Sh*t my Roommate Says

Because I didn’t have a FFFF this Friday I’m sharing some interesting conversations I’ve had with my roommate and friends over the past little while.

(at a figure skating competition)

Friend: This is really cool!

Me: I know. Today we’re just watching the Juniors but I’m really excited because tomorrow I’m going to see the Seniors for Ice Dancing.

Friend: They have figure skating for seniors? Isn’t that dangerous?

(At the New York Museum of Natural History front desk)

Me: I’m a student

Clerk: Ok. What’s your zip code?

Me: (surprised) I need to know a code?

Clerk: Your zip code?

Me: Is that something they give to students here?


Roommate: I wish I could go help on the oil spill.

Me: I know. You just feel so helpless watching.

Roommate: But also I’d get to see cool new animals! Maybe they’d let me clean a beluga!

Me: Um, I don’t think there are belugas in the Gulf of Mexico!

Roommate: Well I don’t know where this thing is!

Me: Well right now they’re broadcasting this show from Louisiana.

Roommate: Wait, Louisiana has a water border? I always thought it was in the middle!

Me: Like Kansas?

Roommate: If that’s a trick question I’m not answering!

(at the US Capitol Visitor Centre)

Me: I’m trying to figure out who most of these statues are.

Friend: Look at that one by the entrance (points to a statue of a girl next to a water pump).

Me: Yeah. That’s Alice in Wonderland.

Friend: I’m pretty sure it’s Helen Keller.

Me: Oh. That makes more sense.

Me: I don’t have anything wrong with people who are polyamorous, but I’m not sure I want to be in a relationship with someone who’s really adamant about it.

Roommate: What do you have against people who can write with both hands?

-Jarrah

Bookmark and Share

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Feminism 3 Comments

Confronting Privilege

Dorcas: You were right, I have been blind. But to myself if anything else. You are…used to risk. I, on the other hand have always chosen comfort and security. My privilege has enabled that. I see now that what begins as caution may become cowardice without one realizing.

The above quote is from Lark Rise to Candleford, and while my use of it is terribly out of context, it really spoke to the way I’ve been reflecting on my own privilege (based on being white, straight, able-bodied, and middle-class) in the past week.

It started when I read an article in my local paper about a request by the Tsilhqot’in nation asking that Begbie Square in New Westminster (named for the infamous “hanging judge”) be renamed and the statue of Begbie replaced byone of Chief Ahan. Ahan is considered a Tsilhqot’in hero. He was sentenced to hanging by Judge Begbie and is believed to be buried under the Square. Now all I knew about Judge Begbie I learned in Grade 4. We learned his nickname and that was pretty much it. Seeing the story made me realize just how incomplete and biased my education had been. I realized, like Dorcas, how blinding privilege can be.

My whole life I’ve been walking around my neighbourhoods and unquestionably accepted the fact that practically every landmark is named after figures from European history. My whole life I happily took off my ancestors’ Christian holidays from school while never questioning if other people’s traditions were accorded the same recognitions. Reflecting on it I realize it’s been comfortable for me to take for granted the legitimacy accorded to my traditions and history over those of non-white communities and First Nations people.

The name of a public square might seem trivial, but I find I can’t quite imagine what it would be like to live in a society where I don’t see me reflected wherever I go. It’s the Eurocentrism – the treatment of white European-ness as normal and everything else as exotic or different - that’s the problem. It’s everywhere and I’m realizing it manifests in my blog when I ignore race. It’s not good enough for me to say the blog is “anti-racist”. By not discussing race, racism, and how policy impacts differently based on race, I’m just reinforcing the status-quo. I also don’t think I do a good enough job looking at issues of ableism or class and poverty.

Part of this is the concern that I don’t want to be “speaking for” marginalized groups. But if I don’t try to address these issues at all, is that really caution or just cowardice?

As the quote at the top points out, those who are privileged have the luxury of choosing to feel comfortable and secure. By extension, confronting privilege can and should be a bit uncomfortable. I showed my blog to a male friend and he said about the feminist content, “To be honest, it made me a bit uncomfortable. It wasn’t that I didn’t agree, but it made me feel kind of like I do when I hear about things like Residential Schools.” There’s a comfort in complacency. It’s not fun to realize that even though you might not have directly caused a situation (be it Residential Schools or the gender pay gap), you have been complicit by not challenging it or even benefiting from the results.

The first time I noticed my class privilege was when I was in Toronto, studying on scholarship at York University. After tuition, my funding equalled about $500/month, and my rent was over $600. I got a part-time job canvassing on the election campaign but when I came down with mono I had to quit. Then the graduate students went on strike and my funding was even further reduced. Luckily my parents were able to give me money to help with rent and get me back to BC to get a job and get back on my feet. I made some decisions that were poorly planned out, but because of my class I wasn’t judged for them and didn’t experience real hardship in the same way as someone from a poorer background might.

In Teaching Community, bell hooks points out: “no one, no matter how intelligent and skillful at critical thinking, is protected against the subliminal suggestions that imprint themselves on our unconscious brain” (p.11). There’s no doubt this is going to be something to work on and I hope people will call me out and comment if they notice privilege-induced blindness on the blog. I’m also interested in others’ stories about recognizing privilege. Confronting privilege may be uncomfortable but that’s where the ability to make change occurs.

On a related note I wanted to direct your attention to a couple good resources for improving equality, and anti-racism in education. The Equality 101 Blog covers a broad range of topics about difference in education. Closer to home Twinkle’s Happy Place is a resource for Canadian educators to integrate anti-racist Aboriginal pedagogy into their classrooms.

-Jarrah

 

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Feminism 1 Comment

Women in Lark Rise to Candleford

So I just finished the DVDs for Season 2 of the BBC series Lark Rise to Candleford, which is based on Flora Thompson’s trilogy of semi-autobiographical novels and follows the lives of the residents of the village of Lark Rise and the small town of Candleford in the 1890s.

Julia Sawalha as Dorcas and Olivia Hallinan as Laura

I love classic/period drama. Give me a film adaptation of Austen or Dickens or Elizabeth Gaskell any day, but sometimes I feel a bit guilty if they seem to sentimentalize old-fashioned gender norms.

Some of this might just be inevitable given the time periods they’re set in. I mean, you can put on a punk production of Macbeth set in the 1970s with an all-female cast and it might be awesome, but works like Lark Rise to Candleford are all about context: both historical and geographical.

In spite of this, the Lark Rise writers have managed to take considerable license with character and plot details without it seeming out of place. For example, the character of Minnie, the Post Office maid, is almost entirely original. Luckily the creative team has chosen to use much of its creative license to focus plots on the independent women of the town. In an interview, Victoria Hamilton, who plays shopkeeper Ruby Pratt, stated: “There’s an awful lot of very strong unmarried women. It’s fantastic to be in a TV series with this many parts for women because they happen once in a blue moon.”

Most of the episodes of Lark Rise revolve around the character of Laura Timmins (Olivia Hallinan), who moves from Lark Rise to Candleford to work at the Post Office, which is run by her mother’s cousin, Dorcas Lane (Julia Sawalha).

Laura is intelligent, principled, and optimistic, if sometimes naive. However, even though Laura is the narrator of the series, the character of Dorcas is no less important to the series.

Producer Anne Tricklebank points out: “Remember women haven’t got the vote then, so for a woman to run the post office…was quite unusual.”

“It was quite something in those times for a woman to take that on. That’s why I love Dorcas: because she’s very independent,” says Sawalha of her character. One of the best examples of this is an episode in Season 2 in which Dorcas runs for Parish Council.

And there are many more strong women characters, including the Pratt sister seamstresses, Queenie the beekeeper, Laura’s mother Emma, and the loud and big-hearted though flawed Caroline Arless, played by Dawn French. Susan Wooldridge notes that costume dramas like Lark Rise provide more and meatier roles for women over 50 than mainstream drama. In Lark Rise we certainly see older women (and men) treated as individuals with detailed individual personalities instead of as caricatures.

So I’m looking forward to Season 3 and the rumoured 6 episodes planned for a mini 4th season.

I’ll leave you with this little clip from Season 3, where Queenie insists to her husband Twister that she be allowed to play the dragon in the local pageant.

-Jarrah

 

 

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Feminism, Pop Culture 3 Comments

FFFFrench and Saunders

Ok, I screwed up. I know it’s technically Saturday now, but I haven’t slept yet so it’s kinda like it’s Friday. So here’s your film clip: an oldie but a goodie from French and Saunders:

Have a fantastic weekend, folks!

-Jarrah


Bookmark and Share

 

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

The Round-Up: June 8, 2010

Extra, Extra! Read all about it! Here’s your round up of things we missed.

  • The Glee season finale is tonight. Now I have a bit of a thing where I try to avoid pop-culture that everyone else seems to like, so the more popular Glee gets the more tempted I am to stop watching it. But gosh darn it, those peppy musical numbers, the message that people should sing out and be themselves, and the stellar weekly performances by Jane Lynch and Matthew Morrison – not to mention the reams of Broadway guest-stars like Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenoweth – keep me coming back for more. Now Glee is certainly not perfect. Bitch Magazine has done a great job of in-depth analyzing this season’s episodes with reference to how they fail to fully challenge gender stereotypes, over-simply feminism, and tokenize people with disabilities. These are important things to watch out for, but you know the show’s doing something correctly when it’s succeeded in pissing off the religious right. Michael Jones at Change.org reports that Conservative blogger Brent Bozell is up in arms because he thinks Glee makes homosexuality normal and unfairly stereotypes homophobes by portraying them as bullies. It takes a big man to stand up for the rights of homophobes. Score 1 for Glee!

 

 

  • The old “are men better at science” debate has been thrust back into the spotlight in both the US and Canada. It started when the Canadian government gave 19 out of 19 esearch chair positions to men. Women professors decried the lack of progress for women in science and the government’s lack of procedure to ensure a more equal nomination pool. Then UBC Professor Andrew Irvine charged that actually it’s men who are discriminated against due to affirmative action at universities, though he cited no concrete examples or proof of this. Now the Globe and Mail’s Gary Mason isn’t exactly what you’d call a feminist, but I’ll give him some props for taking on Dr. Irvine on this issue.

 

  • In the States the same discussion has come to the fore because the House of Representatives recently passed legislation which would require the White House science adviser to oversee gender equity workshops. At this link, Jezebel takes on the New York Times’ John Tierney for arguing that this will impede the ability for researchers to argue that women are simply not as good at science than men. I’m currently reading Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Myths of Gender, which is slightly dated but still very relevant, so this is an issue we’ll be keeping our eye on.

 

  • And to finish things off, here’s a random nerdy cartoon from Cyanide & Happiness for those of you who remember kids’ shows of the 90s:

-Jarrah

Bookmark and Share

 

Posted on by jarrahpenguin in Round-Ups Leave a comment

FFFF: 22 Minutes on John Baird

Because it’s related to E. Cain’s post from this morning, I thought I’d share this clip from This Hour Has 22 Minutes about John Baird’s temper for your Friday Feminist Funny Film.

-Jarrah

 

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

Baird is Parliamentarian of the Year?: Oh Hell No!

Today I want to write about the antiquated masculine culture which permeates Canadian Politics. If you’ve ever watched Question Period, then you know what I’m talking about.  Politics is one of the few professions in this country where is considered acceptable (even encouraged) to point fingers, scream, yell, bang on desks and berate your colleagues.

One politician who has built a reputation for himself based on this abhorrent behaviour is the Conservative Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, John Baird. The Globe and Mail writes “[Baird has] gained a reputation as an attack dog, screaming responses to opposition questions, insulting and snarling at any who have the audacity to challenge him.”

Minister John Baird

Charming right? Well, today Baird was named Parliamentarian of the Year in Macleans magazine. This honour is bestowed by the Canadian Members of Parliament. They are asked to vote in several categories (their votes are converted into a points system to ensure that larger parties don’t have an advantage). This year, 202 MPs voted (nearly 70%).

The accompanying Maclean’s article gushes about Baird, including: his leadership marshalling the Accountability Act and overseeing billions of dollars in federal stimulus money; his role as Harper’s #2; and his behind-the-scenes ability to schmooze with the best of them.

While this may all be true, when I heard that Baird was the recipient of this honour, my first reaction was: Oh Hell No!

John Baird is one of the most disrespectful politicians in the Canadian government. This is his public persona. This is what he is known for. In a previous blog article on gendered media coverage of politicians, I wrote about Baird’s ‘emotional outburst’ last summer which resulted in him telling the city of Toronto to ‘f- off.’  Sadly, this is not unusual behaviour for Baird. In fact, on the very same day he was named Parliamentarian of the Year, he showed up uninvited to a committee hearing. He then berated the Chair, Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi, implying she was unintelligent and referring to her by her first name, and lashed out at another committee member Liberal MP Siobhan Coady.

To hammer home my point – the confrontational, adversarial nature of Canadian politics is identified as one of the main reasons why women don’t run for political office. This does not mean that women are weak. It means that many women don’t want to go to work every day and have to deal with disrespectful men. It makes for a hostile working environment, it’s demoralizing and downright counter-productive.

Over the years, countless politicians – of both genders and of all political stripes – have called for a change in this ‘blood sport’ mentality present in Canadian Politics. For this reason, I have to say that I was shocked John Baird was named Parliamentarian of the Year! He represents the epitome of what needs to change in Canadian politics. He should not be rewarded; a better course of action would be to reprimand him for his unacceptable behaviour and recommend anger management.

-E. Cain


 

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