should cover up because her body has the potential to trigger arousal in someone else.  The only people to bring up the idea that maybe boys should wear tops as well was the parents of the girl when they suggested that the rule of having to wear tops be applied to children of all genders.

The thing that I'm seeing here is that there's a willingness to talk about the harms of shaming the bodies of male identified people, but an unwillingness to talk about the harm that comes from telling an 8 year old girl she has to cover her body up.  Again, the discussions on male body image didn't invoke a debate between dissenting and assenting voices, while the article discussing the sexualization of a young girl did invoke voices from each camp.  I don't want to suggest that there was any ill intent on behalf of the programmers or editors of the respective publications, I would imagine the best of intentions behind the decisions to run the segments the way they were run.  However, I can't ignore the presence and timing of each of these articles as mainstream media, like everything else, doesn't exist in a vacuum and these articles are evidence of the gendered way in which mainstream media talks about body image.

A further issue I see with how the articles on the Q were carried out revolves around, how to put this, the precedent or context that exists for cis-male body image policing versus cis-female body image policing.  While there would be a particular standard for cis-male people that one could point to, I would argue that there's a lot less active policing going on for cis-male bodies than there is for cis-female bodies.  A cis-male child may feel shame for his body because he has not been able to achieve a certain athletic standard or doesn't look like a cis-male character/celebrity he admires, but he is not being conditioned to monitor his body to the same degree cis-female children are taught to do.  It is not difficult to find examples of young cis-girls feeling pressure to look a certain way very early on in their lives.

Adam Scott is actually proof that cis-males have more than just one type of body to look to as an ideal; there are actually a long list of other cis-male celebrities you could look at (Jack Black, Kevin James, Seth Rogan, Nick Offerman, or Aziz Ansari) who aren't known for having athletic bodies.  Moreover, while there is certainly a celebration of a certain type of athletic cis-male body, cis-men do not need to fit some narrow definition of physical attractiveness to be celebrated.  The story is much different for cis-women.  From politicians, to athletes, to celebrities cis-women's perceived attractiveness is always up for discussion and its regularly used to shame or dismiss accomplishments.

I am all for expanding the discussion on male body image, but any discussion that happens must occur with an awareness of the male privilege that exists around body image

SCOTUS and Normalized Violence Against Women

"Because Eminem said it at a concert where people are going to be entertained..."

This reasoning just makes my skin crawl.

The Supreme Court decided to not to convict a man who posted threatening lyrics from singer Eminem on his facebook because they felt the standard to convict was too low, which gives us yet another example of how our society normalizes violence against women.  People have been critical of Eminem and his views about women for many years now and for good reason; the fact that he would write such violent songs about women and the fact that millions of fans would buy the albums already speaks volumes about how normalized violence against women is in our society.

But now, in this case, because some people find lyrics describing violence against women entertaining, the Supreme Court feels that they cannot considered threats and should be protected under Free Speech regulations.  While the man in question may not have said, explicitly, that the lyrics were in reference to his partner, the fact that he would post them publicly in the context of just having split up is troubling.

At least, it should be...

It's troubling because SCOTUS's invokes 'context' as a way to defend the decision not to convict when it's the context of where and when the man is using the lyric that they should be looking at.  The most dangerous time for women experiencing domestic violence is attempting to leave or immediately after having left the relationship, so for this man to be posting lyrics like this publicly has to, or should, be concerning.

Let me put it another way.

If a friend was posting lyrics that were about suicide, would we ignore them because songs are entertainment and there's no subtext to why someone would post lyrics like that publicly?

Music can be a powerful tool for emotional catharsis and there are a lot of feelings that people can have that can be addressed through listening to certain songs.  We all have songs in our music collection that are for very specific times in our lives when there's more negative thoughts going on than normal and we need a bit of extra help.  Internally identifying, validating, and naming those feelings through music can be a healthy way of addressing them.  But, if we start publicizing certain things it changes the context of the situation.  Again, if we consider the situation where someone is posting media that talks about suicide we'd start to get concerned about whomever was posting the material.

Whenever we make something public, part of our motivation is seeking validation for whatever it is that we're sharing; we're testing the waters to see how people feel or react to something that we think is important.  It can be normal things, like vacation photos, or it can be harmful things, like lyrics containing violence against women.  Now, not everyone who posts something alarming on facebook is guaranteed to act on them in every instance, but it should raise some red flags if we know that there's more to the story in terms of who is posting and it should tell us that there's something that needs to be addressed.

Sadly, though, this is a kind of chicken-and-egg example of normalized violence against women; if violence against women is so normalized that it can be considered entertainment, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that SCOTUS wouldn't identify it as threatening.

Linkage:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/supreme-court-facebook-threat_n_7470634.html

Your systemic sexism is showing: why no one is defending MLA Deborah Drever

[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