Post-Secondary Pimping: Strip Clubs Recruiting at Ontario High Schools Now Targeting Colleges

It appears that sleazy male strip club owners in Ontario and around Canada are angry about the conservative government’s decision to ban stripping and sex industry related visas as it limits their “supply” of migrant sex trade workers. Now don't get me wrong, the conservative party of Canada is on my shit-list and their opposition to the sexual exploitation of women is not feminist in any way, shape or form as they want to criminalize women in the sex trade and promote the patriarchal capitalist status quo. Further, their overall foreign temporary workers program is exploitative and problematic as are their policies and beliefs surrounding labour rights in this country.

from the Windsor Star

But I digress,

Rob Katzman, the 50-something male owner of the Leopard's Lounge Broil Strip Club in Windsor, Ontario casually told Global News that there is a growing “need” for local “talent” in Canadian strip clubs due to the ban on foreign stripping visas. The search, they affirm, should be conducted on campuses.

The media, being the patriarchal institution that it is, is assisting in promoting such a recruitment campaign. The news is portraying this as nothing more than a simple economic issue – a question of supply and demand. Evoking the economic-rationality argument is commonplace in media discourses around the sex industry as it allows for normalization and the invisibilization of harm. 

In the same news segment, young women are talked about as commodities, existing only to meet the sexual demands of male strangers. They are not discussed as though they are full human beings. This is yet another tactic used in normalizing the sex industry. 

Katzman's reasoning for this post-secondary recruitment includes the issue of expensive tuition in Canada, especially for those women just moving to the city for the first time. He boasts that this campaign to get young women interested in stripping is rational and sound, especially when looked at through a neo-liberal economics standpoint. The strip club even hired their own sleazy lawyer to further their cause, stating that they are willing to take the issue to court to ensure the adequate supply of sexually available young women. Previously, however, Ontario strip clubs were targetting high schools and young girls under 18, hoping they would change their future aspirations and opt for stripping after graduation. Nevertheless, preying on high school students created too much controversy, so now their focus has shifted exclusively to post-secondary students. With this, flyers and pamphlets are to begin circulating throughout Ontario campuses. 

Katzman is seemingly satisfied with his hunt for college-aged strippers, claiming that these “entertainers” will be “classier” and “smarter." Clearly, those women working through temporary foreign visas were just not meeting the qualifications of classiness. Now, Katzman and those who frequent his club represent not only blatant misogyny, but also classism and racism.

The Global News story, which focuses predominately on the pro-sex industry perspective, two female college students (the first and only ones featured in the entire segment aside from random clips of women stripping) were asked what they thought of strip-club owners coming onto campuses to recruit students. One woman responded positively, stating that she needed the money – so why not? The other woman said that the whole thing was inherently predatory as it took advantage of young women who may have just moved to the city for the first time.

It is predatory, but it also assumes that women should consider stripping, lap-dancing and other forms of “sex work” as inevitable, rational, and even liberating employment options. It normalizes the patriarchal notion that men are entitled to women’s bodies on demand and that women can and should only find power through their appearance and ability to provoke erections.

This is a feminist issue and I hope that all feminists, particularly those living in the province of Ontario can speak out about this as it is unacceptable. Educational institutions and all public spaces for that matter, should be free of predatory pimps. 

Two Year Olds Love Shopping and Lines of Credit!

Since a post is long over-due, here's an essay I wrote for my WMST class about this toy called My Pretty Learning Purse made by Fisher Price 

     The aisles in toy stores are reflective of our culture’s ideas and assumptions of gender; girls and boys are separated by blue and pink and by action heroes and dolls. Our society views women and girls to be profoundly different than men and boys on some basis of biology. However, gender is not a biological imperative but rather a social one. Yet, companies create and market toys according to gendered assumptions.  A particular toy being marketed to children, specifically and obviously to girls, is comprised of a pink purse with a musical plastic zipper. I found this toy in my two-year old niece’s toy box. It is called My Pretty Learning Purse and is made by Fisher Price. The purse itself sports a smiling cartoon face on its front and is made from a soft material. The handle is labelled with numbers one through ten and allows the child to open the purse to retrieve the rest of the toy’s pink and purple accessories. These accessories consist of plastic cash, car keys, and jewellery as well as a fake tube of lipstick and a small mirror. The toy itself maintains stereotypes about gender, class and beauty.

            My Pretty Learning Purse assumes that girls are naturally inclined to love soft delicate colours and high-class lifestyles full of shopping and cosmetics. The toy fulfills rigid stereotypes based on the societal assumption that girls are just biologically hardwired to like “feminine” toys.  When selling and marketing toys such as this that exist within rigid dichotomies of boy-toys and girl-toys, the idea that gender is natural and fixed gets promoted to children. Teaching girls that they must fit into a narrow, Eurocentric and heterosexist view of femininity leads to society’s perpetuation of the lower status of women and girls. Children will likely assume that toys are separated by gender for a reason when they are bombarded with cultural products like this purse. Girls and boys are socially separated into two groups and toys that are mass-produced like this are reinforcing attempts to order society in a way that divides girls and boys at an early age. My Pretty Learning Purse restricts children’s full potentials by limiting their full exploration of interests that may or may not happen to cross the established gender boundaries.

This toy tries to bully young girls into believing that jewellery and makeup are of upmost importance in life. Such presumptions once again reinforce notions about how girls should behave or what girls should be interested in based on biologically determined factors. In addition, the level of exposure to pop culture is likely a main predictor for how gender myths become viewed as normal or natural in our society. Unfortunately, in today’s globalized world one cannot fathom a life that is not bombarded with some form of media. Pop culture is sending constant messages to remind the public to monitor their behaviour, and their children’s behaviour. They are reminded to examine their perceptions of themselves based on whether or not they are masculine or feminine enough. This toy, like many gendered toys, will only teach girls their socialized “place” in the world based on a patriarchal and andocentric view of reality. Why must we set up such boundaries for children, who are interested in exploring their world? Nevertheless, along with rigid gender role compliance, My Pretty Learning Purse also promotes an idea of class and status that falls directly in with notions of gender. 

            Two year olds do not typically drive cars or wear lipstick, so what about My Pretty Learning Purse is educational? The numbers on the handle could possibly satisfy the educational criteria of the toy, or perhaps the toddler will learn about responsible investments. Firstly, what is the basic purpose of a purse? According to everyone who carries a purse they are used to keep money, keys, and credit cards. Thus, the first class-related problem with this toy is that it assumes that everyone has pocket cash, a running car and a line of credit.  Not only does it assume this, but it presents an idea of economic normalcy to children; normalcy in its assumption that everyone has and that there are no have-nots. Children from low-income families or working class families may not understand or perceive any educational value in such a toy, nor should they have to. It is classist in that it assumes all families have a decent standard of living. This, like the gender component, naturalizes and normalizes one reality and ignores many others. It also maintains stereotypes of girls being dependent, money-hungry “gold diggers” who can’t help but nab a good sale. There may be some small indicator of financial independence within this toy, depending on how one looks at it, but the jewellery and lipstick really suggest stereotyping of women and girls. Furthermore, this purse illustrates the common image of the good girl.  The good girl is the popular girl – she fulfills her perceived roles in life, ones set up by a patriarchal society. The purse asserts that good girls are fashion-forward, middle-class and conventionally beautiful as deemed by Eurocentric views. The good girls are the ones who will carry credit cards and makeup and live happily ever after, according to the enforcers of gender roles. It should be no surprise then that the princess mentality, which has saturated the vocabulary of many young girls in the First World, is also reinforced by this pink purse of plastic wealth and status. The princess mentality assumes all girls are and should behave like princesses and be treated accordingly. The purse refuses to suggest any other reality that may or may not exist outside of the Eurocentric consumer culture that we live in. For instance, the jewellery in the purse is a pink bracelet, a prime indicator of heteronormativity and class-privilege; it does not and will not speak for all girls in the same way. Adult women who have jewellery are considered high-class and elegant in the West. Jewellery also indicates heternormativity by promoting middle-class perceptions of diamonds and commitment.  The only educational element is teaching girls how to be “normal” as deemed by our culture. This toy teaches girls to be feminine, heterosexual, beautiful, and middle class while simultaneously making it all appear natural and inevitable. Not only does My Pretty Learning Purse preserve gender roles and classism, it also promotes a standard of feminine and ideal beauty.

            With the rise of popular culture, girls are becoming continuously ambushed by images and unrealistic beauty standards. First of all, the language used in the title of the toy is vital for analysis. The title uses language that is crucial to ideas of gender and beauty.  The term “pretty” generally refers to a feminine, soft and nearly fragile assessment of beauty. Prettiness in our society translates into pink clothing and red-stained lips. Our culture lends the idea that pretty girls are light-skinned, wear clean and fashionable clothes and can afford jewellery.  Beauty, like gender and class, is a social grouping to some extent. The West tends to see those who are conventionally beautiful to be somehow superior to others or more deserving of opportunities. My Pretty Learning Purse wants girls to look pretty by giving them a plastic tube of lipstick and a mirror to practice with. Lipstick was invented by patriarchal forces to cause a woman’s lips to resemble a flushed vulva – or so the story goes. Lipstick was always a staple in the early days of Western capitalism as a sign of femininity. Femininity is seen as a sign of heterosexuality, which keeps women from looking “deviant” or like lesbians, who are wrongly perceived to be the antagonists of femininity and beauty. Young girls are told to dress pretty and wear makeup to attract boys and maintain an image of compliance with the status quo. Giving a child a lipstick tube shows them that women wear lipstick and other makeup, it is just a fact of life, it is normal. It also, like everything else, draws on class. Lipstick is a mass-consumed product, an unhealthy one at that, and likely is not of the same importance in other parts of the world. The mirror provided in the purse will assist girls on maintaining their beauty rituals, to make sure their lipstick is perfected and their hair looks acceptable. Girls are taught to constantly check their bodies for imperfections, possibly leading to body image problems and obsessions with bodily “perfection.” The pairing of a mirror and fake lipstick suggests that this toy is not intended to educate a child about money or lines of credit, but rather to reinforce stereotypes about gender, class and beauty.

Women and girls, as the social construction goes, are biologically fragile and subordinate. If a woman or girl does not fit the petite, feminine, light-skinned, and middle class criteria, they fail to meet the requirements for being treated like a human being. Fortunately, to save girls the trouble, large companies have created pseudo-educational toys to make sure girls never fail to learn about their position in society. These companies are attempting to teach girls to recognize that their sole purpose in life is to find and keep a husband. Girls are told act in strictly feminine ways and play with feminine toys like My Pretty Learning Purse to make sure they remain compliant, conventionally beautiful and heterosexual. A girl playing with “boy-toys” is seen as a “tomboy” and thus becomes a threat to the status quo. My Pretty Learning Purse is not a toy intended for real educational value; a few numbers and a zipper do not cover the real learning that goes into purse. The real learning happens from the social stereotypes that made this purse possible in the first place. Gender is taught to everyone and this purse aids in that education. Girls play with pink and purple toys, princess, dolls, and tea sets. They are assumed to be biologically inclined towards these items because they are girls. They learn stereotypes about class when they play with this purse. They learn that making lots of money and owning expensive things will increase their happiness and popularity. It teaches them that all other kids come from middle-class or upper middle-class families, own cars and have credit cards. The purse implies that girls are inclined to wear makeup and be overly conscious of their appearances. Boys are not provided with pocket mirrors or tubes of lipstick in their toys because boys are assumed to be hard-wired for playing with toy guns, going fishing or playing sports. This toy simply declares that all of these social constructions are true and inescapable. Girls learn that women carry purses so they can carry the items they need to maintain their place in society on a daily basis. Fortunately, the soothing music bellowing from the plastic zipper will ease the parent’s mind, fooling them into believing their child is learning how to be a responsible consumer.  In reality, this toy and others like it will teach girls that there is one “normal” way of life. You can only be truly happy and “normal” if you live within a high socioeconomic class, own lots of possessions, have feminine characteristics and appearances as well as light-skin and a husband. What better message to teach girls then to limit themselves to rigid gender boxes that are classist and sexist, that teach a girl that the most important things are shopping, status, beauty, male approval and pink fluffy things. After all, girls are just born that way. 

Racial Slurs and Western Language - Why It Isn't About Political Correctness

image found here 

I'm still alive, readers! I just am incredibly busy with school and all that jazz...

My women's studies course on gender and pop culture has been going well - learning even more regarding media literacy! I always figure that after class I will create a new blog post, but it hasn't happened

...until now...

dun...dun...dun...

First of all, I learned that "Gypsy" is a derogatory term and that the Roma people were called Gypsies by others, not by themselves. Yet, I still see white women call each other "gypsy" as if it's uber-new-age and ultra free-spirited. I never knew that the term itself was considered a racial slur in many parts of the world. It got me thinking about how Western culture, particularly the privileged people living in that culture, use words that have been traditionally offensive to others. 

These words include:

Faggot - the derogatory term for homosexual men, also sometimes used to mean "cigarette" and has its roots in the days of witch-hunts and public executions.

Example of use in Western culture: 

"Ah brah, that guy started crying during a film...what a faggot!"

Clearly, anyone who mimics a "feminine" trait, or rather a human trait is called out on it. Also, it implies that there is something wrong or bad about homosexual men. It seems this word is still rather popular, particularly (at least from my observations) amongst teenage boys. 

Retard or Retarded - This word still has a place in the DSM-IV, which is the fourth edition of the psychiatrists' bible. It includes all mental illnesses with symptoms in tow. It still says "mentally retarded" as a diagnosis but apparently the fifth edition has removed it. I used this term constantly in high school, I never thought anything of it. Now, I find it really upsetting and offensive. The term dates back to 1489 and was used to mean either to impede or slow something. 

Example of use in Western culture: 

"Ha ha, look at that retard!" 

So yes, the word is used to describe someone with mental disabilities or someone who is disliked by whoever is saying it, usually to imply stupidity. 

It can also be used as "Wow, that movie was retarded" or "This test is retarded!"

I hear that more often than the first type. I believe that most people are using it to mean "stupid" but it doesn't convey that very well to most people. It is a word that calls for discrimination, plain and simple. 

 and finally, to elaborate...

Gypsy - This one is not thrown around too much in Western culture, but I have heard it in regards to fashion. The fashion industry loves to make money from the clothing styles of people in other parts of the world, usually less-privileged people. Think MAC a few months ago when they decided to make a makeup line inspired by the murdered factory-working women in Juarez.

I have also heard women living in the West use it to describe other women who dressed in particular fashions - I have even seen stores with "gypsy" in the name. It is another word that has taken on almost a completely separate meaning, at least here in the West. Here it seems the word means a Woman who wears flowy clothes, meditates and drinks expensive organic teas while interpretive dancing in the rain...

In reality, "Gypsy" was and is still used as a racial slur against the Roma people, who are horribly discriminated against in parts of Eastern Europe where they are segregated from the rest of their communities.

Have you ever said "That asshole gypped me!" or something similar? You probably have but if you haven't, then you most definitely have heard it before. That term originated from "Gyp" or "Gypsy", as the Roma people are stereotyped as strange, nomadic thieves.

Food for thought. 

In my opinion, the popular usage of the word in the West is a demonstration of people misunderstanding and romanticizing the lives of other people. 

Now, I realize that some of my readers may be sighing or rolling their eyes at all of this so-called political correctness but we must remember that language is powerful. It is central to our lives, it transcends culture and remains our main form of self-expression. Failing to consider language in a cultural and social context would be ridiculous as it would ignore the impact of words on the feelings and thoughts of others. 

In my past, the feelings of others were put off because I felt entitled to do and say whatever I wanted. It seemed all that mattered was me. But, people change as does the language we speak. As people and language change, culture changes with it. Our language reflects our culture and our values. Every culture is rich with diverse languages and each one mirrors the culture that created it. A popular belief in the West is that of libertarianism - the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as no one is directly harmed. The italics are to highlight that many of the choices we make will have an impact on society collectively. We are not somehow separate from the human race, our words and actions do not exist in a vacuum, but I digress. Language evolves and it does so because of the humans who convey it, whether through sign, speech or other engines of communication. This means it was likely that a group of people said "no, do not call us that." 

For us to sit back on our super hip, liberated, post-modern individualistic Ikea couch and say "I can say whatever I want 'cause I'm a gypsy and an individual!" would be ignorant and well...assholish. 

The Academy Awards: A Critique

photo found here

It's that time of year again! Well, almost that time of year, where the celebrities in celebrity-land celebrate each other's fame and wealth by handing out golden statues while simultaneously promoting white-supremacist and misogynistic values. The Academy Awards has been and likely will continue to be a patriarchal, racist, sexist and overall ridiculous event.

Before you jump up and down and tell me about how not even a handful of non-white people have won any awards or how a female director won an award last year, so all must be forgiven, let me explain myself.

A woman was awarded the Best Director title last year, the same year that a black woman won for Best Supporting Actress and a black man won for his screenplay for the film "Precious"

Now, this is great, yes? They are "leveling" out the playing field, right?

No, they're not. They simply decided, as far as I have observed, that on one particular show they would ease everyone's criticisms by awarding two women, one of them a black woman and a black man with their well-deserved awards. This way, the Academy can feel better when they continue to over-award white Americans and literally ignore everyone else’s talent and accomplishments.

It is interesting, also, that the year Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won, the Academy decided to make a dedication to Sydney Poitier, the first African American to win an Oscar. Coincidence? But they did not do this on a show where only white performers won, which is almost every show. Of course, this year is no different. There is still the patronizing “Foreign Film” category that lumps all non-Hollywood films into one group that is meant to distinguish films from Western-made films. The category is given a complete lack of care. For example, when the leading awards come out, everyone is excited…but no one even blinks when foreign films are mentioned.

My point is that the gross lack of female and non-white representation in this Award show is astonishing.

Let’s look at the reality, shall we?

Every single year the Academy, who is apparently some divine and awe-invoking group of white, upperclass cinephiles that make it their life work to award other upper class white people with fancy awards that cost ridiculous sums of money. The academy is praised and respected amongst Hollywood elites while crowds of non-celebrities huddle around their television sets and ooh and awe at the hungry starlets in their designer dresses. The whole event illustrates to the world that it is indeed stratified, horribly so by class, race and sex. The women are told to lose as much weight possible to fit into their small, custom-made designer dresses while the men stand idolly by looking stoic in their full-body suits. Clearly, a lady must dress accordingly while she watches her male counterparts steal most of the nominations, particularly for directing and writing.

The whole event is as traditionally gendered and classed as you can possibly imagine. Yet, the public gravitates towards this yearly spectacle as if it is the coming of Christ. They weep when their favourite elite celebrities weep during their acceptance speech. They cheer when their chosen white male director wins, or their favourite white female actress takes home a hunk of gold phallus. Magazines rush to publish photos of female attendees. The so-called fashion critics rush to call them fat, make fun of their choice of dress or mock them for their choice of date or lack thereof. A woman is to be escorted to the event, as she is unable to get there by herself. She is also unable to come up with her own dress -if she does then she’s ridiculed for weeks in the media. We are told prior to the show, on the so-called “red-carpet”, who designed what dress and why it matters so much. Shameless marketing ploys are big money on the red-carpet.  

Why does it matter? Why does any of this matter?

Why are we so horribly consumed with celebrities and their obscene lifestyles? Why do we praise and cheer the white supremacist hollywood cliques that perpetuate gender myths, gender roles, beauty standards, racism, sexism and classism? Why do we gather around and cry with our beloved hollywood stars? It is so horribly pathetic.

The whole show is one big pat on the back. The stars tell other stars how amazing their performances were, all the while ignoring important cinema by seperating non-hollywood film into “foreign film”, because clearly, the films aren’t acceptable enough compete directly with the Hollywood films. This is problematic in itself, not to mention the lack of recognition the category holds. The celebrities don’t care and neither does the academy. One would rather clap for the Black Swan or True Grit then give two shits about a film made in Sudan or Japan for example.

The exclusion does not stop there.

In the 81 years that the Academy Awards has existed, according to filmsite.org, only  18 African-American nominations have been given for Best Actor between 12 different actors. The only African-American actors that have been nominated more than once are Poitier, Freeman, Washington and Smith.  Overall, there has been only 20 different African-American actors and actresses nimnated for a top award. Only 13 awards have actually been WON by African-American actors and actresses in both leading and supporting roles and a mere 5 African-American performers have won an Oscar in a leading category. Only 4 have won best actor.

For 81 years, this is bloody pathetic.

To add to this, we often see non-white filmmakers and non-white films being ignored completely by the Academy.

For example, according to the same site:

There have been only a few Best Actor Oscar wins by ethnic/other minority (or non-English) performers:

Italian actor Roberto Benigni won the Best Actor Oscar for Life is Beautiful (1998) - he was the first male actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language film (his Best Actor Oscar win was only the second time a nominee won an acting Oscar for a foreign language film role - the earlier winner was Sophia Loren)

Ben Kingsley, with half-Indian (birth name Krishna Bhanji) and half-English descent, won the Best Actor Oscar for Gandhi (1982) - he became the firstSouth Asian performer to achieve such a feat

Puerto Rican-born Jose Ferrer won the Best Actor Oscar for his role in Cyrano de Bergerac (1950)

Anyone else noticing a pattern? Why is this being ignored by these so-called well intentioned Oscar-addicts?

Another obvious occurrence with these awards is giving out nominations for roles that include rich white historical figures. Think “The Kings Speech”, a story about a Monarch and his speech impediment. It is rich with wealthy white actors who are, without surprise, up for a bunch of awards this year. I am not debating that the film is not worthy of awards, I am merely stating that there is a disctinct pattern.

Women are also horribly misrepresented at these Awards. Rarely do we see a woman of colour take an award or even a nomination, instead, youthful, traditionally beautiful white women take home all the goods. Not only are many women ignored at these awards, but all of the women are poked, prodded at and judged because of how they present themselves at these award shows. They are pushed to lose even more weight and maintain a level of “class” at the show while the men dress alike and chat with their fellow performers. The women are always the main attraction for gossip hungry celebrity programs and media outlets. It’s really a shame. Only one woman of colour has taken home a lead actress award and that was Halle Berry. The rest of the best actress awards are dolled out to white women. No surprise.

It appears the majority of Oscar lovers are unwilling to challenge the realities of this award show. They are unwilling to challenge the cultural product that is the Academy Awards. It is a cultural product – it is part of the mass media, yet it often goes uncritiqued and unexamined. We tend to view the celebrities as separate from ourselves. We give them god-like status in society and weep when they do. It is all rather unfortunate that we can’t see through this façade and realize the sheer bigotry and subjectivity that goes into the “decision making” of the Academy.

Finally, a question - Is this show even about film? Is it really about creativity, or is it about a bunch of rich people getting together, congratulating each other and making some money? It’s hard not to be cynical when the whole thing is so bloody laughable. If anything were to encompass issues of sexism, racism, classism, ageism and the like, this event has it all. 

So, grab your popcorn kids because Febuary 27^th is the Academy Awards and there’s a whole lot of bullshit waiting to be watched and a whole lot of misgonazis waiting to dissect the women at the award shows and make everyone who isn’t white nearly invisible.