Unfix Your Labels

Imagine going on a blind date in the dark. You must navigate a blank space, and really listen to your date to get a sense of who he or she is. Imagine the depths that you could reach in your conversation without the interference of superficialities. Imagine having this freedom to open up and allow the other person to interact with the real you.

Could you do it, or would you ask questions, like in a job interview, coaxing your date to label him- or herself as x, y, or z?

We are supposed to choose a finite number of adjectives from an infinite list of possibilities to neatly and concisely define ourselves. Since I work with language for a living, I appreciate the ability to describe oneself using as few or as many words as possible. But why do we attach labels to ourselves? Is it to understand ourselves or to make ourselves understandable to others?

Understanding myself has relied largely on playing with labels and then abandoning them when I find them limiting. Further, allowing others to rely on labels to understand me has always led to misunderstanding. Rigid definitions tend to lure people into a false sense of comprehension without doing the work of probing.

For example…

I’m not particularly patriotic. I like Canada, and I’m happy to have been born in Canada. But do I think it’s “the greatest country in the world”? Well, no, because I don’t believe that such a place exists. We all fit in in different places. Those who feel comfortable in Canada should settle there; if they would rather be elsewhere, they should settle elsewhere. I have lived abroad, and I was happy. I think I can be happy in many different places.

I have no burning desire to alter my relationship status. I am financially independent, and I don’t need to conform to anyone else’s norm.

I eat whatever I feel like eating, whether the ingredients were removed from the ground, plucked from a bush or tree, or came from an animal. Sometimes, I go for long stretches of time where I eat a plant-based diet, and then I might crave a burger or some spicy chicken, so I have it.

I am left-of-centre, but I feel no allegiance to a particular political party. My membership to one of Canada’s main parties lapsed not long ago, and I have no desire to renew it, as I want the freedom to vote any way I please.

I believe that the universe is too amazing to just be an accident, but I embrace no organized religion.

Not so neat and tidy.

Yet non-compliance when asked to define oneself can make the inquisitor uncomfortable, in turn, causing discomfort for the subject. At various stages of my life, labelling myself has made me feel vulnerable or empowered. Today, I feel free—free of needing to define myself, free of worrying about what anyone thinks, free of pressure from others to do or be any particular thing.

It’s fanfreakingtastic!

I recognize how privileged I am to enjoy the freedom to be myself. I am under no pressure from family members or society to do any particular thing with my life.

This isn’t to suggest that I don’t use labels. If you read any prior posts, you will know that I have indeed referred to myself as various things. It’s unavoidable. But these are mere details.

I largely reject the idea that we should categorize ourselves. Perhaps this works for some people, but it has never felt right to me. I am—as we all are—so much more than boxes to tick.

On equality and being a woman

As I wrote in my last post, it was predicted that I would be born male. Had this been the case, my life would undoubtedly have been very different. And admittedly, there was a brief time during my childhood when I wished I was a boy. But that’s another story. I learned as I got older that I could—and should—just be myself.

I was the textbook example of a tomboy until about the time when I hit puberty. My friends were mostly boys, I loathed dresses, I never gave a thought to wearing makeup, I opted to play with action figures and cars, I read superhero comics, and I liked sports. I was fortunate because the society in which I was raised, and my family, accepted this. The fact that the “tomboy” category even exists suggests that girls have more mobility on the gender spectrum than boys do, which is something I appreciate.

Being a woman, thanks to the hard work of feminists, means being whatever I want to be.

But being a woman is not all wonderful. Girls and women are raped by the hour, the minute, or the second, in some cases. In fact, it would be difficult to find a woman anywhere in the world who hasn’t been sexually harassed or assaulted at least once in her life.

Some would have us believe that everything is fair and equal now, so we should just shut up and be happy.

I would like to believe that things are getting better, but I wonder. I wonder because of things like the “Women against Feminism” hashtag campaign. I have known anti-feminists. I would never want to inhabit their tiny worlds, but fortunately for me, I don’t have to—again, thanks to feminism. I also wonder because of the so-called “men’s rights activists” out there. Men’s rights activism is akin to white people claiming that they need to fight for their rights. In other words, it is nonsense used to undermine those who dare to challenge the privilege of the dominant group.

Many men complain about the bumbling dad stereotype represented in advertising, and I wonder who they’re waiting for to change this. Is the advertising industry not still dominated by men? I have also heard complaints about girls receiving greater focus in education, while boys fall through the cracks. The last time I checked, the top decision-makers for school boards continue to be men. So, again, who are these concerned citizens waiting for to change this?

On an even more serious note, the following billboard was erected in Toronto this week:

Of course, some men face abuse in their relationships, but this ambiguously worded statistic seems to have come from someone’s ass. What exactly is the purpose of this statement, besides portraying men as victims? On the subject of abused women, people are always asking, “Why doesn’t/didn’t she leave?” So, let’s be fair and give abused men the same treatment: “Why don’t/didn’t you leave?” I suspect, just as in the case of the former, the answers in the latter case are many, and the issue is highly nuanced.

It’s bad enough when the privileged deny that they have privilege, but when they blame the under-privileged for their struggles and distort reality as an insidious way to reassert themselves and maintain the system that promotes their dominance, this is unacceptable.

I don’t know any woman—straight or queer—who hates men. Yet feminists still have a reputation for being man-haters, and I see animosity and resentment toward women in such anti-feminist movements. I’ve also occasionally heard this antipathy in conversation with even the kindest and most seemingly liberal men.

Then, how can we hope to achieve equality? I wish I had the answer. I wish people could just understand and accept each other, and value our differences.

Originally, I was going to write about how much I love being a woman, but when I reflected on the reasons why this is so, I realized that I don’t have any. I just love being me. And part of being me is being a woman. We are all so much more than a biological sex or gender identity.

For my mother

As International Women’s Day approaches, I want to write about a great woman who inspired me, and whom I loved very much.

When my mother was pregnant with me, the doctor told her that she was going to have a boy. I have been told that she didn’t believe him. She wanted a girl and felt deeply that she was going to give birth to a girl. And lo and behold, my mother was right.

My mom and I didn’t talk much about feminism. Any time I would start on one of my rants about anything, she would tune me out, anyway. She was highly skilled at not listening when she chose not to. I don’t think she necessarily identified as a feminist, but she certainly set a magnificent example.

She left a bad marriage when she was quite young, she eventually took on single parenthood and did a superb job, she struggled to complete her degree and various other certifications while working full-time and raising me, she fought to break through the glass ceiling in her career, and she ignored all the narrow-minded people who whispered and spread rumours about her because she chose to share a home with a friend (because there is no other way to comprehend why two single women would live in the same house, without a man *gasp*).

My mom was my first feminist icon. I often wish I could tell her how amazing I thought she was, and how much I appreciated everything she did, and sacrificed, for me. That’s the thing when a parent dies suddenly at a fairly young age. I was a smart-mouthed little shit for much of my youth, but I grew into a decent adult. I didn’t really feel like an adult until I was in my late twenties, and that was when my mom died. And since I was living abroad at the time, she only caught glimpses of how I was maturing and really coming into my own. She wasn’t the communicative type, but I’ve been told by others that she was proud of me. Making her proud was always one of my ambitions. The only thing about me that I know displeased her was my lack of desire to have children. This is where I think I might have influenced her. I suspect I taught her how to be more accepting.

From my mother, I learned the importance of being self-sufficient (emotionally, financially, etc.) and hard-working. I am incredibly grateful to her for that.

It's not just about beef

There has been much uproar in my circle of friends over the beef ban in Maharashtra. But this is about much more than just taking away a preferred meat. The different levels of government are interfering in citizens’ lives. It is happening all over the world, but in India, the tentacles of the government appear to be reaching farther.

Although this law snuck up on people, we should not forget that it was actually introduced by the BJP the last time they were in power at the centre, 20 years ago. Yes, the BJP-led NDA was in power in the past; I know the popular narrative is that the Congress has ruled this country since independence, but that is a manipulation which many Indians fell for in the election last year. Humans often need to relearn the same lesson again and again before it sticks. Besides, “The Congress has ruled India for the last 60 years” rolls off the tongue much better than “The Congress has ruled India for the majority of the last 60 years.”

To give the devil his due, the Congress initiated fascism and laid the groundwork for the BJP. This should have been clear in late 2012 after the police were let loose on the protesters in Delhi and the Metro was shut down to prevent larger crowds from gathering to demand that greater action be taken against Jyoti Singh’s rapists/murderers and others like them.

The current government has been in power for less than a year, and already the Delhi High Court’s declaration of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional has been reversed, once again deeming homosexuality a crime; the Censor Board, which was already uptight, has been replaced with seemingly more socially conservative members; there has been monitoring of Facebook and WhatsApp, and control of what appears on YouTube; and now you can be imprisoned for selling or possessing beef. And this is just a sample. For those who voted for the right-wingers on the basis of their promise of development, I suggest you reflect on what the government’s priorities seem to be.

On top of this are the comments and initiatives on the part of the ideologues, who really control the present government, about Hindus needing to have at least four children, the so-called Love Jihad, and Ghar Wapsi.

Let’s break it down. The powers that be wish to control what you say, what you watch, who you love, what you do in private with the person you love, which religion you follow, whether and how much you reproduce, and what you eat.

A political party that is supposedly pro-business is putting hard-working people out of business. Where is the logic in that? Is this law going to extend to India’s huge leather industry? If not, then this isn’t about cow slaughter; it’s about control.

Where does government control end? For those who are sitting quietly because you haven’t been affected yet, your turn will come, and there will be no one to stand up for you.

The War on the Canadian Muslim Woman's Body

The debate sparked by Québec’s controversial Charter of Values last year has once again been ignited across Canada. Although there are other forces at play, we can probably attribute this to Prime Minister Harper’s comment that he is “offended” by the niqab and wants to appeal the court decision allowing a Muslim woman to cover her face during the swearing-in part of the oath of citizenship ceremony.

After our PM’s hyperbolic statement, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander made a comment lumping the hijab into the same category as the niqab when discussing the oath of citizenship, as if they were the same thing. Since the minister has yet to clarify his statement, this could leave the door open for the imposition of further rules on religious Canadians and especially Muslim women.

But our federal government isn’t alone in this mentality. Recently, a woman in Montréal who appeared in court was turned away by the judge because she was wearing a head scarf and refused to remove it. And another woman in Montréal was harassed and assaulted because she was wearing hijab.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois, which was thrown out by Québécois voters in favour of the NDP in the last federal election, appears to be using this supposedly secular fight to pander to similarly anti-Muslim voters. In an attempt to ride on the coattails of the NDP’s opposition to the new anti-terror legislation, Bill C-51, the Bloc released the following ad asking “Should you have to hide your face to vote for the NDP?”

Neither is this ad clever nor is it even logical. It is pure solicitation of the bigot vote. Incidentally, the Conservatives are also hoping to pick up some seats in la belle province by enticing those same voters.

A political war is being waged in Canada, and the battlefield is Muslim women’s bodies.

I am not a religious person, but I respect the beliefs of people of faith and their right to practice their religion freely. More and more people that I know are identifying as atheist. I see nothing wrong with this as long as they can allow those who do believe in God to have their beliefs. Yet I would also argue that this growing tendency toward atheism can be dangerous. When decent, level-headed religious people disappear from the landscape, the gap can be filled by people with extreme views.

The fact that a political party with many members who are unapologetically Christian, i.e., the Conservatives, would act as though they believe in promoting secularism, by removing all religious symbols from the public, is laughable. This is the same party with members who have wanted to re-open the debates on abortion and same-sex marriage. This has nothing to do with promoting secularism; what they are promoting is the marginalization of Muslims. The Sikhs, for example, have long fought to wear their turbans, as is their right, and they have won. So, why the sudden interest in removing so-called religious symbols?

The concept of exhibiting nationalism and achieving supposed unity by fighting the internal enemy is nothing new. One of the most salient historical examples of this was in Germany. But if humans have learned anything from the past, it seems to be how to carry on those evils, rather than ensure that they never creep up and divide us again. Right now, the Muslim is the internal enemy in many countries, including Canada. Never have I heard/seen so many non-Muslim “experts” on Islam as I do today, sitting at their computers at home or pontificating in the mainstream media.

If you demonize and dehumanize the Muslim, Mr. and Ms. X sitting on their island far away from the rest of the world are more likely to buy into propaganda about a ragtag army that is somehow free to post on social media; film, edit, and release stylized videos in the middle of a war zone or out in the wilderness; order n number of Guantanamo-style orange jumpsuits; purchase sophisticated weapons from Western countries; etc. etc. etc…. and thus support perpetual drone strikes or war in Muslim majority countries that are economically and politically important to certain powers.

I am not a fan of the niqab, as I see wearing it as more of cultural practice than a religious one, but I believe that integration into a new culture takes time and cannot be imposed on someone. So, I would hope that a woman who migrates to Canada, one day, will feel that it is not necessary to cover her face when she goes out in public, but it is not my job, nor my desire, to shout at her and try to shame her into conforming to my idea of how a Canadian woman should comport herself. And in my life, I can only think of one instance when I saw a woman wearing the niqab in my city. But the way people talk, you would think this is some epidemic. That’s the idea. When the hysteria is created, and the narrative is written that Mulcair and Trudeau would have us all reciting the Quran and living under Sharia law, then we must vote for Harper out of fear. Don’t fall for it.

When I hear people complain about multiculturalism, and whine that immigrants aren’t assimilating, I get irritated. How open are white Canadians to people from different racial and cultural backgrounds when they come to Canada? Most white Canadians who have spent their entire lives living in Canada know almost exclusively other white people with a similar history.

Some days, I wake up and I wonder where I come from, because it doesn’t seem to be where other Canadians come from. I grew up in a medium-sized city, in a fairly middle class neighbourhood. Right from pre-school, my peers were from different backgrounds. My friends were always of different ethnicities and faiths. That was, and is, Canada. Today, when I stop and think about it, it occurs to me that almost all of the friends I’ve made as an adult are immigrants, and many of the friends that I have had since my youth are the children of immigrants. Canada is, after all, an immigrant country. But if we develop a reputation as an unwelcoming, white country, people will stop coming. Some people might delight at this prospect, but what they don’t realize is that Canada needs people to sustain itself.

I am happy to come from a multicultural country, and I believe that it is worth fighting for. We cannot allow anyone to manipulate us into turning on each other and ignoring what’s happening in our country and overseas in its name. If people would come out of their cocoons and talk to others, they would realize how much they have in common, and together we could fight those who wish to harm all of us.

Secularism means not governing the state on the basis of religion; it does not mean telling a Jew to remove his kippa or a Muslim to remove her hijab. That anyone, especially a judge, would equate these things, which are worn for a reason, with objects like sunglasses and hats, shows a shocking lack of education and understanding. This ignorance and disrespect should be more offensive to Canadians than an individual’s religion.

Overdue sex-ed reform in Ontario

The Government of Ontario is finally updating its sex-ed curriculum, which has remained stagnant since the late 1990s. It tried to enact reform in 2010, but faced strong opposition from religious groups. Today, the provincial government is vowing not to back down. The most common comments that I have read from everyday citizens/parents is that they feel sex-ed should come from the home.

Of course, parents should have frank conversations with their kids about the physical and emotional changes they all experience, and about what they’re looking at and doing online. But do all parents do this? How comfortable are parents with discussing topics related to sexuality and sex with their kids, and how many kids feel at ease asking their parents about these things?

I remember when my mother had “the talk” with me. It was accompanied by an illustrated book from the library, and it was the most awkward conversation we had in the 28 years that we got to share with each other. And that was long before the Internet age. There are many more topics to cover today. My mom didn’t discuss pornography or sexting with me; the former was something that she could prevent me from accessing, and the latter didn’t exist. This is significant because the parents preparing to have “the talk” today didn’t face the same issues their children face.

Another key addition to sex-ed in Ontario is the subject of consent, which is due to children themselves asking for such discussions to take place. If the kids themselves want this to be part of their curriculum, what’s wrong with it? Adults, too, might benefit from some lessons on what consent and rape are, given some of the response to the Rehtaeh Parsons case, as just one example. I reflect on this example often. I was a 15-year-old girl once, and it honestly hurts me to know that people are so quick to believe that a 15-year-old girl would consent to being part of a gang bang.

My favourite comment that I have seen from a concerned citizen was one accusing Premier Kathleen Wynne of “hypersexualizing” our children by enacting this reform! I couldn’t help but laugh! Disseminating information and answering questions is hypersexualization?!? This is the old if you don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist logic that has been used in relation to important issues such as teen pregnancy and racism.

As if humans experience feelings and urges because we are told to do so! Nonsense. Such misguided thinking overlooks the fact that children and adolescents are intelligent beings. I had several heated discussions in the past with a particular person about whether it is right to discuss with kids what it means to be transgender. The notion that mentioning that there are people in the world who are transgender or intersexed will confuse kids and make some of them want to change their biological sex is utterly ridiculous. What is confusing is when kids lack information about subjects that puzzle them.

Education is the most important thing in this world, and kids are far more intelligent than adults often give them credit for. When they are equipped with knowledge, they have the tools to make the right decisions.

Those who are resistant to change in the education system could perhaps learn a little something themselves.

To tune in or tune out

Over the years, the topic of keeping up with the news versus tuning out has come up a lot in conversation with people. I have always been intensely on the tune-in side of this argument. Some people defend their lack of attention to politics and current events by stating that the news is “too depressing.” While I cannot dismiss this argument, I believe that refusing to listen to what is happening in the world not only threatens a person’s awareness of that which affects him or her directly; it risks erasing his or her compassion.

Admittedly, if you are a highly sensitive person who takes on the suffering of others, the news might alter your mood, and maybe even your blood pressure. In that case, I can understand keeping some distance. However, if this is not an issue, I think any reason you might give for tuning out is merely an excuse to remain within the confines of the reality you choose to create for yourself.

While I didn’t grow up in an avid news-watching/reading household, I was always curious and enjoyed reading and learning. So, the learning that I did in school must have piqued my interest in politics, philosophy, and world affairs.

The world that many of us inhabit is becoming increasingly individualistic, and with that comes less connectedness with others. Sure, we are technically connected to many people at any given time, due to our advanced communication systems, but how profound are these connections?

If you don’t know anything about the troubles that a family member is having, for example, why would you bother to learn about people who are suffering on the other side of the world? I’m not saying that people don’t care; rather, they’re not interested in hearing anything negative.

As someone whom others label as “negative” (*scoff*), logically, I won’t shy away from the negativity in the world. My mom always told me that I think too much. She was right, of course. She was an intelligent and pragmatic woman, so she was often right. I wouldn’t be the same person if I stopped thinking so much; we wouldn’t want that, would we?!

If we don’t listen to the voices of others, we cannot understand them. And this lack of understanding breeds a lack of empathy. That is how North Americans, for example, can move on quickly after hearing that thousands of people were killed on a faraway continent. And without this ability to understand and share the feelings of others, we will allow the needless suffering of others to continue.

Perhaps, rather than simply discussing whether or not to unplug, the question to ask is this: What do we gain from tuning out?