The Not-So-Wonderful World of Disney

It was in my undergrad that I started thinking about Disney and its ideological implications. Encouraged by an English degree that promoted critical readings, all of a sudden I was re-thinking my reasons for never enjoying The Little Mermaid as a small child. Was it because it had such an archaic underlying message for young girls? I mean – gain supposed “freedom” (in the arms of a man), by merely sacrificing one’s voice (who needs it)? Reflecting as an undergrad, this storyline hardly seemed to mirror the overarching “innocence” narrative that Disney would have most adults buying into. Pair this alongside my new reading of Beauty and the Beast wherein Belle is housed-up with a (literal) beast who beats the crap out of her, (but don’t worry, she stays), continues to love him, and *voila!* he becomes a romantic prince (blond-haired, blue-eyed to boot), and it was finished, it was done. I had officially written Disney into my exponentially growing accumulation of poisonous things to inflict on children.

The Beast: abusive, manipulative and controlling.

And so it is no surprise to me to read Giroux’s critical reading of the expansive Disney empire and find that the larger empire too, is full of inherent contradictions which all serve to benefit the few. And I don’t have to think very far to realize just how effective Disney has been in really duping people into thinking that it really is all good fun, innocence, and magic. I have made no friends at dinner parties offering my readings of Beauty and the Beast. In fact, it would probably be conservative to suggest I’ve only made a few enemies. Grown women don’t want their little girl dreams ruined, I mean, there is nothing feel-good about realizing that your childhood “hero” was really a battered woman. And Ariel’s voice? “But she loved him!” they cry to me, or, “But she was leaving her father! That’s feminist in itself!” Depending on how many drinks I’ve had I either leave it alone, or I hash it out further, and by the end of the party most people have called me a buzzkill, or a conspiracist, or if I’ve done really well, I leave with most of the room hoping to dear god that I never teach their children. After all, imagine how negative it must be to be in my classroom!

And perhaps it is. Or perhaps it is this bogus idea of childhood innocence that I want to give my students the ability to question. Childhood innocence? You mean the childhood innocence that means that children can’t think? You mean the childhood innocence that suggests that children are better off watching and reading uncritically, absorbing every bit of conformist, commercialized, problematically ideologized crap that is designed with their “innocent” (and buying) minds in mind? Ah yes, that one. And it is not a “buzzkill” of a teacher who has her classroom question Disney, rather, it is a classroom that empowers students to make their own decisions – and to have the option that maybe, just maybe, there are better role models than Belle or Ariel. And maybe, just maybe, they want to be “A Part of THAT World”.

Q&A: Why can't I say retard?

Recently, a friend of mine sent me a very honest question. I responded in length to him, and figured it could be of use to others who have ever wondered about using those words.

Dear DJ Beef,

I am having a conversation with a friend of mine about the useage of language with respect to victimization of various demographics. We are talking about reclamation of words... and it's a concept I don't really understand, likely on account of me being a straight white male. On the one hand, the argument is that using a word like 'faggot' carries with it all the terrible ways that word has been used to spread hatred and pain, but on the other hand, somehow it stops doing that when it's the people using it within that community.... 

You are smart, I and I know you've spent a decent amount of energy thinking on things like this. Help me out here.. I like saying "bitch" and "slut" and "retard".... but I don't want to be knowingly victimizing people either... This is confusing for me.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

You rock,

Anonymous.

Dear anonymous,

Well, to be honest you don't seem that confused, other than perhaps in disagreement how reclamation of a word can really do any good. And that is a point of contention among groups in various communities as well -- not all LGBTQ people agree with the reclamation of the word queer, and not all black people are in support of use of the n-word within their communities. Personally, the only words I have much reclamation over are those such as bitch and slut, and to be honest I don't think women are at a point where using those words to describe people serves any purpose other than ostracizing others in the community we are supposedly trying to reach solidarity with. So I can understand your disagreement with this idea.

That being said, unfortunately Mr. Straight White Male, you don't really put yourself in a great position using any of these contentious-type words. Although many people understand the "I don't mean it that way", the reality is that language and power are very much caught up in each other. Whether you "mean it" or not, you are always using those words from a position of privilege. Speaking from a position of privilege, and using words that have been used to victimize and oppress certain groups of people in the past, ultimately lumps you into the category of someone who is using those words in a way that continues to marginalize people as "other" or different from you -- whether it's the context you intend or not.

There are certain words that are more acceptable than others. Consider, "bitch" for instance. That word gets thrown around like it's nobody's business and some may argue that for this reason it isn't really offensive. I disagree. I think the more acceptable terms are positively correlated with how oppressed certain groups continue to be. Why is it that bitch is so acceptable? Consider it against the use of "retard". Is there any doubt in your mind that people with disabilities are even close to having the same access and rights as those who are able bodied or minded? Perhaps our language and acceptability of certain offensive terms reflects this inequity.

The truth is this: when I walk into a group of people, let's say they are male (although women are similarly guilty of this), and there is a discussion going on where the term "slut" is being thrown around. I never feel good about it. In fact, it feels unsafe to me, as if somehow these men are able to project moral superiority over people they have no experience of, or being. What gives them a right to use a word that is used to degrade people more like me, than them? Does this mean I write these people off and would never be friends with them? No. But it does mean I may consider their values, and ultimately what prejudices they hold under the immediate surface. I definitely am going to be suspicious, and I wouldn't want to date someone who went around calling women sluts, that is for sure.

As a result, I try not to use any of those contentious words. Of course they slip. Sometimes it would feel so nice calling the woman who just wronged me a "dumbass bitch cunt slut". But I think sometimes it feels good just because there is so much power behind those words. Why don't other words suffice? And in the end, as someone who does have a lot of privilege myself, I think being required to give up usage of a few words is the least I can do from a position where pretty much everything else is nicely handed to me. Perhaps it is one of the few things that are "not allowed" for someone in my position. I think in the end, that's okay with me.

Children Are Critical Thinkers: It's You That Isn't

For all of the haters who believe primary-aged children are too young to learn complex concepts such as race, gender & class, I have found a little woman who wants to prove you wrong -- because, quite simply, you are.

Fluid Hair Salon: hates women but loves their money.

This ad has been facing some controversy. Some quick details: it's for an Edmonton hair salon and they have "apologized". Hmm where to begin...

The ad itself: This ad features a woman who has been beaten by her partner. Her partner is now offering her a diamond necklace. Now let's consider the things so very wrong with this picture:

1) The ad normalizes domestic violence: that this ad makes light of a very serious, painful, and illegal sickness that is part of our society suggests that it isn't a real problem that still exists. The problem does exist, and it isn't funny and it shouldn't be used to advertise a salon. Ever. Every 6 days in Canada a woman is KILLED by her intimate partner, this is not a joke, this is an epidemic.

2) The ad suggests that women are petty enough to be bought off: To suggest to men, or women, or anyone, that money can buy-off all your problems, including beating your partner is so completely sick it makes me physically ill. It suggests that if I was to be beaten by my partner, I am so incapable and shallow that a diamond necklace would qualm all my problems and I would smile and then probably get my hair done (and make him pay). This is OFFENSIVE to ALL of us, men and women alike.

3) The ad suggests that women are required to look "good" all of the time: Of course, this includes while you are being beaten. Do I have to explain this one?

4) All three of these factors create an ad that is in itself violent towards women. It is media depictions such as the above that not only prove an imbalance of power in our society, but that simultaneously hold up the structure that ensures a continuation of this violence. By simply looking at it, I am to pick up on cultural cues and narratives that tell the story of the beaten housewife, and then I am to understand that she can be bought off. Then I am to understand that a woman should always look good, and well, that is supposed to be the funny part. PARDON ME FOR MISSING THE JOKE HERE.... This is not a joke, this is not okay, and I am sorry I am not going to sit down, shut up, and get my hair done!

And as if I wasn't pissed off enough already, perhaps what is even more offensive than the ad itself is the hair salon's press release in response to the ad. Let me pick out some key phrases:

"Edmonton is presently the murder capital of Canada. Media’s energy and time may be better spent boycotting dangerous areas, gangs, guns, other street weapons, or a sick justice system, which unfortunately is still sadly lacking when it comes to punishing abusers or any kind."

You are part of the media, Fluid Hair Salon. You became that when you chose to advertise. And you also just became a contributor to the violence you are suggesting is a problem in Edmonton. And, as mentioned above, domestic abuse and the home can be a "dangerous area", and yes "guns and other street weapons" are used against women... by their partners.

"If survivors of abuse interpret this ad to make light of any abusive situation, we sincerely apologize, that was never our intent as there are people that worked on this campaign who are survivors of abuse."

Oh, are there? How kind of you to consult survivors of abuse before putting out an ad that draws light on their situation. I bet you're not racist either, you probably have a black friend, don't you?

"To the rest of you who this has so deeply affected, we truly hope you do something to help stop domestic violence. Truly honor the survivors that you are standing up for. Unfortunately boycotting a hair salon will not accomplish this."

ARE YOU REALLY PATRONIZING ME NOW? Are you for real? You hope I "do something" to help stop domestic violence? Uh, how about I don't put out terrible ads that treat women like they are petty, shallow pieces of garbage that deserve to "look good" while being beaten? Oh wait, I never did that - YOU DID! Why the hell are you telling me to "honour survivors"?? You just took a survivor and told her to get her HAIR DONE?! PLEASE DIRECT ME TO YOUR HONOUR! Are you really going to sit back and play mind games with me? Are you trying to convince me and my allies that we won't solve domestic violence by boycotting your hair salon? Well, that's just stupid. We KNOW that.

NEWSFLASH!!!

We aren't boycotting you to stop domestic violence, we are boycotting you because you treat us like dirt, you think that women are mindless, you think that domestic violence is a joke, and your ridiculous, sick ad contributes to the very violence in our culture that leads to deaths EVERY 6 DAYS! And if you think "artistic expression is your right", well then perhaps you should be a god damned artist, not a hair salon, and certainly not a propagator of violence towards the clientele you are trying to reach.

When white kids riot: The London Riots

When white western kids riot it's easy not to understand. What do they have to complain about? What is their cause? Speculations regarding the "trigger" for the London riots has gone from pegging it to a reaction to the Mark Duggan killing last week, to more recent accounts that it started when police beat a 16-year-old girl. Despite your reactions to these two theories, these were only surface events to a much larger systematic problem.

As touched on in an article by Penny Red, the London Riots are "viral civil unrest" and it absolutely and completely demands attention. As easy as it is to watch and chastise young, white, youth for their violent rage it begs the question: what is so bad about a white kid's life that would make them so angry? And as Penny Red says, they have "nothing to do and little to lose". Unfortunately, underneath racism's mechanisms, economic shortcomings like job losses and cuts to social programs affect the entire working-class population of a country. Divisions of race mask a smaller upper echelon of power who don't care about your race, as long as those at the bottom are distracting themselves with it.

Class oppression is hard to identify, because it crosses and spans and confounds all other power mechanisms such as gender, race, sexuality, ablism and ageism. That white youth are angry suggests that the class oppression has gotten to a boiling point where even white straight males feel that something's wrong, even if they can't quite identify it. And so maybe that's why they have taken to the streets to express rage. Because for years there has been a gross feeling stirring deep within them of things not being right. And despite being white and young, they still don't have jobs, and their government isn't doing much to help them. And the cuts that have kept coming have gotten deep enough to really hurt, and it seems worth it to just destroy anything the minute someone is paying attention.

These are young people with crippling student debt, people who have been turned into demographics and marketing brackets and not much else, people who have lost the will to fight after being told countless times to sit-down and shut-up. If they choose to say something peacefully they are told, "Protests will never amount to anything!".

I can't tell you the amount of times I've heard people complain about the "apathy of young people today" (myself included), and yet the minute young people get some attention (inevitably through destruction), they are immediately demonized by the media as criminals who are anti-democratic. People act as if these events are coming from absolutely nowhere and cannot be explained. The truth is this: when young white people are angry, it means something is terribly, terribly wrong. These are not people held back by race, but rather those who privilege from it. When the privileged are angry it means everyone else has already been close to silenced.

Twitter: the not-so-silent Serial Apathy Killer

You know, I often find myself in debates with friends, family and random strangers regarding my various views on politics, feminism, anti-racism, queer rights, conspiracy theories, social programs, education, curriculum, etc. As someone who feels I spend a lot of time explaining my viewpoints it would be somewhat unbelievable to say that I find people apathetic. And yet, I do. Because for every worthwhile debate or discussion I have, there are at least three that don't happen. Usually it happens like this: I say something and immediately the witness' (because they are not participant) eyes start to gloss over and roll up, darting around for something more interesting than this annoying pent-up left-wing rager who is about to rant about something.

For instance, just today, someone on facebook posted a comment about welfare recipients potentially being required to submit a blood test to prove they are not drug users. Responses from "Big Brother!" to "damn right!" were brought up and I decided to weigh-in. I targeted one responder in particular, and following my response she semi-agreed (or at least acknowledged I made some valiant points) and then said, "I dunno... This is getting to in depth for me! Lol!". I'm not sure this can be considered apathetic (as she did have an original point), or more so an example of how the internet gives everyone a voice, if sometimes perhaps hastily thought-through before it is articulated.

But that, I suppose was not my point... I meant to talk about apathy. And although this blog generally serves as a vessel for me to voice anger, today it serves something different. Today I witnessed the true anti-apathy of Toronto citizens via social media, in particular twitter. Today, from glorious Sudbury (home to Science North), I was able to watch Torontonians get angry, get heard, get tired and stay strong at City Hall. Bodies, such as mine, that were not there in physicality have sat peeled to their computers watching live-feed of what has occurred, who is saying what, and voicing what truly matters to them in their own city. Hundreds of citizens made it to City Hall before 10am to sign-up to speak to Rob Ford, the mayor directly. I'd suggest that hundreds (if not thousands) more are attending in web-spirit, broadcasting what is wrong with cutting social services that benefit us all as citizens of this city.

And how thankful I am to be apart of it, even if it is behind this cyberscreen. Because from behind this cyberscreen I have been granted the power of a voice. The brief dances of twitter allow small glimpses into the citizen's spirit, and this spirit is viral. Let this entry serve as a tribute to those who have proven today not to be apathetic. Thank you. There is nothing more inspiring than knowing there is a discussion occurring -- always. There is nothing more refreshing than knowing we aren't all averting our eyes to the ceiling wishing that concerned person over there would shut the hell up.

Down With Bangin' not Jimjilbangin' -- Why are we North Americans so scared of our bodies?

When's the last time you got naked with members of the same sex? I mean naked, real naked. I can't speak for men, but on the female side of things, I am discounting the type of naked you do in the locker room at the gym. You know the type, bra on with the shirt still on (just take out your arms), and then hope you don't have to change your underwear, (but we all know if that's about to happen the ol' towel trick always comes in handy). These are tricks I felt I learned as a young girl, before I could consciously even realize that I was learning them. They've come in handy many, many times, and seem to be a standard cultural practice in most spaces where the need for clothes to come off occurs.

What has us North Americans so squeamish about nakedness in front of our gendered allies? I remember being 8 years old and going to a camp (one I later worked at) where I was required to change out of my swimsuit in a room full of other young girls. I would do all I could to capture one of the changerooms -- there were only 3 and there were about 40 girls -- it was tough, but perseverance and sheer anti-naked anxiety-induced strategy allowed me to snipe one most times. I repeat, this was at 8 years old.

Being in Korea has allowed me to take a step back of what seems to be a widespread North American naked shame party. Here, being naked with your gendered peers is common practice as going to the jimjilbang (sauna and occasionally bath house) is sewn into the cultural everyday. This means getting naked with your Mom, aunts, cousins, and friends routinely, from childhood right up until old age. These women walk around with a confidence not known to most of us North Americans. They don't cower in corners, they don't hide behind towels (Korean towels are far too small to do so even if you wanted to) and they don't do any fancy tricks to make sure no one sees your nipples when you're putting on a new bra or shirt. They just are as they are.

The naked shame thing is bad enough on its own, but only seems more disastrous when I think about the way North America is oversexed in virtually every other avenue. Pre-teens wear make-up, everyone seems to be body conscious by the time they're 10 and I don't have to go on about advertising, or music or other texts because we all know the adage "sex sells" and most of us take it for granted that it's a marketing strategy that's here to stay. For a culture that is oversexed, what has us so strung-out about being naked in front of other members of the same sex?

In a conversation with a few girlfriends of mine (while naked in a public bath I may add) we talked about how very few of us give much thought to getting naked in front of men... in front of women though? Wow, that's terrifying. We talked about how being in a space where there are others around us, also naked, is a liberating experience. We talked about how it's good to see others bodies for how they are. We talked about how when we went home, if we stripped the way we have grown accustomed to here, we would be looked at strangely -- as if we were alien to be so upfront and honest about the bodies that we personally inhabit -- but more importantly, share with other women around us. We've all got cellulite, we've all got stretch marks, some of us have asses we'd rather keep hidden, some of us have boobs we'd rather see permanently bra-ed up. These insecurities are best dealt with in the open, trying to keep them locked up amongst our sisters is to play a horrible game that no one is winning.

And so, this is a call to my North American sisters. Get naked, with your girlfriends. Let it all hang out. I warn you, it's awkward for the first five minutes. But once you let that first anxiety heap off on the floor with your clothes, you'll realize how heavy all those layers really are.