Re-Branding New West

Going through my blog posts for the past year I found a piece I wrote defending Burnaby against the Vancouverite ‘burb-haters and I thought it was about time I wrote about my new home of New Westminster.

New Westminster (not New Westmin-i-ster!) was founded in 1858, named personally by Queen Victoria, hence the nickname: “The Royal City”. However, recently there’s been some suggestion that New West needs to update its image and find a new moniker. The Royal City Record suggested “The Fun City” because in the summer you can’t walk 2 blocks without running into some sort of festival. I think “The Fun City” sounds terrible, nor am I a fan of the monarchy, so I took it upon myself to come up with some alternate suggestions:

 
 
 

 

The Mayor of New West Firing an Anvil

New Westminster: We Like to Bang

 

Get your mind out of the gutter: I’m talking about cannons! New Westminsterites love their cannons. There is no such thing as an event in New West that does not involve cannons, preferably fired by someone in a pith helmet. The opening of the yearly Farmer’s Market starts with a cannon. Cannons travel down 6th Street each year for the Hyack parade. The Remembrance Day ceremonies made me feel like I had lived through a World War.

Just in case anyone thinks cannons are too quiet, once a year there’s the Anvil Battery Salute. Here’s the description from the Royal City Record: “The actual firing of the anvil involves placing a 68 kilogram anvil on top of a 159 kilogram anvil, with only 56 grams of black gunpowder between them.” They do this 21 times to simulate a 21-gun salute. Some stores run out of sunscreen in the summer; New West stores run out of earplugs. In 2010 only 3 schoolchildren almost got hit by flying shrapnel. This is considered a success.

The People’s Republic of New Westminster

This is the unofficial nickname for Burnaby, but I’m thinking New Westminster could challenge them for the title. After all, only 2/4 of Burnaby’s MLAs are NDP, compared to 1/1 for New West, plus both New Westminster’s MPs, and most of the City Councillors are progressive.

New Westminster was also the first municipality in Canada to pass a living wage policy, which has been endorsed by…the Ferengi. That’s right. I’ve worked in politics for a while and it never occurred to me to seek out policy validators from the realm of science fiction. But luckily for New West, her municipal politicians are looking at the stars.

 
 
 

 

The NW Hyacks Mascot

New Westminster: Our Absurdly-Named Sports Teams will Kick Your Ass

 

New Westminster proves that sports teams don’t have to have names that make sense in order to excel. For one, there’s the Hyacks football team. For some reason, New Westminster really latched onto the Chinook word Hyack, which means “quickly” or “hurry, hurry”. In addition to the football club, there’s the Hyack Swim Club, and the Hyack Festival and Parade, neither of which has much Aboriginal about it other than the name. At any rate, at least it left the field wide open when they were choosing a mascot, which explains why they chose…a fireman? Go figure. At least it doesn’t seem to have hurt their showing!

Then there’s the lacrosse club, the New Westminster Salmonbellies, or ‘Bellies for short. What I want to know is why emphasize the salmon belly? Why not just the New Westminster Salmon? The New West Sockeye? Despite their slippery moniker, the ‘Bellies have led New West to 24 national Mann Cup championships  since 1901.

New Westminster: Once the Capital of BC

Many New Westminster residents are bitter about the fact that Victoria is now the capital of BC, and understandably so! I mean, New West has lots of things that Victoria doesn’t have, like a really big hill and the world’s biggest tin soldier and… lots of cannons. If we ever engage in a 18th-century land battle with Victoria, we’d crush them like bugs.

The Un-Surrey

Now I actually quite like Surrey, but it has a bad reputation and New West could feasibly run with that. The drawback of this comparison is it just reinforces how difficult it is to make jokes about New Westminster. Consider the following jokes Surrey jokes fit to a New West context:

Q: What does a New Westminster girl do in the morning?

A: Participate in one of the many fine festivals in her neighbourhood.

Q:  What did the New Westminster resident name his pet zebra?

A: Hyack.

Q: Why do New Westminster girls wear so much hair spray?

A: To protect their coifs from the flying pieces of anvil.

Clearly, they don’t have quite the same ring to them as the originals, although I’m told they go over like gangbusters at a Sapperton garden party.

So I think we’ve got a few good options here. Always happy to be of service.

-Jarrah

Bookmark and Share

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con 5 Comments

Lessons from a Year of Blogging

As I mentioned in my last post this blog celebrates its 1 year anniversary on Saturday. Here are some of the things I’ve learned over the past year. The lessons range from the personal to things that are probably obvious to most bloggers.

  1. “If there’s something you want to hear, you can sing it yourself.” This pretty much sums up why I started the blog. I couldn’t find anyone talking about career planning and how it related to gender and race. When I decided to broaden the blog’s subject matter I realized it’d give me a chance to talk about more of the issues I cared about. I used to see an item in the news or pop culture and wish that someone else will write something about it, but I couldn’t count on that happening.
  2. Self-doubt is my #1 enemy. This ties in with the first lesson. Every once in a while there’s this nagging voice inside me saying there’s no point to me doing this, that no one who reads the blog likes it, that it’s not getting me anywhere, that no one would care if I stopped. Luckily the point wasn’t to become a world-famous writer or make money. The point was to express myself and spark discussion, and while I’d always like more feedback than I get, I think I continue to succeed on that front. When I think back on the last year I’m proud of myself for standing up and saying I’m a feminist and I’m not ashamed of it.
  3. It’s really hard to predict what posts will get more hits than others. E. Cain’s post on American Apparel has far and away the most hits on the site. The day it was posted it got over 5,000 hits, beating the blog’s best day by almost 5 times. I think it’s a great post but I honestly wasn’t expecting it. Given that there’s been a lot written about American Apparel’s sexist advertising on other feminist blogs, I thought we’d get a response more in line with our average hits per post.
  4. Blogging can affect your friendships. Most of my friends know I’m a feminist because I took Women’s Studies in University and was heavily involved in the Women’s Rights Committee of the BC NDP, so I wasn’t expecting much to change now that I was writing more publicly about my opinions. I was mostly right: the majority of my friends who disagreed with me on feminist issues in the past just steered clear of the blog or were supportive of me expressing myself, even if they didn’t agree with the ideas. Unfortunately I did have one friend for whom me writing the blog seemed to exacerbate long-standing political disagreements that I thought we had both let slide. Her point was that me putting my opinions out in public meant that I had to be more willing to defend them to her. I can see that my writing the blog made her feel more confronted with my views, but it was also difficult for me to accept that my best friend had become my biggest critic.
  5.  Trust your readers. This is something Linda Solomon, Editor of the Vancouver Observer, told me when I was upset about some racist comments I’d received on a column I’d written about the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre. Linda said I could take them down, but she believed it was better to trust that the majority of your readers are able to read your piece and the comments and realize on their own that the comments are offensive. The aforementioned American Apparel post also received some offensive comments, including referring to the author as an “uptight prude” and telling “you feminists” to “shut up and get back in the kitchen.” At first I was worried, but it was great to see how a bunch of readers we’d never seen or heard from before took on the trolls and their sexist language.
  6. Quantity is as important as quality. This is one of the things that’s both good and bad about blogging. Of course it’d be nicer for us writers if people just expected one amazing piece every once in a while, but the truth is no one’s going to keep checking your blog if you only post once a month. So since this January I’ve tried very hard to post 2-3 times a week minimum, with the help of some awesome contributors.
  7. Contributors are a blessing and a challenge. The challenge to me is knowing what types of edits I should offer. Luckily no one has submitted anything containing sexist or racist language, because I make it clear in the submission guidelines that oppressive content is not acceptable.  I brought on contributors to help keep up with the new posts I felt were required on a regular basis, and to meet a feminist commitment to ensuring diverse perspectives were represented. For that reason and because I think they’re awesome, I make it a rule not to make changes to contributions except to grammar, spelling, and tone. Sometimes I will point out what I think are some questions they’re leaving unanswered. But overall I find it challenging to decide if I should give more feedback, since I’m the editor and could be seen as endorsing everything my contributors say. Right now I hope readers will understand that publishing someone else’s piece says that I think their perspective is valid and arguable, and that I like their writing style. It doesn’t necessarily mean I have the exact same opinion. Feminism isn’t monolithic so I think having a range of opinions is a positive thing.
  8. Write down any ideas you have for posts, even if you aren’t going to post them right away. It’ll help you through the dry spells when you can’t think of anything new.

I’m sure I’ll think of more over the next year and in the meantime I’d love to hear from readers about what you liked and didn’t like, and what you’d like to see more of.

“Still and all, why bother? Here’s my answer. Many people need desperately to receive this message: ‘I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.’” – Kurt Vonnegut, Timequake.

-Jarrah

 

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Feminism 1 Comment

The Year in Review

This Saturday is the 1 year anniversary of my blog, which by my estimates means it has exceeded the average lifespan of a blog by about 6 months. It remains to be seen whether I can exceed the average lifespan of a good blog (33.8 months), but I’m optimistic. Here’s a short timeline of the past 12 months.

July 15, 2009: I launched my blog, originally called “Nice Work if You Can Get it” about my experience being laid off and doing career planning. NWIYCGI (yeah, it was a terrible acronym) looked at employment and career planning from an anti-racist feminist perspective. My favourite post from that time was about Jack Canfield and the “think-yourself-happy-happy gurus”, although in retrospect I’d have made the language more conversational.

August 2009: I get a job! Yay! Find it more difficult to stick to the intended theme of the blog and to keep up with posting frequently.

August 7, 2009: Through my blog I was invited to start writing a column on gender issues for the Vancouver Observer. My first post, “What Gender is Your Recession?” can be found here.

August 24, 2009: I get my first comments actually posted to the blog (not on Facebook or by email)

September 21, 2009: I start guest-blogging for About-Face, change name of NWIYCGI to West Coast Feminist.

October, 2009: I get another new job and my posting regularity drops substantially.

January 22, 2010: I change the name and look again, this time to Gender Focus in order to broaden the subject matter of the blog.

February 16, 2010: First post by a contributing blogger: E. Cain’s “I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead”.

March 2010: I attend the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Young Feminist Leadership Conference in Washington, DC.

May 31, 2010: I open Gender Focus up to public submissions.

May 6, 2010: Gender Focus has its highest number of hits in a single day: 5,801.

July 2010: 1 year and we’re still around!

-Jarrah

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Feminism 2 Comments

Stanley Park: What’s in a name?

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.

-Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

How little the Bard could’ve predicted the ado around the idea of changing the name of Stanley Park. Earlier this month, the Squamish First Nation and Tourism Vancouver proposed changing the name of Stanley Park to Xwayxway, the name of a Squamish village which was once located there.

After a few days of outcry from those opposed the Harper government stepped in and killed the idea, but it hasn’t stopped the debate.

I don’t really care much about place names. Stanley Park or Xwayxway? As long as I can still walk the seawall, it doesn’t make a lot of difference to me. My initial reaction was if the Squamish Nation thinks it’s important, I’d go for it. Symbolic change can be meaningful, so it might be worth doing as a sort of olive branch. Renaming could be a step in the right direction to combating internalized racism. But the danger would be if re-naming things became the be-all and end-all of Aboriginal policy.

That’s why I agree with Bill Tieleman’s take on the issue: “Let’s do something truly significant, as opposed to paying lip service by a name change that won’t change reality for First Nations students or people but will make lots of people angry.”

He’s right: if the only point is for the government to make a gesture that pretty much says: “I can’t possibly be racist: some of my best friends are Aboriginal,” it’s not going to do much to address the real material inequalities facing First Nations people.

That said, I did take a bit of issue with Tieleman’s assertion that the naming debate is all about “feeling guilty for bygone colonialism that none of us were remotely involved in.” I might not have personally dispossessed First Nations people from their land but I live comfortably in a social order that validates my history and culture, teaches my language as the standard, and where most of the schools, monuments, streets, and parks ARE named after Europeans. There is reason, if not to feel guilty (which tends to impede taking action), then to reflect and act on our privilege.

But obviously Tieleman isn’t suggesting we just sit back: his argument is that we need concrete action to resolve land claims and dealing with the drop-out rate among First Nations high schoolers.

In other words, a far more rational and less offensive position than the editorial in the Vancouver Sun from Wednesday, which basically argued that we’re all immigrants with equal right to enjoy Stanley Park, and so politicians should stop pandering to First Nations and trying to “obliterate the heritage of others”.

That’s pretty rich given all the times Europeans actually did try to obliterate Aboriginal heritage, through residential schools and other assimilationist policies (If you want to see evidence of racism still alive and well, check out the comments on this story at the Province website). It hardly compares to potentially re-naming a park.

Lord Stanley: The guy who gave us the Stanley Cup. Also a GG and avid fisherman.

And what exactly is this “heritage” they’d be “obliterating”? I just looked up Lord Stanley because I didn’t know much other than that he gave us the Stanley Cup. A quick and totally unscientific survey of white friends and acquaintances revealed no one who knew much more than I did. Turns out he was a Governor General, an avid fisherman, close friends with Sir John A. Macdonald, and had a wife who founded Ottawa’s first nursing school. My point is that it’s not like Canadian children of European descent sit around the fireplace learning the great tales of Lord Stanley of Preston. I’m sure he was a great guy, but you can hardly make the case that dropping his name from the park would leave some unfathomable hole in our culture. Anyway, we’d still have the Stanley Cup.

So a nice gesture? Sure. Worth the hassle/expense? The jury’s still out, in my view. At the very least, it shouldn’t just be used as a token gesture to disguise a lack of real commitment to rectifying material inequalities.

-Jarrah

Bookmark and Share

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Politics, Racism Leave a comment

New About-Face Post: Dance on Broadway

I’ve got a new post up at About-Face about the character representations in Dance on Broadway for Nintendo Wii. Here’s an excerpt:

Fun for the Whole (Skinny, Female) Family

“Instead of the single, abstracted avatar in Just Dance, Dance on Broadway lets you pick from four pre-determined characters per song, which are supposed to be true to the musicals. Both the box cover and game trailer are filled with pictures of people dressed in musical theater costumes, demonstrating how you can put yourself in the characters’ shoes.

On the one hand, having four characters to choose from (each with slightly different moves) lends more variation to the game, but the downside is that there are a lot of people who won’t find themselves represented in the character choices available.

The truth is, the Dance on Broadway trailer says it’s “fun for the whole family,” but it seems the game is primarily targeted to skinny, white women and girls.”

So head on over to the About-Face blog and check out the article.

On a partially-related note, I was browsing the archives at Sociological Images and came aross this article called “Toy Website Shows Girls Playing with ‘Boy’ Toys”. I really liked how it dealt with the issue of how boys continue to be discouraged from taking on “feminine” activities even while girls are increasingly being encouraged to participate in traditionally masculine activities:

UPDATE: Commenter Alyssa nicely summarizes why see this difference:
Unfortunately, we don’t see boys as being treated as unfairly when they don’t get to do “girl things” because girl things are considered inferior. It seems natural to people that girls and women want to do boy/men things because we see these activities as worth while. But a boy or man doing girl/women things is seen as somehow deviant because they are seen as wasting their time doing something useless.
But the truth is things that are usually labeled as feminine, are worthwhile. Boys certainly are disadvantaged when they are discouraged to learn how to take care of themselves. They are disadvantaged when they are discouraged learn empathy and social skills. Our view of all things feminine are inferior hurts both boys and girls.

Anyway, I’ll leave you with that for today. Hope everyone’s week is going well and stay tuned for some exciting stuff coming around as my one-year anniversary writing this blog approaches!

-Jarrah

 

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Feminism, Pop Culture, Racism Leave a comment

Sh*t My Roommate Says – Take Deux

All right. Since the first edition was so popular, here’s take two of Sh*t My Roommate Says:

Roommate: That guy on The Bachelor looks like that guy who was on The Apprentice…the politician.

Me: Which one?

Roommate: The one who was the Governor of Illinois? Roblow LeTacovich?


Roommate: Dennis Hopper died.

Me: I know! Sad!

Roommate: I don’t actually know who he is.

Me: Yeah, me neither.


Me: That wasn’t very coherent.

Friend: I don’t promise coherency.


Friend: That’s so cool that you’re a twin. What kind are you?

Friend #2: What do you mean?

Friend: You know. Fraternal, or what’s the other kind…paternal?


Roommate: I can’t read this box of tea. It’s like in Indian or something.

Me: Um, that’s French…and there’s English on the other side.


-Jarrah
Bookmark and Share

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Feminism Leave a comment

Calling Myself Out

Lately I’ve been conflicted about something I posted on this blog a little less than a month ago.

Earlier this year I started posting funny YouTube clips on Fridays, including this clip from This Hour has 22 Minutes about John Baird:

We had been talking about John Baird that week and criticizing his overly aggressive style in the House of Commons, so when I saw the video I thought it was funny and apt.

The thing is, a couple months before, a commenter had let us know about this picture of Helena Guergis, and I was really offended, even though I’m not a fan of Guergis, nor the Toronto Sun.

I didn’t write it on the blog but I saw the Toronto Sun cover as comparing women to dogs in a demeaning and dehumanizing way. As much as I think Guergis’ actions were seriously sketchy, I don’t think it’s cool to put her face next to a dog’s and say they’re the same thing.

So given that, I’m feeling like it might’ve been a bit hypocritical of me to go around promoting the video comparing John Baird to a dog.

On the one hand, a satirical sketch by a group like like This Hour Has 22 Minutes is clearly not meant to be taken too seriously, whereas the front cover of a newspaper at least has the pretense of being objective media. One was intended to be a joke, and one wasn’t, so you could argue they’d also have different impacts.

You could also argue that there’s a long history of comparing women to animals in order to maintain gender hierarchy (e.g. calling women “bitch”, “chick”, comparing them to “meat”, etc.). That could mean that such comparisons about Helena Guergis would be more damaging and oppressive than against John Baird.

On the other hand, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s great to go around comparing men to dogs or other animals. So I’m calling myself out on that one but I’d also be interested to hear what you think: are these types of comparisons always bad, or just in certain contexts, or just when applied to women, or should we just see them as a joke and forget about it?

-Jarrah

 

Bookmark and Share

 

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism, Politics 2 Comments