Racism

Rookie Blue: I’m Not Impressed

Sometimes people say to me, “So Jarrah, what do you look for in a TV show?”

Ok, nobody actually says this to me, but if they did, until recently, I probably would’ve answered: “At least one strong woman character, intelligent plots, preferably a crime drama.”

From the previews, the new ABC/Canwest show Rookie Blue would seem to fit those conditions. But boy did the pilot episode, which aired Thursday, fall flat on the intelligent plot front.

**caution: spoilers ahead**

In case you hadn’t seen the previews, Rookie Blue follows a group of rookie police officers as they start on the force in an unnamed city (it’s shot in Toronto). The main character is Andy McNally, played by Missy Peregrym. She starts out her first day on the job making a huge mistake, for which she gets called a “Bambi” by a male superior. When she tries to fix it, he calls her a “Girl Guide”.

Because if there’s one thing we want in a role model for girls its the willingness to suck up sexist criticism from condescending men in the workplace.

Then there’s the writing, which is pretty weak. Entertainment Weekly notes one of Peregrym’s worst lines: “[A suspect] is out there…with a gun!”

But in spite of that I could’ve given it another shot were it not for the ream of stereotypes they’ve used to create the female characters. For starters hey’ve got the devious blonde (Rookie Gail Peck) and the sporty and earnest brunette (McNally). In the department of racial stereotypes, the African-Canadian (American?) character Rookie Traci Nash (Eunuka Okuma) is described on the Global website as a “tough-talking party girl and [single] mother to a six-year-old son.”

Believe it or not, even that representation was more subtle than the appalling portrayal of a transgendered woman.

The scene starts when Rookies Gail Peck and Dov Epstein are asked to deal with a woman who’s been arrested for stealing drugs. In the process of interviewing her, Peck finds out that she’s transgendered. Peck goes to talk to Epstein, convinced that he’s now the one who should search the suspect.

“She’s a chick!” he protests.

“No, she’s not a chick, she’s a man!” retorts Peck.

“I’m not a man, I’m transgendered,” the woman interrupts politely.  Epstein then asks her what that even means, like she’s some kind of freak. He tells her  she’s either a “chick” or a “dude” and whichever one she is determines which one of the rookies searches her. At that point, the rookies’ supervisor steps in, grabs the woman’s driver’s license and notes that it states the sex as “M”.

“I forgot to change it,” the woman protests lamely as the supervisor hands the latex gloves to Epstein for the search.

Where do I even start?

First, there’s the fact that when we have so few representations of trans individuals in pop culture, Rookie Blue had to go ahead and make their first one, in the first half of the show, a criminal and a drug addict. Many trans people face discrimination partially due to these types of images that stereotype them as deviant.

Second, there’s the whole idea that you’re either a chick or a dude and that any questioning of that binary makes you a freak. As soon as the rookies aren’t sure of the suspect’s gender they challenge her, with Epstein demanding she pick a gender so they know what to do with her. And instead of any acknowlegement that maybe the problem is with the police procedures, as they’ve tried to do on other shows like SVU, it seems like the Rookie Blue writers decided to let the audience off the hook by having the supervisor defer to the driver’s license.

Third, it’s disturbing, but I actually think the writers thought this was a funny scene. It seemed like the point was to show Epstein, in particular, having to endure an uncomfortable and embarassing situation. There was absolutely zero acknowledgement of the humiliation that might be faced by a trans woman being searched by a cisgender male police officer simply because her ID hadn’t kept up with the police manual.

The scene wasn’t funny, nor was it entertaining or necessary to the plot. The only purpose it served was to perpetuate transphobia.

So sorry, Rookie Blue, but next Thursday night if I’m bored, I’m going to read a book.

-Jarrah

 

Posted on June 25, 2010 by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism, LGBT, Pop Culture, Racism 6 Comments

Orientalism in Cairo Time

I missed seeing Cairo Time when it showed at Monday Movie Nights in New West, so I jumped at the chance to watch it when I saw it on the free Shaw on Demand video list this past weekend. After all, I figured, it’s a Canadian movie, written and directed by a woman, Ruba Nadda, so it’s the kind of thing I usually get into. I’d also seen that it won Best Canadian Feature Film at TIFF 2009.

Patricia Clarkson and Alexander Siddig

So the basic plotline is this: Patricia Clarkson plays Juliette, who’s gone to Cairo to meet her husband, who is working for the UN in Gaza. He’s kept away by work and she ends up spending a lot of time with his former colleague, Dr. Bashir from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, or Tareq for the purposes of this movie. Not at all shockingly she begins to realize she’s developing a thing for him.

Unfortunately, Cairo Time really disappointed me. I was less than ten minutes in when I was started noticing the Orientalist feel of the movie, which I’ll talk about in more detail later. But the movie was also just plain bad. The plot and shots were so slow and disjointed that at times I wondered if the video stream was broken. The whole thing lacked any real dramatic tension and the static characters drove me crazy.

But it’s really the Orientalism I wanted to write about. I’m taking Said’s definition of Orientalism the defining of the Orient by Westerners through imperialist experiences and prejudices. To start, the whole atmosphere of the movie is geared towards showing Cairo as exotic and beautiful. Interviewed about the movie’s concept, Nadda talks about a family vacation to Cairo when she was 16: “It was just beautiful, it was ancient, it had so much history, it left a visual imprint on my brain, and I thought I had to set a story in this beautiful, beautiful city.” The problem is Cairo Time never gives us the history so all we get is a romanticized, exoticized representation.

In addition, Cairo Time fits Said’s description of contemporary Orientalism towards Arab cultures pretty much to a tee. Here are the stereotypes we learn from Cairo Time:

1. Egyptian men are dominant and aggressive. Early in the film Juliette ventures out of her hotel by herself and is followed by a slew of random creepy Egyptian guys acting as though they’ve never seen a white lady before. From then on she realizes she needs Tareq to take her everywhere. There’s a clip of this scene in the trailer, which I’m including here:

2. Egypt is dangerous and Egyptians hate Americans. Aside from the random creepy stalkers, Tareq also feels the need to warn Juliette that “under the facade, Cairo is still a dangerous city.” He mentions that 2 Americans were murdered outside their hotel, simply for being Americans.

Yeah, that didn’t happen. The US State Department does warn American tourists to be vigilant as some have been the victims of terrorist bombings at tourist attractions, but admits, “U.S. citizens do not appear to have been targeted in any of these incidents.” I know it’s fiction, but making up this incident really doesn’t help Western stereotypes of all Arabs as dangerous anti-Americans.

3. Americans are workaholics; Egyptians are hedonists. Tareq gets Juliette to admit to working 12-hour days and then brags about how Egyptians get off work at 3 every day and then go home to relax and prepare for the evening’s fun.

4. Egyptian women are oppressed. Now I’m not saying there’s complete gender equality in Egypt, but Cairo Time dramatically oversimplifies the issues, which ends up making invisible Western gender inequality. For example, Juliette frets over some girls she sees working rather than being in school. Tareq informs they don’t go to school because their families are saving for their weddings. While there is a significant gender gap in education and literacy in Egypt, 92% of primary-school-aged girls do attend school.

5. Egyptians don’t have a social conscience. The intrepid Juliette, who  runs a magazine on women’s and social issues, mentions to Tareq she wants to write about Egyptian street children. She elaborates, “Many of these children fend for themselves and no one seems to care.” All our hero Tareq can muster as a defense is to say it’s complicated. Yes it is, but we the audience members are just left up on our high horses with Juliette on this one.

 Now, to be fair, there are a couple points in the film where Tareq criticizes Juliette for her Orientalism. In response to her discussion of girls involved in child labour he says sarcastically, “Between you and your husband you may yet save the entire Middle East.” But it’s never a serious challenge and it’s really overwhelmed by the rest of the film’s content.

Soha Bayoumi has an excellent analysis of the other ways in which the film reinforces negative stereotypes about Arab people. I encourage you to check out her post, as she’s done a great job of documenting the film’s factual errors about Egyptian culture and Arab language.

The big problem with depictions of cultures like the one we see in Cairo Time is that, being geared to a white Western audience, the factual errors and stereotypes may be accepted as fact. All in all, I’d say don’t make time for Cairo Time.

-Jarrah

 

Posted on June 21, 2010 by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism, Pop Culture Leave a comment

Women Behind Bars


For many of us, what goes on within Canada’s prisons is a mystery – out of sight, out of mind, right? Well, earlier this month a report revealed some disturbing trends regarding women in prison. It indicated that the number of women starting federal prison sentences in Canada has increased by more than 50% in the past decade; this is compared to a 15% increase for men.

In Canada, it is women who represent the fastest growing segment of the inmate population.

Incarcerated women share a particular profile. Many, prior to incarceration, were poor or homeless, under-educated, and suffering from addictions & mental health problems. In addition, the Elizabeth Fry Society reports that 82% of women incarcerated in Canadian prisons have a history of sexual or physical abuse. This stat rises to an alarming 91% for Aboriginal women.

While not downplaying the criminal behaviour of female inmates, my intention here is to argue that the dichotomies often invoked within our society in reference to criminals, such as good/evil, victim/offender, right/wrong – are not clear cut. The reality is much more complex.

This report clearly illustrates that in addition to committing crimes, the majority of women behind bars are also victims. They are victims of continued cuts to health and social services which provide the resources, materials and support required to build lives, communities and futures. In addition, unacceptably high numbers of these women are also victims of sexual and physical violence – horrific crimes which can destroy lives.

Aboriginal women make up 33% of Canada’s prison population, but only 3% of the general population. Many of these women’s experiences with racism and the legacy of colonialism are inextricably related to their experiences as offenders. 28% of Aboriginal offenders were raised as wards in the community, and 15% were in residential schools.

And the discrimination continues in prison, with the Native Women’s Association of Canada reporting that Aboriginal women are more likely to be housed in higher security facilities than their assessed risk requires, inhibiting their ability to access programs and services while incarcerated.

The way I see it, Canadians pay when cuts are made to essential services and individuals cannot get the help and support they need to build their lives. Canadians also pay, to incarcerate individuals when they break the law. Finally, no matter how good the rehabilitative efforts may or may not be within prisons, Canadians pay when inmates are released back into the same dismal conditions which led to their incarceration in the first place and as a result re-offend.

I strongly believe that as a society, before we sentence women and men to spend large chunks of their lives in prison – isolated and caged like animals; we have a responsibility to do everything we can to prevent individuals from entering lives of crime.

More can be done and a crucial component is restoring and investing in social programs and health based services.

-E.Cain

 

Posted on May 22, 2010 by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism, Politics Leave a comment

Err-izona

There’s an old guy who lives in my neighbourhood. He stops anyone who’ll listen to his racist rants about how we give immigrants too many rights and how “they” are taking “our” jobs and taking over the country. I don’t think the people he talks to ever seriously wondered what would happen if we gave him his own state to run.

But over the last few weeks we’ve found out, thanks to the craziness going on in Arizona.

Sarah Palin with Jan Brewer, supporting the "papers, please" bill

It started when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill into law that allows police to demand “proof of immigration status” if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that a person may be in the country illegally.

No one has convincingly been able to argue that this “papers, please” bill won’t lead to racial profiling. When asked what she thought an illegal immigrant looks like, Brewer stated, “I do not know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that I think there are people in Arizona that assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like.” As the Philadelphia Daily News said: “Want to bet these “people” think illegal immigrants look like Latinos?”

Despite numerous cities, including Los Angeles and Boston, moving to boycott city business dealings and staff travel to Arizona, other states are predicted to jump on the “papers, please” bandwagon as anti-immigration activists help them write clone laws. Already a Michigan state legislator is set to introduce her version of the law in the next couple of weeks.

As if “papers, please” weren’t a big enough move in the wrong direction, now Arizona has again made history by passing legislation that attempts to ban public school classes that “are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group.”

I guess I just heard that headline in passing, because initially I thought, “Oh my God, they’re shutting down the entire school system!” But then I found out that apparently they don’t care if courses and curricula are geared to white students; they’re mostly targeting ethnic studies classes geared towards Mexican or Chicano students.

Apparently Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne says these classes foster race resentment, hence the portion of the legislation that goes on to ban classese that “promote resentment toward a race or class of people . . . and advocate ethnic solidarity.”

Since passing these bills, Arizona has been called out by a group of 6 UN human rights experts for potentially violating international human rights standards (the “papers, please” bill) and denying individuals the right to learn about their cultural and linguistic heritage.

Talking Points Memo notes the politically expeditious timing of the legislation for Horne, who is currently locked in a heated Republican primary battle. And Michael Yaki at the San Francisco Chronicle has a great analysis of why the ethnic studies bill’s terms are so incredibly suggestive as to make it unenforceable, and why the intent behind it is so wrong.

The Tuscon District’s director of Mexican-American/Raza studies maintains that the classes discuss Chicano social uprisings as historical events and are not inciting protest. Not to mention, since the programs began, graduation rates and literacy and math scores for Mexican-American students enrolled in the program have skyrocketed. But who cares about a kid’s test scores when on the weekend she might be out (insert suspenseful music here)…raising her fist at something!

Seems like Horne could stand to take a bit of a history lesson himself: when you try to tell a group of people to stop accessing information and expressing themselves through peaceful protest, it generally just serves to galvanize the people you’re trying to suppress.

I’ll leave you with a funny clip from Friday’s Rachel Maddow Show, where Kent Jones discusses how he could help Arizona re-brand after all this:

-Jarrah

 

Posted on May 16, 2010 by jarrahpenguin in Feminism, Politics Leave a comment

All I Want for Christmas is for Margaret Wente to Take Some Time Off

When it comes to Margaret Wente’s columns in the Globe and Mail, my usual attitude is ignorance is bliss. Back when I still got the Globe for the crossword puzzles,  I read most of her columns, from her forays into racism against Aboriginal people, including a column in October, 2008 that prompted widespread calls for her to be fired, to her frequent lambasting of feminists. Eventually I decided for the sake of my mental health I shouldprobably abstain from Margaret Wente consumption altogether.

But every once in a while I catch wind of something ridiculous she’s written and I can’t help it; I have to respond. So it was with her column of Monday, December 7th, entitled “Montreal Massacre Death Cult”, where she complains about the “overheated nonsense” and “fevered breast-beating” she says she sees every December 6th as feminists try to mobilize against gender-based violence.

Now last week I wrote about December 6th and linked to a Star article Wente refers to, saying: “How much sophistry can you stuff into one small space?” There is a saying about a pot and a kettle that’s highly applicable here, but because I couldn’t let it go, here’s what I think about some of her arguments.

1. Wente contends that “women in Canada have never been safer than they are today,” arguing that most victims of violence are men and that society no longer tolerates spousal abuse.  While it may be technically true that most victims of violence are men, the type of violence they suffer and its cultural significance are different.

Margaret Wente ignores a) that violence against women is underreported and b) it is experienced differently given the gendered power dynamics in our society. Violence against women is often perpetrated by people they know and sometimes love. In relationships, women are more likely to experience severe violence than men. And in a society where women are still unequal, violence against women is a tool for reinforcing gender-based power dynamics.

I’m not saying any violence is okay, but there are many legitimate reasons for treating violence against women as a separate issue.

2. In the column Wente gets up on her Eurocentric high horse to try to make her point, taking pains to point out Marc Lepine’s “deeply troubled background” as the “son of an Algerian-born businessman.”

She continues expressing her view that we don’t have an equality problem in Canada at the end of the column where she points out gender inequalities in Afghanistan and India, then says, “in Canada, it’s time to get a grip and move on.” Wente conveniently ignores that much violence against women in North America is perpetrated by white people.

For example earlier this year in a situation eerily similar to what happened in Montreal 20 years ago, a man named George Sodini went on a shooting rampage in a Pittsburgh gym, where he killed 3 women and wounded 9 more before killing himself. Lousie Marie Roth has a great Huffington Post article about how the shooting relates to Montreal and to misogynist violence. Like Montreal, he singled out women because they were women. On his blog he ranted how he planned to kill women because they wouldn’t date him.

These types of shootings are extreme, but as Roth points out, our society plays a role by creating a masculine sense of entitlement that can clash with women’s push for equality. Race is not a causative factor and white Canadians shouldn’t get let off the hook.

3. Wente argues women don’t have to worry about equality because women now make up most PhD students in Canada. Conveniently she ignores the continued gender wage gap and the fact that women still only make up 22.1% of the seats in the House of Commons, among other markers of inequality.

I’ll leave it at that for this week and with any luck I can make it through this holiday season without having to read any more Margaret Wente.

 

Posted on December 11, 2009 by jarrahpenguin in Can-Con, Feminism, Politics 1 Comment
« Previous   1 2 3 4 5