Finally, a car just for women!

There are a lot of products on the market "just for women." Some of them are necessary such as, you know, tampons. Some of them are kind of necessary like just for women back packs that have a narrower strap so they don't pinch your side boob when you're hiking. The rest of "just for women" products are basically useless and exist to grab cash from women, who will apparently pay extra for something stamped with a flower or something that smells like a tropical rain forest under their armpits.

Some of my least favorite products for women include anti-perspirant (because you actually can't buy deodorant for women) which I wrote about here : "Because nobody wants to be with a girl who is careless about her underarm odor." The ad campaign for this particular product (which is a "motion sensor underarm anti perspirant) wanted to remind women how much they move by making them wear jingle bells on their wrists all day. Shudder.

There's also the new Bic for Women! A pen designed specifically for a woman. I haven't written about that at all, partly because I was away and partly because I was just like fuck that, I'm not writing about a pen for women.

Another product I can't stand are razors for women. In "Gillette: the choice of women, girls, and pedophiles everywhere" I looked at how this craze for women's products is starting younger and younger and how women's products mainly just capitalize on sexist fears around women's bodies. Hey, 12 year old girl, better shave those legs unless you want someone to think you re DISGUSTING. Right?

There are trillions of products for women that are pink. Pink computers, pink phones, pink headphones. You  name it, there's a pink one for the ladies. Superfluous, unnecessary, transparent, and sexist are basically all of the words that come to mind when I see any "for women" product and today I came across a new one: The new Honda She's, a car for women.

A CAR FOR WOMEN.

The website is in Japanese, so you'll have to use the translate function but here's the general gist of it: this is a car just for ladies. Ladies who don't work. Ladies who use their cars to jet off to the coast and buy flowers in their pink skirt. Ladies who want "adult-cute".

What are the special "women only" functions of the new Honda She's? Well She's' trim is all pink, pink stitching, it has a pink interior, but it can also be bought in 'eyeliner brown'.The really annoying thing about this car is that the windshield blocks 99% of UV rays and they've created a new AC system that is meant to improve air quality within the vehicle. Why would that possibly be annoying?  Air quality and UV rays in a car are serious issues but the Honda She's isn't interested in anything serious (how could She? She's a lady after all) and these new features are sold as being "anti-aging." Anti. Aging. Car. Apparently women don't care if the UV blocking windshield protects their skin or eyes, they'll buy it because they're told it will guard against premature wrinkling. And the new AC system isn't touted for its allergen decreasing, pollution halting filters but rather for "improving" your lovely porcelain skin.

If you want a pink car, that's great. Go buy yourself a car and get it in pink. Spend the extra cash and even get some pink trims if you feel like it. Cars are just like any other personal product and people want (and should be able to) customize them however they want. This isn't about pink. It's about how companies target women using sexist stereotypes about what women want. As a woman who drives a lot I don't want a car that everyone is going to stare at. When I used to have to drive in Northern Ontario on lonely isolated highways, surrounded by big trucks, I wouldn't have wanted to have a pink fucking car that looked like a blown up toy because that just seems unsafe to me.  I don't want a car with a sassy trim. I want a car that has a seat belt that doesn't cut my arm because I'm petite. I want a car that has an airbag that isn't going to cut my head off because I weigh under 120lbs. I would love a car that had an AC system that increased air quality and I would love a car that had UV protection in the windows, because those are things that everyone would want. Driving is serious. Being a driver is serious. Have a nice car, add some personality to it, but this ad campaign makes it seem like women drivers don't need safety features and also that they don't exist in the world of actual driving.

I have read pretty  much every review of the She's that's been written so far and not ONE of them mentions a single safety feature. Normally when a new car is released the reviews focus on the exciting aesthetic features, the comfort, the luxury but I have never read a car review that didn't mention a safety feature at all. This is why I don't like products for women. When you buy a car you should know everything about it. You should like how it looks, how it feels, and you should understand how it works and how it's going to keep you safe. Different cars are safe for different terrains. Some cars aren't good for certain areas. Some cars are designed for cities, some for country. If all of the reviews of this car (and the website) ignore the features of a car that would normally be selling points what it's saying is that women who are going to buy this car ONLY care what it looks like and in the world of cars that should never be encouraged. Buy this pink car because you're a lady and ladies love pink! All you need to know is that it's soooo cute!! Who cares about anything else? Caring about safety will give you wrinkles! Is the seatbelt actually just a silk ribbon that you can tie into a pretty bow? Maybe the airbag could just be a gigantic powder puff. Perfect!

Women are not children. A pink car for women, whatever. But a pink car for women that only publishes anti-aging features and trim colour infantilize women and sets a dangerous precedent not only for acceptable ways that companies can sell cars to women but the kinds of cars they can sell to women. 

Cathal Kelly and the Spectrum of Seriousness: Homophobia versus Sexism

In today's Toronto Star Cathal Kelly addresses Yunel Escobar's eye black gaffe. Escobar had the phrase "Tu ere maricon" into his eye black which is a Spanish phrase that can sometimes be interpreted as a homophobic slur.

It's pretty stupid, regardless of what Escobar meant, to write anything in his eye black that could be considered at all homophobic. There are a billion cameras taking your picture so maybe just keep the messages off the field. But no, Escobar did it and now he has to deal with the fall out.

Cathal Kelly is on a mission to educate us all about "how bad" this slur really is. Is it really so bad, he asks.  Yes, the phrase COULD mean "faggot" but it can also be an "effeminizing epithet" according to one of three Spanish professors Kelly approached. Some of the professors said that depending on the different cultural contexts the phrase could mean something different, but all agreed it was offensive. What Kelly seems to be insinuating is that there is a spectrum of offensiveness here that we need to understand: full on homophobia is OFFENSIVE where as a little jab about a man being like a lady is only a bit offensive.

That's bullshit.

I don't really know how many sports Cathal Kelly has played but the idea that calling a man a wuss, a "girl" is actually an insult to women is ridiculous. What are effeminate men? Fags. So telling someone they throw like a girl or that they're wimpy and prissy,is short hand for calling them a big fat homo. And even if Escobar wasn't using it as an outright homophobic slur(despite what the Cuban experts said about the cultural context of that phrase in Cuba, where Escobar is from) it's still offensive to belittle the physical prowess of women and it still calls into question a man's masculinity.

Let's deconstruct this phrase in very terms of basic sexist and homophobic assumptions that are not uncommon:

Women are weaker than men. They are bad at sports.
Men should be strong and naturally they are great at sports.
If a man is not good at sports he is not a real man, he is "less" than a man.
If a man is not a real man, he is more like a woman.
A man who is like a woman is gay.
Gay men are like women, they are weak and bad at sports and less than a real man.

How is this, as Kelly puts it, a "grey area?" It isn't grey, the language and context can vary but the phrase is always in bad taste and is at most extremely aggressive and offensive. Why is it not "on the dark side of the spectrum" to make a sexist remark?

Oh, I forgot that this article comes from someone who doesn't believe that women's boxing is a real sport because it's degrading to women's "nature." So I guess to someone like Kelly an offensive phrase about women isn't so bad on the spectrum(because they're probably true) and Escobar can be forgiven as long as he wasn't doing the worst thing of all: questioning the sacred realm of Masculinity.

Why Toronto will never solve the problem of gun violence

Last night The Agenda's topic was "Targeting Gun Violence", an appropriate topic after the several gun related tragedies Toronto has suffered this year and in years past.  The Danzig shooting this summer seemed to be the tipping point, prompting the Mayor to puff out his chest and demand that gangs stop terrorizing his city. "This is about gangs and gang violence" he said. "The criminals" were wrecking our fair city and we needed to use every legal means to curb the violence. One of his solutions was to "ban" people who are convicted of gun crimes, which I wrote about HERE and to make gang life "miserable." I don't believe that we can solve gun crimes by villainizing gang members, who are often people with so few options or resources that a gang is the only way to survive. I don't really think we can take a huge, complex issue and boil it down to a few bad gang apples ruining Toronto for everyone, which is what brings me back to The Agenda.

A show on "Targeting Gun Violence" could be interesting but when I went to the website to see who the guests would be I was annoyed but not surprised.
Here are the guests listed:

• Bill Blair: Toronto Police Chief
• Dr. Gary Slutkin: Founder and Executive, Cure Violence
• Alvin Curling: Fmr Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario
• Peter Sloly: Deputy Chief, Toronto Police
• John Sawdon: Executive Director, CTI Canadian Training Institute and Breaking the Cycle
• Irvin Waller: Criminology Professor, University of Ottawa
• Lekan Olawoye: Executive Director, For Youth Initiative

Every single one of these guests has a unique point of view on violence and many of them work directly with under serviced communities and have done work on reducing violence, they are all perfectly qualified guests for this show and I'd be interested in hearing what they all have to say. My issue with this list of guests is that the show didn't bother to find one single woman to pipe in.This isn't just about token women, it's about acknowledging the fact that women experience gun violence in different ways than men and their opinions and knowledge have to be taken into account in any discussion on gun violence and that there are innumerable qualified women who head organizations and write academic work on violence reduction.

So Rob Ford wants to ship out foreign gangsters who bring guns to our city and people claiming to want to get to the bottom of the issue ignore 50% of the population. These are two small reasons why we will never solve the issue of gun violence in Toronto. That may seem pessimistic but it's just honest. How can we attempt to solve such an enormously multifaceted problem when public discourse and policy are based on such simplistic ideologies? When it seems totally acceptable to only have men on a panel about gun violence? When we only view the issue from our little Toronto lens?

Somebody said to me yesterday that it was alright to just have men talk about gun violence because "men get shot more than women" and that women can't discuss guns without becoming hysterical. It is true that men are killed by guns more often than women, but that doesn't mean that women aren't killed by guns or hurt by them, threatened and coerced with them. And did men just drop out of the sky? No, men have mothers. Irregardless of who is being killed by guns, communities suffer afterwards. Mothers, wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters, grandmothers may not be getting killed on the streets of Toronto by gangs as much as their husbands, partners, sons, brothers, and grandsons but that doesn't mean that gun violence doesn't touch their lives deeply. When we don't included women in the conversation around gun violence then we aren't serious about understanding the issue at all. Toronto is the home of so many anti-violence movements, including the United Mothers Opposed to Violence Everywhere(UMOVE) -- a presence at most anti-gun events and comprised of women who have lost their children to gun violence, amongst others. Internationally, organizations against gun violence have been primarily organized by women, such as the International Action Network on Small Arms.

We also can't just focus on gun violence as being gang related. If the issue of violence in Toronto is going to be truly addressed it has to be looked at as part of a bigger picture. Yes, gun violence on the streets of Toronto is a problem but it isn't disconnected from the culture of violence produces the men who are sexually assaulting women in our neighborhoods. It also isn't disconnected from the men who abuse their partners, who use their registered guns to intimidate and threaten them. Criminals are not just young, black men and the culture of crime and violence is pervasive.  The culture of masculinity and male privilege is something we have to address across the boards. How can we say we are dedicated to ending gun violence when our government has eradicated gun registry? The gun registry was developed specifically to address gun violence against women (read more here) so why is it being dropped? Because law-abiding citizens shouldn't have to register their guns? Because we trust the general population with their guns? It is based on the underlying assumption that the general, gun-owning population (read: white men) aren't going to use their guns for evil, that the "real" problem is the unregistered crime guns (read: black men). This is crazy. Violence against women and children happens at the hands of all men, regardless of their colour or class and if gun violence is an issue we actually want to start understanding we have to face this.

Not only did The Agenda program lack women but it lacked a true presence from the Toronto communities most affected. Lekan Olawoye, the  Executive Director of For Youth Initiative is an important voice for youth in under serviced areas but the program has two representatives from the Toronto Police, why not throw in some more community members?

Gun violence isn't just about gangs, criminals, bad boys. It's about systemic violence, discrimination, poverty, power and masculinity. It can't be solved with more police(because Toronto also seems to have a problem with police brutality). The Agenda seems like a small thing to be annoyed about, but it's an example of how we approach complicated issues in problematic ways.

The Olympics and the spirit of sexism

The Olympics are interesting. Seeing the best athletes in the world compete is thrilling. For some reason during the Olympics people seem to feel that National boundaries slip away and the world comes together, which is kind of bizarre considering the athletes compete country vs. country. National pride during the Olympics is akin only to national pride during soccer tournaments, which can border on the absolutely insane. But people like to watch sports,and people like to have national pride so during the Olympics we have a healthy sense of cognitive dissonance and we pretend that the countries pitted against one another haven't fought wars, engaged in exploitative economic or political campaigns, or launched genocide.  The world has a lot of problems, so the Olympics is a nice distraction.

The one conflict we seem unable to give up during the Olympics is the gender war. The Olympics, more than sport general, is the battleground for gender as binary and only binary. Considering athletes bodies are put on a pedestal as better than normal, as beyond normal, as almost transcendent, people sure spend a lot of time trying to ensure that female athletes fit into a normative female gender framework. The most recent example of this is the Caster Semenya "scandal" in 2009. Semenya, a South African runner, a World Championship runner and gold medalist in the Commonwealth Games, improved her time on the 800m by a margin that made the IAAF(International Association of Athletics Federation) suspicious and when women improve vastly and quickly the first test that Officials do is the "Gender Test." In Semenya's case her gender testing was made public and she quickly became the target of intense scrutiny, sexism, racism, and moral panic. Semenya ended up withdrawing from competition for a period of time but was eventually "verified"as woman.

Here's the thing about gender testing, it isn't just a simple blood test or a peek under the skirt. gender testing today includes a trip to the gynecologist, endocrinologists, psychologists, and internal medicine specialists. All of this testing is extremely invasive physically and mentally not to mention it adheres to old and outdated considerations about gender. This testing reinforces the idea that there are two genders and that everything else is an anomaly that needs to be fixed. In fact, more recent scientific discovery about the genetic makeup of human beings has asserted that there are more than two genders and that, chromosomally and physiologically, the two gender model just doesn't work anymore. Ideas about gender, about femininity, have been used against women for centuries: your boobs are too small, your labia is too long, your clitoris is too big, your muscles are too manly, you have a mustache, you have internal testicles. This policing of femininity causes women to constantly be on guard, constantly defend themselves, or constantly be working to look more feminine; fuelling the billion dollar cosmetic/skinlightening/weightloss/plastic surgery industries. Considering we all grow out of the very same material, it makes sense that our bodies wouldn't be cookie cutter copies of "perfect genders"--which, by the way, have historical roots in colonialism, racism and slavery.  Women athletes have not only had to fight to participate in sport at all, but have had to battle stereotypes of women being incapable, too weak, of women athletes being unnatural, all to do what men are allowed to do naturally.

Unfortunately, the Olympics has a long and disturbing history with gender--up until 1992 gender testing was compulsory and once included female athletes derobing and being examined by an Olympic board in the nude to ensure their "female-ness". Apparently this comes from the fear that males will pretend to be women in an effort to win more medals for their nations. I think it's more likely that it stems from a fear that allowing women to be fully athletic undermines the carefully cultivated control over women's bodies, that if we accept that there is no such thing as "female" and "male" then we can no longer put men at the top of the hierarchy of strength.

It is with all of this in mind that I stumbled upon a surprisingly disturbing article in The Toronto Star yesterday."Some sports-like women's boxing- don't belong in the Olympics", written by Cathal Kelly. To be honest, I saw the headline and ignored it. Generally speaking when there are articles about a sport that shouldn't be in the Olympics it's because it hasn't been developed to a high enough level, there aren't enough competitors, or that there aren't enough interested spectators. When I actually read the article today I was surprised that it had made it into the Star's official coverage of the Olympics because it reads like an opinion piece. Kelly's premise is that women's boxing doesn't "belong" in the Olympics because watching women beat each other up is "distasteful" akin to "bear baiting and gander pulling."  Interesting, both of these examples are considered cruelty towards animals so... are two women boxing like two animals being pitted against one another? I'm so confused.

Kelly claims that once the women's match started the audience went silent  and "several thousand people were having a simultaneous internal ethical discussion, trying to figure out if it’s OK to enjoy watching women beat each other up."  Not only is it pretty presumptuous to assume you know what everyone else is thinking, but it's pretty telling that Kelly assumes those thousands of people are thinking what HE is thinking. I'm going to guess that somewhere in that gigantic crowd there were people enjoying the sport, cheering for the women, impressed by their skill, and not experiencing sexist tension around whether or not it's okay for them to watch two amazing athletes compete at a high level.

Kelly rips the "post-bout" drama of "one day old" women's boxing, comparing it to a Soap Opera. Has he ever watched men box? Men's boxing is all about the drama, it's about posturing and showmanship, it's about constructing rivalries. Only when it is two women boxing does a mainstay of the sport become catty and silly. Women's boxing, somehow, is "kitschy" and Kelly doesn't seem to recognize that it isn't a new sport at all, it's just new to the Olympics.

Kelly continues his embarrassing tirade: "If this is about inclusiveness, the International Olympic Committee will cave to the British male synchro swimming team that is lobbying for a spot in Rio. Since no one will watch guys in nose plugs doing pas de deux, the IOC is not going to cave. Some sports just don’t translate across the sexes, however long we hold our breath and wish for a perfect, genderless world."

Why doesn't synchronize swimming translate across the sexes? Most major synchronized swimming competitions allow men to compete and it makes no sense that no one would want to watch men in this sport when they already DO. Some people value the skill that synchro swimming demands, and those same skills have been valued in male gymnasts and male dancers. Ballet translates across the sexes, and hundreds of thousands of people watch men without nose plugs do a pas de deux  so why wouldn't they want to watch them in the Olympics?  Nobody is holding their breath, wishing for a perfect genderless world. Men being able to synchronize swim at the Olympics doesn't symbolize a "genderless world". People have desires and wants, they fight for the right to fulfill those desires and wants, and what we get is a more balanced world where people are just people doing what they like to do.

So, Kelly doesn't want to watch a sport that doesn't reinforce traditional gender roles. Watching women beat each other up is distasteful to him because women haven't traditionally been encouraged to beat each other up in the ring. Well, if Kelly wants to watch sports that only make sense in terms of gender maybe we should have child birth as a sport. Or rape. Maybe we could build a complex arena that simulates a city, fill it with predators, and have female "athletes" traverse it. Maybe women could compete in "who can change a diaper fastest"? Who can roll their hair in curlers the fastest?  I'm not trying to be facetious here, I just really want to point out where a statement like "women's boxing doesn't belong in the Olympics" comes from and what kinds of stereotypes it upholds and perpetuates. Just because something is accepted or traditional doesn't make it right or natural. It is only distasteful to watch women beat each other up in a culture that feminizes women as weak caregivers, who are innately more loving and nurturing than men, and that strength and aggression are unnatural. If you aren't a sexist, then watching two women compete at the highest level at their sport doesn't throw you into "ethical" turmoil.

What is truly distasteful is a white, privileged man assuming that he knows the thoughts of thousands of sports spectators. It is distasteful for a male journalist to devalue a sport that demands rigorous training and dedication, to relegate it to the realm of a circus act. Just because this is the first time women are boxing in the Olympics doesn't mean it's the first time these women have boxed at all. These women are world champions, they are incredible athletes, they are disciplined and focused and for some journalist sitting in the crowd to pompously proclaim their sport as garbage simply because of their gender is truly shocking. 

Myths of Men and Women. Or: Myths of Men, because what they say about ladies is true.

Yesterday the Metro News published an article written by Julia West entitled "Myths of Men and Women: He said/She Said, How to overcome gender stereotypes in the office."

"Gender stereotypes can be a severe hindrance to your work", writes West. A stereotype is something commonly believed or accepted but that rarely reflects reality. Gender stereotyping can completely hinder your work and your career advancement because any decision based on a stereotype is defined as discrimination. In Canada, discrimination is illegal. It is illegal to discriminate against somebody based on something that should not factor into your decisions: race, religion, age, sex,gender, sexual orientation, ability. Discrimination violates the Ontario Human Rights Act, the right to be free of discrimination is part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and most businesses have policies around discrimination at work.

When I read the first sentence of her article I was encouraged. I thought maybe it would outline processes around dealing with discrimination or solidarity building tools for workplaces.  I was wrong. I was very, very wrong.

What I thought I was about to read was something along these line: "gender discrimination still happens, it's a big problem, and it's bad. So, here's how to fight it."

What I actually read, was this: "[gender stereotypes] also distract from serious issues and affect a person's comfort level. "Women who unwittingly adhere to gender stereotypes are less likely to be taken seriously for their abilities and contributions."

The article is essentially a How To Guide on "Proving Stereotypes Wrong" and the first piece of advice to women is to from Brenda Fiala, a Strategy SVP at some company: "Be Excellent...Set for yourself an expectation of delivering excellent work, and strive to do it positively and consistently," she says. When you're a good employee it gets noticed, regardless of sex."

Oh really? How interesting! I guess that explains the pay equity gap : women just aren't as good as men at their jobs, which makes it an individual problem and not a systemic one. Problem Solved! Thanks lady!

 Another business lady/author adds to the advice:  "Your role...is to contribute to the success of the business.  If you are not doing that first, you will be hard-pressed to blame gender discrimination."

That is because we live in a Meritocracy, a society in which the only thing holding us back is ourselves. If you are a dedicated, talented, hard worker than you will be rewarded and be successful. Right? Pull yourself up by your boot straps, get yourself off the ground, get back on the horse. We are supposed to be able to get what we want by working for it but, in reality, there are invisible(and not so invisible barriers) to our success. Sure, if you're a shitty employee you probably can't blame gender discrimination, but by definition discrimination is actions that are baseless and not informed by facts which is why discrimination is illegal. People realized that no matter how hard they worked, or how much better they were at their job than their colleagues, they weren't advancing. They were given more of the crappier work to do, got less recognition, less pay, and less opportunities for raises and promotions. That's because "being excellent" can't stop discrimination. Being an excellent worker, doing your job, "contributing to the success of the business" doesn't mean anything because the people who are evaluating you and who are in control of your well-being are only looking at one part of you, in this case they're only looking at the "woman" factor.

When Julia West writes "it's time to stop stereotypes in their track and move forward" she doesn't mean stop stereotyping, she means women need to stop being so stereotypical. "If there's a stereotype that you find offensive or degrading, simply don't perpetuate it." Resist your natural urge to gossip, because women are stereotyped as gossipy. "Maybe you know someone who insists that female bosses are moody or rash?" Well, in this case you shouldn't report them to your superior,you should prove them wrong by being "a strong leader by laying out expectations clearly and giving direct feedback." This advice isn't problematic because it's stupid, it's problematic because it assumes that stereotypes about women being bitchy, moody, irrational, and catty are true and that it's a woman's responsibility to "unlearn" these things. This flies in the face of decades of evidence that shows that certain groups of people are less likely to make equal pay, advance through promotion or salary raises, or even be offered job positions.  Individualizing a systemic issue doesn't stop gender discrimination, it allows it to become more entrenched because we ignore the true causes and effects of it. Acknowledging discrimination IS moving forward, what West and these other businesswomen have done is take a huge step backwards.

West's final piece of advice is about the "important of an appropriate wardrobe." No, seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, or as she puts it "a vital contributor to the company" you have to "look the part." Don't dress like you're "going out" you should dress in attired that you are comfortable in but that build confidence. "This doesn't mean dress like a man--it means keep it clean." Ohhh, I'm not making as much as my male colleague because I dress like I'm going to a club instead of going to work? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most professional women have to deal with sexism so much that they are hyper vigilant about their business attire.

Women aren't discriminated against because they're naturally dumb shits and have historically proven that they can't work like men can. Women are discriminated against because they have been systemically oppressed and shut out of the public work sphere for centuries by institutions like the Church and State who benefit from having a group of people to do unpaid domestic labour.

That this article ran so nonchalantly in a paper with huge circulation is a testament to how ingrained sexism and gender discrimination still are.  Metro News should be ashamed that they ran something so insipid and uninformed, and Julia West should be ashamed that her name is on an article that sounds so ignorant.

Our Mayor is confused. This should be a Heritage Minute.

Wow, Rob Ford. Just, wow.

This is the most recent headline in Ford's continuous responding to the horrible shootings in the city:

MAYOR ROB FORD WANTS OTTAWA TO USE IMMIGRATION LAWS AGAINST CONVICTED GANG MEMBERS.

I think I might be more confused that Ford is at this point. I don't even really know where to start, so I guess I'll just start at the beginning. Rob Ford announced his intention to explore the option of "banishing" convicted gang members from Toronto all together. This is very, very puzzling for many different reasons.

Immigration Laws. I'm not a legal expert by any means, but, immigration laws (by definition) deal with immigration and refugees. Canada regulates immigration under the umbrella of several "Acts" and "policy" including The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Citizenship Act and Regulations, and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Generally speaking, immigration and refugee matters are not automatically considered criminal matters. For instances of "crime" we have what is called the Canadian Criminal Code.

The Canadian Criminal Code,or (in terms Rob Ford can understand) Crime Laws. In Canada we have a Criminal Code, with "codifies" not only criminal offences in Canada but also the procedures to which the criminal justice system should adhere to. This is a handy code and it outlines for us criminal behaviour as well as punishment for criminal behaviours. Immigraton law is generally not included in the Criminal Code of Canada unless an immigrant breaks the law, however, things related to gang violence often are. One of the nice things about "justice" in Canada is that if you break the law and are caught, you will be penalized accordingly and after serving a sentence, fulfilling community service, or paying your fine you are no longer penalized(unless you are a dangerous offender or a sex-offender in which case your movements are monitored and the community you reside in are warned of your presence). Obviously this is theoretical, and we understand that the criminal justice system is not perfect and operates within the confines of human behaviour which includes racism, sexism, classism, stereotyping, discrimination, and all of those fun things that come with being part of this society. But, generally speaking, crimes belong to the Criminal Code, because other laws deal with with mainly procedure and definitions. 

Using Immigration Laws to deal with convicted gang members is not possible in Canada unless the gang member is an immigrant, a refugee, or an illegal. Even then, the Immigration Laws of Canada wouldn't be used to penalize (because that's what the Criminal Code is for). Immigration Law would more likely be used to ensure the proper procedures are followed and that the proper definitions are applied to the peoples in question. If an immigrant breaks the law in Canada, they're subject to the Canadian Criminal Code. It's really as simple as that.

To "banish" gang members from Toronto one would have to amend the Criminal Code to include "banishment" as a proper and allowable punishment for a crime. Considering our societal understanding of crime and punishment is that you do "your time" for a crime and then re-enter society with no lingering penalty, this seems like a very bizarre fantasy. I'm at a loss to understand how a politician doesn't understand not only the difference between Immigration laws and the Criminal Code of Canada, but also doesn't understand the process or procedure around amending laws. As well, that the Mayor of the largest city in Canada doesn't seem to grasp that Canadians have been guaranteed certain rights(whether or not these rights are always adhered to is, of course, a different debate). 

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines our rights as Canadians. Assuming that ``gang members`` are Canadians, they are also entitled to these rights. This includes Mobility Rights, the right to live anywhere in Canada. This also includes the right to be excluded from any cruel or unusual punishment if you are convicted of a crime.

In Canada we don`t currently use exile or banishment as a form of punishment, formally. In some instances, parole may entail that a person has to stay in a certain area but this usually isn't for the remainder of their lives. Sex offenders aren't supposed to live within a certain range of places where children or vulnerable people may live or congregate. So that would make banishment not only a very bizarre departure from how we as a society view punishment, but also it could be considered cruel or unusual.

Anyways, these are just logistics. I mean, they`re only how we structure our nation legally. What I find equally mind blowing is that Rob Ford wants to banish gang members to other municipalities. WHERE? To the Island of Misfit Toys? To Guantanamo Bay? To Amish Country? Is there a town somewhere that's like "send us your convicts!" No. There isn't. This is because every town, village, city, and municipality has their own convicts and they probably won't appreciate Toronto shipping theirs off to become someone else's issue. It's kind of just plain rude. 

By Ford's logic(I think, trying to understand what he means is a bit.. difficult)he wants to "use" immigration law to control the "migration" of criminals. What he doesn't seem to understand is that this does not fall under the purview of immigration law as we know it in Canada.  So.. does he wants to banish them to somewhere unpopulated? Or, to some kind of camp? It's all very bewildering and I'm not really quite sure how a grown man who is supposed to be charge of a City and understand politics can recover from this. He doesn't have a basic understanding of Canadian laws, policy, or procedure and that should probably be something one acquires after years and years of earning tax payer dollars.

As I wrote earlier today, I just really feel like Rob Ford is picturing a Hunger Games scenario in his brain and he's too afraid to just come out and say it. Unfortunately for Ford, this is "real life" and we have to abide by the "Laws" in place

Next thing we know we'll catch our Mayor engaged in some kind of otherworldy ritual, trying to banish evil from his city, and save us all from those "thugs." 

Gang Hunger Games: Problem Solved.

Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford seems to be losing grasp of the city. After the tragic shooting which resulted in the deaths of two young people this week, Ford went Reagan and declared a war on gangs. More specifically, he blamed gangs for the recent uptake in violence in our city. To quote
 Ford:  “We must use every legal means to make life for these thugs miserable, to put them behind bars, or to run them out of town. We will not rest until being a gang member is a miserable, undesirable life.

Most people who have studied gangs or gun violence will say that a prevalence of gangs often indicates deep poverty in an area,a lack of community services and resources, restricted access to education and well-paying jobs, and communities that have faced systemic and historical discrimination.  Many people would also agree that "being a gang member" is already a miserable and undesirable life because it's more often than not something you have very little choice about. 

The week before this terrible tragedy, Rob Ford voted against every one of the city's community development grants program, in some cases being the sole vote against them (including his brother, Councillor Doug Ford). Of particular interest is his vote against accepting federal money for a gang prevention program that would be free for the city. Many of the projects Ford voted against were explicitly designed with community safety in mind, including improving race relations and promoting community participation,the largest amount of funding was for programs that are focused on vulnerable,marginalized, and high risk communities.

Rob  Ford has mentioned his dislike of community programming and he doesn't seem to think that community programing and socially responsible education can curb gang violence. He told reporters:“Some people have suggested there is a gang war brewing. I don’t know if that’s true. But, I do know it’s time for us to declare war on these violent gangs.”

He doesn't know if it's true,he doesn't know what causes gang violence, but he DOES know that the appropriate response is a war on gangs. 

I think that Rob Ford is wrong. This is not the right response to violence, it does not address the deeply rooted systemic issues of racism and poverty, and it will not stop gangs or gang violence. Rob Ford has the perfect solution right in front of his face, and I suspect he secretly knows it but doesn't have the courage to put it forward.

Rob Ford, let me do it for you. Toronto's solution to all of these complex issues is very simple:

HUNGER GAMES.

Gang members SHOULD go somewhere else, as Rob Ford so eloquently put it today, a gigantic stadium in which they will fight to the death for the entertainment of the rich and for the benefit of their district! It's so clear! I'm sure there will be some naysayers to this proposal, but let me break it down for you.

Toronto is already broken into "districts" if you think about it. Our neighborhoods have distinct boundaries and are generally divided by factors that would be important in choosing Hunger Games contestants: the poor, immigrant, and "minority" populations are pretty consistently stratified in different neighborhoods than the rich, white folk.

A lot of Toronto DISTRICTS are desperately in need of the basics of life: better access to affordable food, safety, a break from negative scrutiny. Putting these people in a situation where they can help their communities is exactly what Rob Ford is prescribing: a job is the best social program of all. Because this is real life and not a novel, we can proceed in ways that differ from the original Hunger Games. For instance, those who are in the lottery for participation should really be people who make under the Low Income Cut Off (which includes myself). This ensures that priority communities in Toronto are addressed and given something productive to do. It also ensures that people who already contribute to the city by being rich won't have to get their hands dirty.

The best thing about the Hunger Games is that it keeps people in line, which is exactly what this city needs. Contribute to the city, find a menial job even if it doesn't pay well or anything, tow the line, or else your district will be punished. Don't ship the gang members and poor people OUT, Mayor Ford,take advantage of them and ship them into a fanciful and intense fight for survival.

This also solves some of the cities issues with money. The elite will pay a great deal to view the Games! It will rejuvenate city pride and give people something to focus on besides politics and how bumbling the Mayor is. And we already have some great venues to hold the Games in: any of the new Pan Am games features, including the stadium; the Toronto Islands; any of the Universities or Colleges. Toronto is really the perfect place to stage a Hunger Games.

Finally, the Hunger Games will address this whole "making life miserable" thing. It will make those people value their lives, because obviously they don't right now(According to Mayor Ford). Life is too rosy for gang members and the poverty stricken in this city, and Hunger Games would really help them appreciate life.

I guess it isn't very politically "correct", but let's just call a spade a spade here. If Rob Ford wants the gang members to leave, if he doesn't want to support community programs that will address violence systemically, if he wants to make their lives miserable, then the Hunger Games is really the way to go.  Maybe the Low income cut off requirement for the Hunger Games would make people FINALLY pull themselves up from their bootstraps, get a job, and be productive members of society.

Problem solved, you're welcome Mayor Ford.

Oh, sorry privileged white dude, your rape jokes are SO funny.

I'm just going to put myself out there and declare something: I hate comedy. I really, really hate comedy. A prime example of why I dislike the medium of comedy, particularly stand up comedy, is this Daniel Tosh man. I've never seen Daniel Tosh's comedy or show and so I didn't really know much about him until I heard about his "controversial" rape joke.

Apparently as he was making a point during one of his shows that "there are awful things in the world but you can still make jokes about them.” This "awful" thing that he was talking about was rape. He was "heckled" by a woman who shouted out "actually, rape jokes are never funny." But instead of just being like "well, hey lady, I think it's funny" Daniel Tosh told the audience this sparkling gem of comedic wit:

"“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her? ... ”

First of all, she probably wasn't a "girl." But, wouldn't it be HILARIOUS if we lived in a world where women actually faced sexual and physical violence as a threat every single day? Or were threatened with rape for speaking their mind? Oh my god, funniest world ever.

Oh wait, we DO live in that world.  This is what I don't like about comedy: just because one privileged white guy who has never had to experience sexual threats thinks that rape jokes are funny, that means noone is allowed to disagree because its COMEDY. If you disagree you just have no sense of humour, and it's comedy after all so  nothing is off limits! It's okay for men to call women bitches and sluts, and joke about how horrible women make their lives and how much they'd just loooove to shut them up permanently because they're making light of the tensions in male/female relationships. Get it? It's comedy! If Daniel Tosh thinks rape jokes are funny, that's fine. But he crossed a line when he moved into "just joking" about rape to saying it would be funny for a woman in his audience to be "gang raped, by like 5 guys" at that very moment.

Women all over the world face obstacles to speaking their minds and living their lives freely, and one of the greatest threats to our freedom is sexual violence. Guess what, Daniel Tosh, we can't even go to University without having to worry about some man raping us in the library or grabbing us in broad daylight. Women who are citizens of war torn nations, or of nations experiencing political upheaval, are always in danger of being sexually assaulted, of being gang raped. If you speak out against your government, you're not just going to be jailed, you're going to be raped.

After the G20 in Toronto, female journalists told stories of police officers telling them that they would be raped in custody. A female gamer, who exposed the true identity of the creator of a domestic violence video game, was sent repeated threats that she would be raped and killed. It might seem funny and novel to someone like Daniel Tosh, but it's neither funny nor is it novel because it is extremely common.

During the much lauded "Arab Spring" women were sexually assaulted in the crowds of protesters, including female journalists. After female journalists came forward about being brutally assaulted many headlines questioned why women would be journalists at all, when rape was a constant possibility.  Sexual violence is a threat that keeps women from being able to freely pursue their dreams and goals. It is a very real, and every day threat.

Being heckled is part of a comedian's job, it's the gauntlet they have to run to be taken seriously. Responding to a heckler in this way is just totally ridiculous. You would never see a male comedian respond to a male heckled with a rape threat. It's not in our collective unconscious or part of our cultural lexicon that men are there for raping. It becomes not about comedy, it's not about what's "Taboo" to joke about anymore, it's a rich white dude saying it would be funny for a woman to get raped by 5 men. That's not funny and if that's comedy, then comedians should be embarassed.

Because it would be SO funny if 5 men in the audience gang raped that woman. If they held her down, beat her up a bit, and each took turns sexually violating her body, while she screamed and kicked, pleading for her release.  What a fucking hilarious joke. Bravo, comedy. Bravo.

People are dumb. Or, how I'm about to make myself very unpopular.

This bullied school-bus monitor situation is completely out of control. What happened to Karen Klein, the woman whose taunting by middle school boys has been widely viewed, is horrible. It's upsetting for many different reasons: we don't like to see the elderly be bullied, we can't imagine that children would go so far to hurt such a vulnerable target, that the boys could conjure up such cruel images, that Klein's breakdown only whipped them into more of a frenzy. The video captures something that nobody is comfortable with but our discomfort often causes us to act illogically, ignoring the bigger picture and missing out on an important catalyst for some kind of change. 

Klein has suddenly become the poster-woman for the bullied, appearing on talk shows and being interviewed by Anderson Cooper about her experience. She didn't want the boys severely punished, just taught a lesson. She says she'd like the boys to explain why they did what they did, "an apology and an explanation"She tells interviewers that people should stop threatening the boys who bullied her because they're "just boys."

This is where I take my first exception to the situation: these are children. They are boys. Public shaming, while a favorite past time in our society, is not a good way to educate children. Children don't have the tools to navigate mass scrutiny. Do we really think that these boys popped out of their mother's wombs mean bullies? I don't really think children are naturally cruel. I think children are highly observant and they react to what they see and hear. Children learn behaviour and boys in particular learn that being aggressive is an excellent way to get what you want and deflect attention away from your own vulnerabilities.

Pick any popular movie and it probably has a bully/bullied dynamic at its core. Watch any movie that a young boy is watching and the love interest is 100% of the time a beautiful, slim woman(so of course being called fat would be an excellent insult). Boys learn from their parents and teachers that society is hierarchical and that they are at the top of the hierarchy. They also learn that boys aren't as complex or emotional as girls are. Boys are tough, boys don't cry, boys don't hug their friends, and on and on. Boys hurt other boys to assert their status. Boys put geeks heads in toilets and flush.

These boys in the video abusing Karen Klein have become nameless, faceless monsters. We don't know anything about them or their lives, the school they attend. By completely removing the situation from any kind of societal context we are doing a huge, huge disservice not only to these boys but also to the Karen Kleins of the world. This public shaming now brands the boys as one thing: bullies. Stripping anyone of their humanity is never productive and I can't even imagine how those kids must be feeling. What pushed these boys to this action? When we basically just say they're mean bullies we ignore all of the real reasons kids resort to intimidation and aggression. A kid who bullies probably isn't the happiest kid in the world and instead of being accountable for the education of these children, the school is literally throwing them under the bus.

Making this video public has forced the school to make an example of these boys, despite the fact that there are probably a lot of bullies in their school and in their district. Nothing good ever comes of making an example out of something. Last week news outlets reported that the boys had received their punishment: a one year suspension and 50 hours of community service with senior citizens. The boys will be transferred to a special alternative education program because they legally have to be provided with an education. This punishment is completely outlandish. Because removing the boys from school and putting them into an alternative program, which are notorious for being shitty, is going to teach them a lesson? 50 hours of community service seems like a decent way to discipline the kids because it will actually educate them, but being suspended never helps kids especially when it is for a year. What about punishing the other kids who were on the bus, who sat there and did nothing? What about punishing the bus driver, who tolerated that kind of behaviour on their bus? This school produced these bullies and ostracizing them, essentially exiling them, isn't going to address the systemic reasons that bullies do what they do.It also doesn't make transparent how much teachers encourage bullying or turn their backs on it. We can see that "punishing" the boys is really just for show and won't do anything to educate or be a factor in transforming the school atmosphere.

What about understanding and talking about the fact that senior citizens are being forced into low paying jobs like bus-monitoring because they live in a society that doesn't support them financially, mentally, or physically? What about the fact that senior citizen abuse is such a huge, huge problem (in Canada and in the States) that there are public service announcements about it?  This woman is clearly not equipped to do the job she's being paid for: keeping rowdy school children in line. She is the bus monitor, she's supposed to monitor the bus for this kind of behaviour and, as harsh as it sounds, not being able to do her job puts other children at risk and creates an atmosphere of 'anything goes'.

The idea to set up an Indiegogo site with a goal of raising $5000.00 for Klein to go on vacation was cute and well intentioned.  As of  last week, the site had raised more than $667,304.00. Klein will receive all of the money accumulated by the fundraising deadline. This is the perfect example of how individualizing something is detrimental. This lady got bullied once, she says in interviews that she enjoys her job and the kids aren't all bad, that even these boys didn't regularly bother her. The $5000.00 should go to her, but the rest of the money should not.  Obviously noone is going to say no to that amount of money, but I just can't understand the logic behind this fundraising thing. It is absolutely ridiculous: "hey, lady who got bullied, here's more than half a million dollars!" Like, what the hell? What does that solve? It solves nothing! We all get bullied, we all have shitty jobs, we all get harassed and hurt, and I just can't understand how donating money to this woman is productive in any way, shape, or form. Maybe that makes me insensitive, but I like to stay rooted in the real world where we actually have a chance at making change, not in La-La Land where we all want to pretend that setting up one person for life is a solution. What do we think is going to happen? She's going to take that huge amount of money and buy the Magic School Bus and travel school to school eradicating bullying? Come on, people.

Klein said in an interview with the Today show that she wants "kids to stop bullying." She says"maybe they can start up a new class in school to teach these kids not to do stuff like that" OH, really? What a wonderful idea! Except for the fact that schools need money to implement new programming. They need teachers or volunteers to teach the students, they need parents and school boards to agree, they need to choose a program that would be suitable for their school. Schools are falling behind on basic skills like reading, writing, and math because of funding issues, there just isn't money for sensitivity training in middle schools. The fundraising for the individual should have been capped at $5000.00. The rest of the money should be donated to the planning and implementation of a program in the school. Bullying is a social issue, it's systemic, and punishing the boys while rewarded the "victim" doesn't do anything to address the issue it just sweeps it under the rug so we can all feel comfortable again.

We live in a highly stratified world where some people have everything and some people have nothing. We live in a world where we get what we want because humans are exploited to produce it. We live in a world where more children go to school hungry than go to school fed, where children can't read or write in countries with more than enough money to spend in schools. Of course kids bully eachother, because adults bully eachother.

Teaching children to respect one another is what we should be focused on. In the documentary Children Full of Life a fourth-grade teacher in a primary school in Japan teaches his students  lessons about compassion and empathy. He instructs each to write their true inner feelings in a letter, and read it aloud in front of the class. By sharing their lives, the children begin to realize the importance of caring for their classmates and it results in the decline of certain students being targeted by the group. Simply put, humanizing the children makes it less likely for them to hurt eachother. In Part Two of this video, the teacher gets the children to have a group discussion about why they would pick on eachother but also to take responsibility for picking on other children. The teacher's approach is very rare in the Japanese educational system, which has been criticized widely for encouraging hierarchical formation through bullying in schools. But is this kind of teaching encouraged in Canada? In the U.S? I imagine we'd like to think that bullying isn't as institutionalized here, but that's just not true and in order to change that we have to stop making these incidents seem isolated.

I think that this bus incident and the subsequent media firestorm around it can teach us a valuable lesson: we are suckers. We all feel bad when we see someone hurt but we are loathe to go out of our way to do something about it. We don't mind sitting at home clicking on the donate button to allay our guilty consciences about every lady we called fat, every teacher we harassed, to get revenge against every boy who ever bullied us. What are we encouraging here? On the Today show they said "tonight we'll celebrate a woman of courage, one who internalized mistreatment and didn't complain." What?! It's heroic and courageous to "internalize mistreatment" and "not complain"? That is not courageous, it is a horrible thing to applaud and it highlights what we expect of women who are bullied: silence. Good job internalizing your mistreatment, here's half a million dollars? You kept quiet about abuse until it was forced into the light of day, hurray for you! That is insane and we are completely falling for it. As a society we should encourage people to speak out but also encourage other people to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves--that is courageous. Throwing money at this woman will,of course, help her but we have to stop and really look closely at the rhetoric swirling around this issue. We have to stop being suckers who act irrationally when faced with something upsetting. We missed such a good opportunity here, to really look closely at the problem and understand it. As Mr. Kanamori so eloquently put it in Children Full of Life: "Are you all trying to hide behind those pretty words?"

adopt pets, more. breed pets, less.

Someone sent me this website of Carli Davidson's disabled dog photography, and my heart melted. The photographer was inspired to do the series after seeing a dog in a wheelchair play fetch with it's owner, perfectly happy. The dogs in her photos have many different kinds of "disabilities" from losing limbs in traumatic accidents to being born without eyes. The photographer says of her project:

"I wanted to create a project showcasing differently abled pets, telling their stories in order to show the world that they are happy, thriving companions. They are not sad, they are not in pain, and the owners and animals continue to be of great value to one another."

When people see dogs wheelchairs, or dogs that are missing limbs, it seems like the reaction is pretty standard: "AWWWWWWWW." Those dogs are super cute and we love them for their pluckiness, their happiness despite their limitations, and for being 'survivors'.

I really, really like Carli Davidon's project but it highlighted something that has always been a big issue for me: we love these funny little dogs but we still live in a society that values "pure breeds" even though that means dogs are subjected to pain, mental difficulties, and behavioural problems - all to create a perfect dog. And what happens when the dogs aren't perfect?  Puppies that are born imperfect are sometimes destroyed or abandoned, so that the breeders good "stock" isn't compromised publicly.

How is it humane to keep dogs solely for the purpose of breeding? To condemn a female dog to a life of carrying and birthing litter after litter? Most breeders treat their best breeders better than many humans can hope to be treated, but it still raises the question of controlling the life of another creature solely for the purpose of aesthetics and vanity.

Not only is it an ethical issue, but a lot of pure bred dogs are overbred which means that the characteristics we value in the dog have become prominent, resulting in a defect. German Shepherd's that are bred for show have been bred with heavily sloped backs, which causes the dogs to have difficulty walking and exacerbates hind leg diseases. French bulldogs and pugs have adorable little squish faces but they also have compacted airways, which makes it difficult for them to breath. This doesn't just make it hard for them to get exercise, but makes it almost impossible for them to regulate their temperature through panting. Because of their "adorable" large, square heads almost 80% of French Bulldogs are birthed through caesarian section because the puppy heads don't fit in the females' birth canal. The males are often not able to mount females to breed because of their prized "slim hips" so the females are artificially inseminated often. The impregnation and birth of these animals are completely engineered by their breeders.

Dogs who are prized for their teeny, tiny little heads (Like Cavalier King Charles Spaniels) often experience pain because their skulls aren't big enough to accomodate their brains, which can result in syringomyelia.

Rhodesian Ridgebacks are famous for the"ridges" that ripple down their backs. The Chairman of the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club has stated that puppies born without ridges were defects, and a section of the code of ethics of the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club states that "ridgeless puppies shall be culled."

Culling puppies that aren't perfect is not rare. Our family dog was a rescue from a Shih-Tzu breeder who was getting ready to destroy her because she was missing an eye. Little did they know, they would have been culling a Chess champion:

People who want pure bred puppies pay huge amounts of money for a dog that is "perfect", in a world where there are hundreds of thousands of dogs and puppies that need homes. Dogs, originally bred to do work, are now just an accessory and people are willing to sacrifice the health of their dog to ensure they'll get something aesthetically pleasing.

This isn't to say that every dog breeder is a cruel, greedy  monster. I know, and understand,that people who breed dogs love their dogs and "love" the breed. But humans have a tendency to be short-sighted and selfish in their love,and we have to acknowledge the fact that intentional breeding is not a natural state for dogs and traits we think are adorable are often harmful to the dogs. It's eugenics,and we decry eugenics in human breeding, so why should we force dogs to breed to produce perfect specimens? It's weird. Do people really think that only a specific kind of dog can have the personality traits they value?

For all of our love of dogs, we let a lot of them suffer. There are so many organizations that deal only in pure-bred rescue because once people realize all of their medical or mental issues, or they simply don't need them anymore, they abandon them. Greyhounds, for example, are bred for racing but are abandoned when they stop winning races( or, "retired" from racing). Dogs are abused and abandoned, and then spend the rest of their lives in shelters because people don't want them.

So yes, Ramen the dog missing its two front legs, is incredibly adorable but let's try not to forget that behind a lot of animal disability is human interference, that animals are hideously abused in large numbers and treated like garbage, and let's try to understand why we'll feel sad abused/abandoned/or disabled dogs and then pay $2000.00 for a dog that is "pure bred."

Humans are the worst.

Why it doesn't really matter if Rob Ford goes to Pride anymore

It's that time of year again: PRIDE. 

Last year we had our first taste of Mayor Ford's disinclination to celebrate gay, gay Pride. He didn't attend the parade, didn't go to the flag raising, didn't read the Pride Week proclamation, and he basically fled the city.

It mattered then, ideologically, that he was ignoring Pride Week. It mattered because we hadn't really figured out who Rob Ford was yet, who our Mayor was really going to be, and if he was really as extreme as we thought. This is what I wrote about the situation last year:

"Deciding against participation creates an Us vs Them kind of mentality with Ford on one side and the lgbtqa community on the other. Ford is the Mayor(unfortunately), we're stuck with him. But he's stuck with us too. This is our city AND his. To march in the Parade, or to be involved in any way, might not have meant a lot to some people but we need to stop and consider what it means to Ford. It means he doesn't want to extend an olive branch, he doesn't really want to work with this community, that he is so stuck in his own ideology that he can't even participate in something he doesn't 100% believe in. It means he doesn't acknowledge that there will be people participating in Pride who actually voted for him because all he sees are left-wing radical perverts. Sure, I might not want to see Ford at Pride shaking his money maker(actually.. I did) but it would definitely demonstrate that he's willing to step outside of his comfort zone and really lead this city, fags and all. To be a healthy city we need the Us and the Them to at least try to work together and that is why it matters that Rob Ford won't march."

One year later, Ford hasn't changed. One year later and there's only one reason why we should care if he attends Pride or not: because it's his JOB. Mayor Ford gets paid to attend events, he gets paid to represent the City of Toronto, and so it is part of his job to attend at least one Pride event(which includes the flag raising at City Hall). Ford wants Toronto to be a "world class city" but ignores the fact that other cities in that category have open-minded Mayors who support ALL cultural events. I care that Rob Ford picks and chooses what counts and does not count as his job. The rest of us don't have the luxury of deciding what we get paid to do. As a Civil Servant, Rob Ford shouldn't have that choice.

Here's why we shouldn't care anymore, on an ideological level, that Ford is going to eschew Pride: it reminds us, and proves to those who would throw this claim at us, that the "revolution" is not over(which Barbara Kay wrote last year in defense of Ford's decision). Now we have gay marriage, the revolution is over! We can adopt kids, the revolution is over! Gays and lesbians are more accepted than ever now, the revolution is over!

No. The revolution isn't over until GLBT people aren't harassed, beaten up, and killed simply for existing. It isn't really post-revolution era until kids in schools don't have to fight just to be allies with their queer friends. It hasn't ended while there are still laws in place all over the world that criminalize being queer. When gay politicians closet themselves, fight against gay rights, then get busted having park sex with dudes, then there is still work to be done. Too often we fool ourselves that we have things pretty good now and so we can relax, but that just isn't true. It's the same argument as saying women have equality because they're guaranteed pay equity by law. Unfortunately, law and practise are two different things.

The Mayor of our fair city refusing to attend a multi-million dollar tourist extravaganza has to be a reminder to us that if a man in his position can be so blatantly homophobic and uncomfortable with the event we still have work to do, and Pride events here and everywhere still have political impetus.

Rob Ford is an entitled and small-minded guy. His tenure as Mayor so far has proven that he was ill-equipped to take on such a large job and has often retreated instead of facing issues or people that he simply can't deal with. Rob Ford's bad decisions are a good thing, because they'll remind us at eletion time what we DON'T want in a Mayor. 

We live in a world where people will boycott a COOKIE if it's too gay. Homophobic and intolerant behaviour is hard to fight when it's hidden. It's only when we see and hear things we don't agree with that we can act, and we should be thanking Rob Ford for demonstrating this yet again.

My lungs VS. Your lungs.

Know your rights.

Rosie DiManno's latest diatribe in the Toronto Star includes this ominous warning. Know your rights, people, that shit is important! Know your rights at work, know your rights at school, know your rights when the cops pull you over. Knowing your rights is important, right?

Actually, DiManno is imploring smokers to know their rights. I guess odds are really stacked against smokers and society is really trampling all over their God Given RIGHT TO SMOKE.

DiManno says that while she once collected baseball cards(see, I'm an ironic cool hipster type laaaady), now she collects cigarette packages because of the mandatory gross-out images on them. She describes these images as "cancer porn" and wonders whether or not the government will be slapping "anti-obesity" ads on chocolate bars or car accident photo scenes on beer cases.

Ha, ha, cancer porn. How witty! I imagine that anyone who has had a loved one suffer from or die of cancer and watched them wither away in front of them doesn't find this quite as funny. Describing anything cancer related as porn is just plain gauche and railing against smoking regulation is childish. We live in a nation where some communities don't have clean drinking water, smoking rights should really be our last priority right now.

I digress. Back to DiManno's 'arguement'. She states that unlike American, with all of its great freedoms, Canadians were docile when it came to 'allowing' their government to force these yucky images onto them. In Canada, she writes,  we aren't as passionate about our rights and freedoms. In America, people stand up for their rights! In Canada we're more apt to just lay down and accept "infringements on individual and collective rights."

I guess that's why in American, the Land of the Free, they have health care access for all and freedom to choose abortion and be married to the person they love despite gender identity! I guess that's why in America education is affordable. In America, the government can't just "arrest you" and send you to "an army base prison" for "no reason."

Oh wait, that's Canada.

Never mind that. You know who else hated smokers and wanted to take away their rights? HITLER.
If you hate smoking and you want to stop people from smoking, you are basically as bad as Hitler.  Pregnant women were banned from smoking in Nazi Germany, you couldn't smoke on public transportation or in public places either. That means that, in DiManno's words: "So, Hitler is the patron saint of today’s nico-Nazis."

HITLER.

Obviously Hitler's campaign didn't work, because people know it is their right to smoke, yes? Probably it doesn't matter that people didn't understand the health impacts of smoking back then. And that smoking was heavily campaigned as a rebellious, glamorous, and sexy thing to do.

Germans didn't listen to Hitler, though, and Germany became the largest importer of cigarettes. DiManno says of the Nazi-era Germans: "You’ve got to admire such defiance. Some just won’t bend to anybody’s will, and most assuredly not to government zealotry."

Yes, choosing to smoke against government wishes was really defiant, that probably cancels out the Germans that turned their Jewish neighbours and friends in to the government. Or the Germans who participated in the genocide. They probably smoked while they walked past those frozen and starved bodies, DEFIANCE! Maybe they even lit their cigarettes on the incinerator flames. Those Germans were true rebels. FREEDOM!

I agree that people have every right to smoke. Smoke away! Smoke to your heart's content but a smoker's right doesn't trump a non-smokers right. Last week I had bronchitis and I could barely get out of bed. The few times I managed to make my way outside, to go to the doctor or pick up medication, I was bombarded with smoke. It's annoying any day to have to smell cigarette smoke on the sidewalks(because let's face it, Torontonians LOVE to smoke), but it's especially hideous when you're sick. People are more vigorous about keeping public places peanut free than they are about smoke free, despite what DiManno says.

She says that the "nine meter rule" is too vigorously applied despite the fact that it is only valid at hospitals and other health facilities. Seriously? If there's a non smoking sign outside a door,or a sign asking people to not smoke in front of a door or vent, guaranteed there will be a smoker standing there smoking. Having to move away from a door is a tiny little thing and it's a courtesy to the people who will otherwise have to walk through your cloud of smoke to get into the building(which happened to me on Monday at York University, where no smoking signs abound).

It's not revolutionary or defiant to support huge multi billion dollar corporations who make money from not only providing cigarettes(which I have no problem with), but who actively try to introduce their product into new markets, sometimes illegally-- This isn't some local business that you should support, tobacco corporations are basically evil NOT because they supply cigarettes but because everything they do is designed to make incredible profit, and if that means abusing austerity measures in nations under Structural Adjustment to destroy sustenance farming and replace crops with tobacco, then so be it.

DiManno makes smoking sound like some kind of revolutionary right. It's not. You can smoke, you can buy cigarettes, you can smoke in public places, what else do you want? You know what most people want? Health. They want their parents not to die of lung cancer. They want their kids asthma to not flare up in the park because a bunch of hipsters feel the need to chain smoke while they drink PBR. Smoke away, it's allowed, but like any other human who is doing anything else, be cognizant of the people around you.

Consideration, understanding your effect on the people around you, not being selfish. Those are revolutionary and defiant ideas, not the idea that you should be able to smoke whenever and wherever you feel like just BECAUSE. If smokers truly want to be defiant, they should demand a more sustainable product that is not grown on the exploitation of land and people. Don't just whine about not being able to smoke at the hospital, DiManno, use your platform to do some good in this world instead of just making it a more annoying place for us all to live.

This song isn't about sexual assault at all!

I was listening to some Top 40 Radio this afternoon. Usually I don't listen too carefully to lyrics because generally speaking they're idiotic in Top 40 music. Today, though, my ears couldn't help but hear some lyrics that made me feel a bit.. awkward.

Apparently there is a new song called "Kiss you inside out" by the band Hedley. Not only is Hedley just plain offensive because their music hurts my ears, but these lyrics are bizarre:

I don’t know if you’re ready to go
Where I’m willing to take you girl
I will feel every inch of your skin
And you know I can rock your world 

Let's start here, shall we? If you aren't sure whether or not your "girl" is "ready to go" where you're "willing" to take her, then you have a problem.  You will feel every inch of her skin? Well, maybe you should wait until you know whether or not she wants you to? Just because you're some whiny sounding pop singer with neck tattoos doesn't meant that what you're saying is less threatening.

Turn off the lights
Take off your clothes
Turn on the stereo
Ouuu oohhh
Give up the fight
I’m in control
Why don’t you let it go.

What? Give up the fight?! There's a fight? This is what I don't get about pop music. This shit is aimed directly at the wallets and hearts of pre-teen girls and what this song is telling them is that it's romantic when a guy pushes you to "give up the fight" and just accept that he's "in control" and so you might as well just "let it go." Guess what, this scenario is called sexual assault! This guy is turning on the stereo because he doesn't want his neighbours to hear this poor girl screaming, most likely.

Just close your eyes and shut your mouth
And let me kiss you inside out.

Shut your mouth?! How are you supposed to kiss someone back, say yes, or express any kind of pleasure, when you have your mouth shut? This is just so fucking creepy. These are 30 year old men singing about a woman just lying back with her eyes closed, mouth shut, letting whatever is happening just happen to her. You sell your music to children, Hedley! You sell your music to young girls who are already vulnerable to sexual assault and date rape! How can you be so irresponsible? Not only are you hideously untalented musicians you're also embarrassing human beings.

I don’t care if you steal all my air
we can breath in together as one
it’s all right if you’re here every night
waking up with you in the sun
we start with an hour and we find we waste the day
kicking back with the love we found.

Oh right, because sexual assault is a great precursor for a loving and long-term relationship. He's only assaulting you because he loves you! Having sex when you don't want to is just what you do in a relationship! Just lay back and take it, unless of course you don't want to have a boyfriend. What the hell kind of message is this?

let me love you, let me love you
let me love you babe. 

Ah yes, because sex is always equated with love and someone who says they love you could never hurt you, right?

How, in 2012, a band comprised of adult males can get away with lyrics like this is beyond me. How do they exist in society and not realize that what they're saying is not only fucking disgusting but it's describing something that is against the law. I get it, pop culture is rape culture. Our mainstream media is saturated with things that normalize sexual assault and sexualize women and girls.Sometimes I just forget, for a moment, how blatant these messages really are until I turn on the radio or the TV and get smoked in the face with a song about date rape.  Men who sing to girls have a responsibility to not just write or perform conventional music about female sexual passivity. The fact that this kind of music is still being performed just goes to show exactly how much artistic creativity actually exists in our mainstream music: zero. That this group got up and sang this song at the MMVAs, so a crowd of thousands of screaming twelve year old girls, solidifies their position as men who are part of the problem. 

Maybe try trading your silly tattoos, vintage t shirts,and counterculture haircuts for something that is actually different and radical: standing up to a music community that normalizes and naturalizes sexual assault. Or, you could continue just being an annoying, entitled, totally oblivious band of insignificant assholes.