Disclaimer: Ipso Facto editorials represent the views of the author, and do not represent the views of the Ipso Facto editorial board, CJAM 99.1 FM, the University of Windsor, or the University of Windsor Faculty of Law.
I am a 25 year old adult male who still plays video games. I have played video games as far back as I can remember. My parents used to purchase video games for my brothers and me at Christmas, at our birthdays and other special occasions. Yet looking back over my video game collection I noticed that I never had any games that were rated M for Mature (17 years of age and above) when I was young. Once I was over 17 I was able to purchase these types of games for myself. So I was never given games that were outside of my age limit (with the exception of a few games rated T for Teen (13 or older) when I was below the age of 13). My parents exercised their ability to monitor the games that I was able to play, without the need of government intervention.
Although Ontario does have a prohibition on the sale of mature rated video games to anyone under the age of 18; it is simply an enforcement by the province of the voluntary Electronic Software Ratings Board ratings. In the US the law will have the government doing the ratings, making it a complete government regulated body that will prohibit the sale of “deviant” violent video games to minors.
It is easy to see how this debate is such a hot button political issue. As Tudor Carsten said on the air Wednesday morning on Ipso Facto it is easy to score political points when you say you want to keep violent video games out of the hands of the children. If one was to make a statement that he or she doesn’t mind allowing 12 year olds buying a brutally violent game they will be massacred on the news. They will most likely be voted out in the next election when their opponent plays that clip over and over in an attack ad campaign. It is a vicious cycle that allows laws like this to move through the system.
I feel that I have developed into a normal, everyday sane human being despite my exposure to violent video games. Video games were a great escape, like a good book or movie, but I had control over what was going to happen. Even now I have several games on my wish list that involve war, or assassins. All of the friends that grew up around me played the same kinds of games. They all turned out to be normal, everyday sane human beings as well.
It is my opinion that the law should not be used to push around such hot button political issues, but instead should focus on the more important aspects of society. They said similar things about the effects of movies and rap music, but neither of those forms of media have brought about the cataclysmic events that were foretold. The legal system of the United States should have better things to do than discuss whether a 15 year old can buy a copy of the newest M rated video game.
(As an aside, I do find it very comical that the case is Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California v Entertainment Merchants Association since Arnold is one of the most prolific violent action heroes in movie history)
Michael Spagnolo is a member of the Ipso Facto editorial board.
Showing posts with label Ipso Facto OpEd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ipso Facto OpEd. Show all posts
Friday, November 19, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Ipso Facto OpEd: I am a Person. Hear me roar!
Disclaimer: Ipso Facto editorials represent the views of the author, and do not represent the views of the Ipso Facto editorial board, CJAM 99.1 FM, the University of Windsor, or the University of Windsor Faculty of Law.
81 years ago 5 women got together and did something that seems almost unthinkable to us today; they forced the government of Canada to recognize that women are persons. For Emily Murphy, Nellie Mooney McClung, Louise Crummy McKinney, Irene Marryat Parlby and Henrietta Muir Edwards, the fight to have "persons" as it was interpreted in the then British North America Act include women meant being recognized as equals in politics, and in life. Since then Canadian women use October 20th-dubbed "Person's Day"-to celebrate equality and bring attention to contemporary womens issues.
It may seem strange to some of us now that the personhood of women is even up for discussion. Women in Canada enjoy equal rights; they have actively particpated in the political sphere for some time and more and more we see women rising to positions of power in the judiciary, in business, and on the world stage. However, every once and a while a news story comes up that should remind us all that the battle for equality is not yet won.
One such news story is the Col. Russel Williams trial.
I have been following this case since the story broke due to my own morbid curiosity. Here we have a man who, by all accounts, was outwardly kind and friendly. A leader at CFB Trenton, he loved his wife and was a good commander. But the second life he led was one of hate. The more and more details that come out of the trial the more we find that Col. Williams was a deeply disturbed individual. His crimes are indescribably horrific (I won't repeat them in full here, as they have been adequately covered in mainstream press). It were as if this was an episode of "Dexter" rather than a true story that happened not 600 KM from where I now write.
The more I read about his victims the angrier I get. I have always considered myself to be a peaceful person, but I'll admit that there is a dark part of me that would take a grim sastisfaction in having this pitiful excuse for a human strapped to an electric chair. He represents to me one of the scariest things a woman would ever have to confront; a man that views females as pure objects, nothing more.
Objectification. It's a word that's bandied around a lot by feminist scholars without much understanding of what the issue with it is. In our culture objectification can occur when women are viewed singularly as something to be obtained for sexual and/or domestic pleasure. It's pervasive in our media images. Advertisements will often depict models as tied to (figuratively) the object for sale, or as passively gazing at the viewer while the male is active. The men on "Jersey Shore" go to clubs to find someone DTF (down-to-fuck) barely caring to find out their name and throwing them out of the house if they aren't immediately willing to hop into bed. I haven't always bought the "media will warp the minds of youth!" argument, but I do believe that when women are continually shown as objects that it can be hugely discouraging and create a systemic belief that this is in fact the case.
And why is this dangerous? An object is something with no voice, no conscience. It can be used at will and discarded just as easily. It can be destroyed and maimed with no thought to any ill effects. This is how Col. Williams views women. When Marie-France Comeau and Jessica Lloyd begged for their lives, he didn't hear anything. Because objects don't have lives; they don't have mothers and fathers or siblings and friends who will care that they are gone. We know that they were people, with hopes and dreams and all that mushy stuff that belongs in a Lifetime movie. They deserved to have the life they wanted. But that chance that all people deserve was unmercifully ripped away from them.
Col. Williams represents an extreme. A wide majority of men do not view women as pure objects. But the systemic beliefs that we carry thanks to years of gender roles being burned into our brains does affect what we think of ourseleves as woman, and how people view us.
This is why Persons Day is as important as it was 81 years ago when the Privy Council handed down its decision. Women have come so far, but as long as even one person like Col. Williams is able to exist, we still need to agitate for change. We need to make sure that womens voices continue to be heard and we need to seriously question the way that women are represented in media and in society. This is the only way that we can truly honour the memory of so many women, like Comeau and Lloyd, who are killed in acts of sexualized violence, and the many more who continue to bravely live with the physical and psychological scars of sexual assault. We need to talk, we need to yell, we need scream, and sing and make sure the whole world knows: I am a person. Hear me roar!
-H.G. Watson
81 years ago 5 women got together and did something that seems almost unthinkable to us today; they forced the government of Canada to recognize that women are persons. For Emily Murphy, Nellie Mooney McClung, Louise Crummy McKinney, Irene Marryat Parlby and Henrietta Muir Edwards, the fight to have "persons" as it was interpreted in the then British North America Act include women meant being recognized as equals in politics, and in life. Since then Canadian women use October 20th-dubbed "Person's Day"-to celebrate equality and bring attention to contemporary womens issues.
It may seem strange to some of us now that the personhood of women is even up for discussion. Women in Canada enjoy equal rights; they have actively particpated in the political sphere for some time and more and more we see women rising to positions of power in the judiciary, in business, and on the world stage. However, every once and a while a news story comes up that should remind us all that the battle for equality is not yet won.
One such news story is the Col. Russel Williams trial.
I have been following this case since the story broke due to my own morbid curiosity. Here we have a man who, by all accounts, was outwardly kind and friendly. A leader at CFB Trenton, he loved his wife and was a good commander. But the second life he led was one of hate. The more and more details that come out of the trial the more we find that Col. Williams was a deeply disturbed individual. His crimes are indescribably horrific (I won't repeat them in full here, as they have been adequately covered in mainstream press). It were as if this was an episode of "Dexter" rather than a true story that happened not 600 KM from where I now write.
The more I read about his victims the angrier I get. I have always considered myself to be a peaceful person, but I'll admit that there is a dark part of me that would take a grim sastisfaction in having this pitiful excuse for a human strapped to an electric chair. He represents to me one of the scariest things a woman would ever have to confront; a man that views females as pure objects, nothing more.
Objectification. It's a word that's bandied around a lot by feminist scholars without much understanding of what the issue with it is. In our culture objectification can occur when women are viewed singularly as something to be obtained for sexual and/or domestic pleasure. It's pervasive in our media images. Advertisements will often depict models as tied to (figuratively) the object for sale, or as passively gazing at the viewer while the male is active. The men on "Jersey Shore" go to clubs to find someone DTF (down-to-fuck) barely caring to find out their name and throwing them out of the house if they aren't immediately willing to hop into bed. I haven't always bought the "media will warp the minds of youth!" argument, but I do believe that when women are continually shown as objects that it can be hugely discouraging and create a systemic belief that this is in fact the case.
And why is this dangerous? An object is something with no voice, no conscience. It can be used at will and discarded just as easily. It can be destroyed and maimed with no thought to any ill effects. This is how Col. Williams views women. When Marie-France Comeau and Jessica Lloyd begged for their lives, he didn't hear anything. Because objects don't have lives; they don't have mothers and fathers or siblings and friends who will care that they are gone. We know that they were people, with hopes and dreams and all that mushy stuff that belongs in a Lifetime movie. They deserved to have the life they wanted. But that chance that all people deserve was unmercifully ripped away from them.
Col. Williams represents an extreme. A wide majority of men do not view women as pure objects. But the systemic beliefs that we carry thanks to years of gender roles being burned into our brains does affect what we think of ourseleves as woman, and how people view us.
This is why Persons Day is as important as it was 81 years ago when the Privy Council handed down its decision. Women have come so far, but as long as even one person like Col. Williams is able to exist, we still need to agitate for change. We need to make sure that womens voices continue to be heard and we need to seriously question the way that women are represented in media and in society. This is the only way that we can truly honour the memory of so many women, like Comeau and Lloyd, who are killed in acts of sexualized violence, and the many more who continue to bravely live with the physical and psychological scars of sexual assault. We need to talk, we need to yell, we need scream, and sing and make sure the whole world knows: I am a person. Hear me roar!
-H.G. Watson
Friday, October 15, 2010
Ipso Facto OpEd: Why I don't drink bottled water
Disclaimer: Ipso Facto editorials represent the views of the author, and do not represent the views of the Ipso Facto editorial board, CJAM 99.1 FM, the University of Windsor, or the University of Windsor Faculty of Law.
I don't drink bottled water.
In my first year at McMaster University I lived on campus and would go through the monthly effort of lugging a giant case of bottled water to my 3rd story dorm room. I went to the gym, and tried to take good care of myself, so I drank a lot of water. I would often refill my bottles at the gym when I ran out, but it never occurred to me to just buy a reusable bottle. Perhaps rumours about Hamilton having dirty water because of its bad record of pollution sunk into my head, or maybe it's just because my family drank bottled water. Regardless, near the end of my first year I made the switch, and I honestly cannot imagine switching back. As long as my tap water is clean and drinkable, why would I pay up to 2000x as much for the same thing (1/3 of bottled water actually comes from the tap)in a bottle that is horrible for the environment?
For my boyfriend, who cares about the way bottled water is filtered, we got a Brita tap filter. It was a little pricey, but we could have opted for the cheaper Brita pitcher. We didn't because I didn't want to always be the one refilling it. Either way, both options are far cheaper than buying case after case of bottled water, month after month, year after year, landfill after landfill.
Wait a minute, landfill? What about recycling? Well, yes, I do recycle, and always recycled my plastic water bottles. The Brita commercial with the woman drinking a plastic bottle of water in her kitchen full of empty bottles that says Brita filters reduce the amount of water bottles that end up in landfills always seemed odd to me. Does Brita think that bottled water drinkers are non-recyclers? Well, actually, they generally are! According to The National Post, 86% of plastic water bottles produced do NOT end up in the recycling bin. Moreover, many that are disposed of properly in the blue bin are not actually recycled at all, and are instead down-cycled.
Recycling means turning something at the end of its use into something else of equal or greater value, such as bottle-to-bottle, which happens with resin code 1 PET plastic, as well as glass and aluminum. But resin code 2 HDPE plastic-which is what most water bottles are made of-may not be able to be truly recycled. Michael Bloch from the website Green Living Tips says, "These are often downcycled into things like tables, chairs and trash bins and require extra treatment in terms of energy and chemicals to do so. While durable plastic products can be created it takes an awful lot of plastic bottles to create these items. Additionally, the HDPE may be blended into other plastic resin types which then turns them into a "resin code 7" - and that is then the end of the line. Once that product has outlived its usefulness, its next destination will likely be landfill."
Hey, Durham Region! You know that garbage incinerator you're so excited about as THE ONE AND ONLY solution to our waste management issues? Maybe banning the bottle would help lessen the waste load, along with several other suggestions for alternatives to the incinerator that you pretend don't exist, which you can read about here.
So in summary, only 14% of water bottles make it to a recycling plant, and then many of them end their life cycle in a landfill anyway. Considering that the start of their life cycle involves using tonnes of oil to produce the bottles, and a great deal of energy and pollution to manufacture and then ship bottles around the planet, wouldn't we be better off scrapping the whole idea?
What about places where water is unsafe to drink? In that case, the only alternative I can think of to individual water bottles is the giant water bottles for water coolers, but that's not much better. Should you drink unsafe water? No. But why is your water unsafe? The UN General Assembly declared this past July that access to clean drinking water is a human right, and as Canadians we should stand up for our rights. In some poor countries where the water unsuitable for drinking, it is the result of the pollution of bottling companies, including those that manufacture bottled water! Clean water is essential for life, we cannot survive without it, and many people in poor countries do not have access to cures for the diseases that accompany dirty water, such as the rota virus which causes diarrhea and kills approximately 3 million children a year (Singer 2009, p. 86). The companies that manufacture bottled water in poor countries and pollute sources of drinking water then try to sell the water back to people who cannot afford it, but now cannot survive without it.
According to the organization Charity: Water, almost a billion people don't have access to clean, safe drinking water, and while that isn't all (or even mostly) because of the pollution from water bottling plants, if we all stopped buying bottled water and instead donated the money we would have spent money to charities that provide access to clean drinking water for all we could be helping rather than essentially rubbing it in. Our water IS safe, yet we CHOOSE to buy bottled water even though it is completely unnecessary.
My mom has used reusable shopping bags since my first memory of shopping with her. She works at Metro, and hears every excuse in the book for a) why people think the charge for plastic bags is ridiculous (back in my day...), and b) why they will buy them anyway (if I don’t the bag makers will be out of a job!). However, the fact that grocery stores are even charging (where they don't have to, in Toronto it is the law, in Durham it isn't) shows that times are changing. People are jumping on the reusable shopping bag bandwagon (though the origins of the reusable bags may not always be ideal), and an all-out ban on plastic shopping bags may happen in the near future. What's the difference between plastic bags and plastic water bottles? Well, in short, plastic shopping bags don't make a ginormous profit for gigantic powerful multinational corporations, and bottled water does. However, bottled water sales have declined, and reusable bottle sales are booming! That means there is hope that the public will stop buying into the dirty tap water myth. Even if they are turning on the tap because of economic crisis related belt tightening, hopefully they won't go back to the bottle when the economy recovers. Also, many regions already have banned plastic water bottles, including Toronto, which is in the tail end of a plan to ban the sale of bottled water on all municipal premises by 2011.
And that’s why I don’t drink bottled water.
If you want to learn more about water issues, check out these helpful links below!
http://blogactionday.change.org/
http://www.charitywater.org/
http://www.insidethebottle.org/
http://www.insidethebottle.org/petition-ban-bottled-water-and-turn-tap-ontario-0
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/water
http://storyofstuff.org/bottledwater/
Sources cited by the author
http://www.canada.com/Toronto+bans+water+bottles/1027243/story.html
http://www.charitywater.org/whywater/
http://www.insidethebottle.org/story-bottled-water-video
http://thethunderbird.ca/2010/04/09/reusable-shopping-bags-arent-as-green-as-they-seem/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35456&Cr=sanitation&Cr1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203074.html
Singer, Peter (2009). The life you can save: acting now to end world poverty. N.Y.: Random House.
Guest writer Colleen Bain is an environmental studies student based in Durham Region.
I don't drink bottled water.
In my first year at McMaster University I lived on campus and would go through the monthly effort of lugging a giant case of bottled water to my 3rd story dorm room. I went to the gym, and tried to take good care of myself, so I drank a lot of water. I would often refill my bottles at the gym when I ran out, but it never occurred to me to just buy a reusable bottle. Perhaps rumours about Hamilton having dirty water because of its bad record of pollution sunk into my head, or maybe it's just because my family drank bottled water. Regardless, near the end of my first year I made the switch, and I honestly cannot imagine switching back. As long as my tap water is clean and drinkable, why would I pay up to 2000x as much for the same thing (1/3 of bottled water actually comes from the tap)in a bottle that is horrible for the environment?
For my boyfriend, who cares about the way bottled water is filtered, we got a Brita tap filter. It was a little pricey, but we could have opted for the cheaper Brita pitcher. We didn't because I didn't want to always be the one refilling it. Either way, both options are far cheaper than buying case after case of bottled water, month after month, year after year, landfill after landfill.
Recycling means turning something at the end of its use into something else of equal or greater value, such as bottle-to-bottle, which happens with resin code 1 PET plastic, as well as glass and aluminum. But resin code 2 HDPE plastic-which is what most water bottles are made of-may not be able to be truly recycled. Michael Bloch from the website Green Living Tips says, "These are often downcycled into things like tables, chairs and trash bins and require extra treatment in terms of energy and chemicals to do so. While durable plastic products can be created it takes an awful lot of plastic bottles to create these items. Additionally, the HDPE may be blended into other plastic resin types which then turns them into a "resin code 7" - and that is then the end of the line. Once that product has outlived its usefulness, its next destination will likely be landfill."
Hey, Durham Region! You know that garbage incinerator you're so excited about as THE ONE AND ONLY solution to our waste management issues? Maybe banning the bottle would help lessen the waste load, along with several other suggestions for alternatives to the incinerator that you pretend don't exist, which you can read about here.
So in summary, only 14% of water bottles make it to a recycling plant, and then many of them end their life cycle in a landfill anyway. Considering that the start of their life cycle involves using tonnes of oil to produce the bottles, and a great deal of energy and pollution to manufacture and then ship bottles around the planet, wouldn't we be better off scrapping the whole idea?
According to the organization Charity: Water, almost a billion people don't have access to clean, safe drinking water, and while that isn't all (or even mostly) because of the pollution from water bottling plants, if we all stopped buying bottled water and instead donated the money we would have spent money to charities that provide access to clean drinking water for all we could be helping rather than essentially rubbing it in. Our water IS safe, yet we CHOOSE to buy bottled water even though it is completely unnecessary.
My mom has used reusable shopping bags since my first memory of shopping with her. She works at Metro, and hears every excuse in the book for a) why people think the charge for plastic bags is ridiculous (back in my day...), and b) why they will buy them anyway (if I don’t the bag makers will be out of a job!). However, the fact that grocery stores are even charging (where they don't have to, in Toronto it is the law, in Durham it isn't) shows that times are changing. People are jumping on the reusable shopping bag bandwagon (though the origins of the reusable bags may not always be ideal), and an all-out ban on plastic shopping bags may happen in the near future. What's the difference between plastic bags and plastic water bottles? Well, in short, plastic shopping bags don't make a ginormous profit for gigantic powerful multinational corporations, and bottled water does. However, bottled water sales have declined, and reusable bottle sales are booming! That means there is hope that the public will stop buying into the dirty tap water myth. Even if they are turning on the tap because of economic crisis related belt tightening, hopefully they won't go back to the bottle when the economy recovers. Also, many regions already have banned plastic water bottles, including Toronto, which is in the tail end of a plan to ban the sale of bottled water on all municipal premises by 2011.
And that’s why I don’t drink bottled water.
If you want to learn more about water issues, check out these helpful links below!
http://blogactionday.change.org/
http://www.charitywater.org/
http://www.insidethebottle.org/
http://www.insidethebottle.org/petition-ban-bottled-water-and-turn-tap-ontario-0
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/water
http://storyofstuff.org/bottledwater/
Sources cited by the author
http://www.canada.com/Toronto+bans+water+bottles/1027243/story.html
http://www.charitywater.org/whywater/
http://www.insidethebottle.org/story-bottled-water-video
http://thethunderbird.ca/2010/04/09/reusable-shopping-bags-arent-as-green-as-they-seem/
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=35456&Cr=sanitation&Cr1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203074.html
Singer, Peter (2009). The life you can save: acting now to end world poverty. N.Y.: Random House.
Guest writer Colleen Bain is an environmental studies student based in Durham Region.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Ipso Facto OpEd: Excuse me, you're stepping on my meat train
Disclaimer: Ipso Facto editorials represent the views of the author, and do not represent the views of the Ipso Facto editorial board, CJAM 99.1 FM, the University of Windsor, or the University of Windsor Faculty of Law.
Everyone knows the old adage in journalism. "When a dog bites a man it's not news. When a man bites a dog, it's news." In that vein, when a pop star wears a kooky design to an awards gala? They'll get some attention, surely. But what happens when a successful and controversial pop star wears a dress assembled of steaks to a major music awards event? Media frenzy.
I am of course referring to Lady Gaga's meat dress that she recently donned to accept an award at the MTV Video Music Awards. As I'm sure she wished, the dress brought an onslaught of media attention, and was condemned by numerous groups including many animal rights groups. But for all that attention, the pop star made claims that there was a political point to her dress: to protest the US Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on homosexuality in the military.
DADT has become a hot button issue for those advocating for gay and lesbian rights in the United States. Essentially, the policy allows homosexuals to stay in the US military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation to others. It shouldn't take a genius to see that this policy is rife with problems. For example, what happens if a person's sexuality is disclosed without their permission? In some cases it has led to servicemen and women being dismissed from the military (you can read about one such case here). But the greater philosophical question remains; why is there fear of homosexuals participating in military service?
Historically, we know that tolerance for the gay and lesbian community has only began to improve in the last twenty years in the Western world. Canada itself had a prohibition against homosexuals in the military until a 1992 Charter challenge overturned the law. Since then gays and lesbians have been able to openly serve in the military, without any apparent damage to our pride in our nation or in our service men and women. Yet in the United States there remains a fear that is homosexuals serve openly it could affect the moral of the troops and how the public views the US Military.
I recently attended a lecture series by Professor Carl Stychin, an expert in law and sexuality. He theorizes that there are strong ties between citizenship, national identity, and sexuality. A nation can build it's reputation on how tolerant it is of it's gay and lesbian community. In Canada, over the last twenty years we have built an image of being a progressive nation in terms of equality rights for gay and lesbian citizens. Queer couples can get married and take advantage of partner benefits. Toronto PRIDE week is second only to San Francisco in size and spectacle. So perhaps in Canada, where our national identity is one of acceptance, we're more readily able to accept a military that's comprised of people open with their sexuality, whatever that may be.
What does this all have to do with Lady Gaga? If we think about the US’s image in terms of gay and lesbian rights over the last two decades, it is one that is markedly different from Canada’s. It’s become a battlefield, with two sides that can be skewed any number of ways; gay vs. straight, urban vs. rural, middle America vs. the east and west coast. So when a celebrity makes a visual statement the way Lady Gaga did (even if it was motivated by her own self-interest) it becomes more than a sensation. It becomes another site of the battle over the American identity.
-H.G. Watson
I am of course referring to Lady Gaga's meat dress that she recently donned to accept an award at the MTV Video Music Awards. As I'm sure she wished, the dress brought an onslaught of media attention, and was condemned by numerous groups including many animal rights groups. But for all that attention, the pop star made claims that there was a political point to her dress: to protest the US Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on homosexuality in the military.
DADT has become a hot button issue for those advocating for gay and lesbian rights in the United States. Essentially, the policy allows homosexuals to stay in the US military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation to others. It shouldn't take a genius to see that this policy is rife with problems. For example, what happens if a person's sexuality is disclosed without their permission? In some cases it has led to servicemen and women being dismissed from the military (you can read about one such case here). But the greater philosophical question remains; why is there fear of homosexuals participating in military service?
Historically, we know that tolerance for the gay and lesbian community has only began to improve in the last twenty years in the Western world. Canada itself had a prohibition against homosexuals in the military until a 1992 Charter challenge overturned the law. Since then gays and lesbians have been able to openly serve in the military, without any apparent damage to our pride in our nation or in our service men and women. Yet in the United States there remains a fear that is homosexuals serve openly it could affect the moral of the troops and how the public views the US Military.
I recently attended a lecture series by Professor Carl Stychin, an expert in law and sexuality. He theorizes that there are strong ties between citizenship, national identity, and sexuality. A nation can build it's reputation on how tolerant it is of it's gay and lesbian community. In Canada, over the last twenty years we have built an image of being a progressive nation in terms of equality rights for gay and lesbian citizens. Queer couples can get married and take advantage of partner benefits. Toronto PRIDE week is second only to San Francisco in size and spectacle. So perhaps in Canada, where our national identity is one of acceptance, we're more readily able to accept a military that's comprised of people open with their sexuality, whatever that may be.
What does this all have to do with Lady Gaga? If we think about the US’s image in terms of gay and lesbian rights over the last two decades, it is one that is markedly different from Canada’s. It’s become a battlefield, with two sides that can be skewed any number of ways; gay vs. straight, urban vs. rural, middle America vs. the east and west coast. So when a celebrity makes a visual statement the way Lady Gaga did (even if it was motivated by her own self-interest) it becomes more than a sensation. It becomes another site of the battle over the American identity.
-H.G. Watson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)