Lest We Forget

There was an article in the Globe today about how the Legion is upset with the Canadian War Museum because of a plaque that suggests that the bombing of Dresden etc. were controversial. Apparently, it makes WWII veterans feel bad, so they want it removed. Of course, the usual Globe and Mail online comments ensued: "historians are idiots"; "the right is idiots" etc (ok, to be fair, it was acutally more balanced and insightful than those online response forums often are . . .). I decided to babble in here instead of joining the fray (Yes, because I'm a chicken).

I want to respect WWII vets, because I think it's a good thing Hitler was stopped, and I appreciate that they did go and die, or lived through horrible horrible things so that he wouldn't take over all of Europe. But 600,000 civillians died in Dresden. When I went to the American Museum of History, I was shocked by the exhibit "in defence of freedom, Americans at war" - and found the coverage of Hiroshima in 1 small plaque that basically said "lots of people died, but it ended the war, and that was good . . ." to be pretty disturbing.

When I went to our own war museum, I was happy to have a more nuanced approach. So, here's the issue - is it possible to respect our vets and still look at the nuances of war? Is the Legion being unreasonable - or is it enough that these guys were sent over to rot in trenches, and they shouldn't be made to feel bad about it now?

In my study of war and war crimes, I am learning that war is always ugly, and it's never black and white. How should it be presented if we are going to have a museum of war (or should we even have one?)?

The Pursuit of Happiness

After our conversation yesterday, Heather sent me 2 articles about happiness. One (from Fast Company – www.fastcompany.com – which appears to be a career magazine) was about jobs, and the author was interviewing a career specialist who seemed to think that choosing your job based on personal happiness was ridiculous, and that people should be doing what will improve their skills and advance their position, whether they like it or not. The other one (from Yoga Journal) was about how the expectation of happiness results in extra pressure on people who aren’t happy – so that if you are depressed you feel like a failure, and the cycle continues.

Today, there was an article in the Montreal Gazette about an upcoming forum that Canada and the United States are holding on mental health, which they’ve decided is necessary since a recent poll shows that 1 in 6 Canadian and American adults have been diagnosed with depression.

So here’s the questions? Number 1 – should we expect to be happy? And, number 2 – does our expectation of happiness actually lead to more depression?

So first – should we expect to be happy? In the article from Yoga Journal, the author notes that the concept of a right to be happy is a relatively recent thing, and that through most of human history, there was no such expectation. In the American Constitution, the “pursuit of happiness” is protected. But Americans, along with us here in Canada, are suffering from an alarming rate of depression (but that’s maybe getting into question #2). Should we expect to be happy? Well – of course I want to be happy, but I don’t know if it’s fair to expect it all the time. Awful devastating things happen in the world, and we should be able to engage with them when they happen to us, or people we care about, or even to complete strangers – and we shouldn’t be happy, because they are not happy things. It seems that if we selfishly pursued happiness at all costs, we could never truly love – because love involves compassion and empathy, and it can also involve sacrifice. I think that love is more important than happiness.

The next question – are we making ourselves unhappy through our pursuit of happiness? I don’t want to make any kind of blanket statement about this because, just like depression can be worsened by the feeling that have failed by being unhappy, it seems like blaming the depressed person for even wanting to be happy is equally unhelpful. So, with the caveat that I don’t want this to turn into some kind of victim-blaming session, I will proceed: yes, I think that we are making ourselves unhappy. First, I believe the idea that the expectation of happiness is stressful. It comes out in our worries about jobs – the idea that we have to find the most amazing fulfilling position right away, or we’re selling out – there’s all this stress, because of the feeling like we need to be fulfilled, as well as making money and developing skills.

I think that one of the fundamental problems, beyond the stress of unfulfilled expectations, that leads to our pursuit of happiness resulting in more depression is that we don’t even know how to pursue happiness. We get all these images of what happiness is supposed to be – whether it’s a perfect wedding followed by a white picket fence, or a backpack and the open road, or a hot tank-top and a club. And then we end up in these moments that we orchestrate, and feel like they’re supposed to be enough, and now we should be happy, but then we realize that they’re not enough, and we’re not happy, and don’t understand why the people in the movies seemed so ecstatic when they were in these situations. . . . enter the feeling of failure for not being happy, and the depression that you are trying to live the dream, and the dream is hollow.

And so here we are, the wealthiest and the most depressed continent in the world. It would seem like living the dream isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be. . . but I don’t want to leave on such a bleak note. I think that we can reach beyond trying to blindly pursue happiness. We can pursue truth and love, and these things will lead to happiness some of the time. And some of the time they will lead to our hearts being broken, but we will be closer to being real and to being fulfilled than if we binge on soma (Brave New World? Anyone?) and just try to be happy all the time.

Job, Career, Vocation?

The impending end of articles and the subsequent looming of the big bad world has got many people I know fairly pre-occupied. I've realized that the stress, at least for some of us, comes partially from the tension between trying to figure out if we're looking for a job, a career, or a vocation - or wanting to find a vocation, but having the sneaking suspicion we are going to settle for a job.

So, this has made me wonder - are we asking for too much, hoping that we will find a vocation, that our days will be filled with something that we feel truly called to, and that will make a difference in the world? I know there are people who do what they do during the day, but find their passion elsewhere - but few people I know would be happy with that. Is this a natural product of being over-educated? - it's hard after 8 years of university to get out of a mindset of having meaningful work, and in professional training, such as law school, there's the added element that you learn to see your identity as being associated with your profession.

Or, is that voice telling me I am looking for too much the same voice that generally sucks the passion of youth out of people, and convinces them that all they want is a mortgage and an SUV, when they never remember dreaming of those things before? And thus the tension again - I don't want to settle, but I don't want to be foolish - I don't want to hold onto this romantic dream of doing something "adventurous" if it's out of habit - it can become as much a societal expectation (just a different society) as the settling down urge, if you aren't careful.

And then back to the question - am I making too big of a deal out of this anyway, because it doesn't really matter what I do with my days, as long as I do it with integrity and to the best of my ability? Or, am I expecting too much, and we all have to make choices, and deal with the choices that are handed to us - am I expecting I'll have it all?

A year ago, Sulini sent around an article about how our generation is paralyzed by having too many choices, and maybe that's what this is all about - and I just have to move forward in some direction, keep my eyes open, and continue to evaluate where I'm at, and figure out if it's good for me. Generally, I don't believe in fatalism, and that there's only one right path for a person, but it's easy to forget that and get bogged down in this feeling that what I choose now will shape my life forever. I think that I really do want a vocation, but it probably won't happen tomorrow, and I have to stay true to what I believe (man, this sounds cheesy) and use whatever job comes my way to learn and grow.

Well Founded Fear of Persecution

Here's an interesting news clipping. I found it quite disturbing that the fact that the kid wasn't sexually active as a teen (when he was hanging out with the Seventh Day Adventist Church?) was used as a stroke against him. In his situation, it seems like quite natural behaviour to hide your sexuality. Besides which, maybe he hasn't met someone he wants to have sex with. Or he felt too young. Or, being scared of being beat, he had mental and emotional barriers that kept him out of a relationship.

It makes me think of people having to prove their marriage is bona fide so they can sponsor their spouse - how do you prove love? How do you prove sexuality? I understand that they have to go through the evidence process to determine if people are genuine or if they're using the system, but it's so invasive, and open to the biases of the way the examiner thinks someone should behave (which isn't always how the individuals have behaved - once again, we're dealing with love and sexuality here . . .). And back to the issue of marriage . . . Canadians have arranged marriages in other countries and then bring their spouses to Canada. How do they prove the marriage is bona fide when there is no history to the relationship?


February 7, 2007
GLOBE AND MAIL (METRO) PAGE: A6 (ILLUS) (NATIONAL NEWS)

Can't prove he's gay, teen is denied asylum

Nicaraguan fears his return home as board member unconvinced over sexuality

MARINA JIMENEZ

Alvaro Antonio Orozco, a gay teen runaway from Nicaragua, was denied asylum in Canada because the Immigration and Refugee Board didn't believe he was a homosexual.

Mr. Orozco, now 21, is slated for removal next Tuesday to a country where sodomy is illegal and to a family that he says beat him and taunted him for his sexual orientation ever since he was a young boy. "My father called me 'marica ' [a derogatory word for gay], and told me he would beat it out of me," Mr. Orozco said. "But it's impossible to prove you are gay."

Soft-spoken with delicate features, wearing a pink-checked shirt, Mr. Orozco certainly looks the part, and says that from a young age he felt and behaved differently. He was drawn to artistic pursuits and often played indoors as a child, and today aspires to be a nurse.

But Deborah Lamont, the IRB member who heard his case via video-conference from Calgary, didn't believe Mr. Orozco was gay because he wasn't sexually active during his teen years, and wasn't clear about his sexual orientation when he fled Nicaragua at the age of 12.

El-Farouk Khaki, his lawyer, says the case shows the difficulty of gay refugee claimants who come from a macho or homophobic culture and are unaccustomed to living an openly gay lifestyle. It also reflects a stereotype in assuming gay teens are more sexually active than heterosexual teens.

"I think the decision shows a lack of understanding of issues facing queer kids from homophobic cultures and what they have to deal with in terms of gender stereotypes," he said.

Mr. Orozco's last hope is to appeal for a ministerial permit from Immigration Minister Diane Finley. "We are asking the minister to grant him a stay of removal on humanitarian grounds and allow him to stay," Mr. Khaki said.

Mr. Khaki, who didn't represent Mr. Orozco at the hearing, is also filing a motion to reopen his refugee claim, arguing there was a breach of natural justice because the member failed to consider guidelines on treatment of a vulnerable person.

Mr. Orozco is vulnerable, his lawyer added, because he is young, uneducated, alone, a victim of domestic abuse and homeless. He also stutters, which impedes communication.

In Nicaragua, a 1992 amendment to the penal code criminalized same-sex relationships, and the law is vague enough that individuals campaigning for gay rights or providing sexual health information could also be prosecuted, according to a 2006 Amnesty International report.

"The law criminalizing sodomy was introduced in 1992 and [there] was a concerted effort to put it on the books despite lobbying and criticism by human rights groups," said Mr. Khaki, who has represented other gay Nicaraguan refugee claimants with success.

Since coming to Toronto two years ago, Mr. Orozco says he has finally felt comfortable to live a gay lifestyle, and spends his weekends at gay bars. "The law protects me here. In Nicaragua, I could be put in jail," he says. "I still fear my father, who threatened that he would kill me for being gay."

His life story is a dramatic one: He ran away from home just before his 13th birthday, fleeing his alcoholic father. He hitchhiked through Central America and Mexico, and made it to the Mexican-Texas border, where he swam across the Rio Grande with a Honduran boy. However, he nearly drowned after his legs became entangled in algae and he couldn't swim against the strong currents. His Honduran friend saved him, and they swam to safety.

U.S. immigration officials arrested Mr. Orozco, and he spent a year in a detention centre in Houston. He was 14. He was released when he agreed to return to Nicaragua. Instead, he ran away and was taken in by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Terrified they would reject him if they discovered he was gay, he says he kept his sexual orientation hidden. He was also scared because he was living in the United States illegally.

IRB member Ms. Lamont didn't accept this explanation. "I found the claimant's many explanations unsatisfactory for why he chose not to pursue same-sex relationships in the U.S. as he alleged it was his intention to do so and he wanted to do so," she ruled.

Instead, she concluded: ". . . he is not a homosexual . . . and fabricated the sexual orientation component to support a non-existent claim for protection in Canada."

Mr. Orozco said he didn't seek asylum in the United States on the advice of church officials there. In 2005, he took a bus to Buffalo after reading about Canada's support for gay rights and generous asylum program on the Internet. He made his way to a Buffalo shelter, Vive La Casa, which helped him make a refugee claim.

Today, Mr. Orozco is being assisted by a Toronto program for gay newcomers and refugee claimants run by Supporting Our Youth (SOY). Gay refugee claimants often have trouble persuading IRB members they are sincere, especially if they are poor witnesses, said Suhail Abualsameed, program director.

Mr. Orozco went before the IRB with no supporting documentation from gay advocates. "She asked me for proof of being gay and I didn't have it," he said. "But it is illogical that she didn't believe me."

Violence and my Visceral Reaction

Ok, obviously it has taken me 2 months, and I haven't yet figured out what I want to say about this article. I've reallized, though, that my problem in figuring out what to articulate is based on my attempt to overcome the desire to label that I talked about in my last post. I want to listen to what this person is saying, and not dismiss them as a crazy right-wing nut-bar . . . but basically her thesis kicks me in the gut. Maybe I'll respond to it sometime soon, but in the meantime, I'd love your comments.


December 6, 2006
NATIONAL POST (TORONTO)
PAGE: A23 (ISSUES & IDEAS)


Lone gunman
The Ecole Polytechnique massacre was a freak tragedy. So why is every man made to feel guilty for it?
Barbara Kay, National Post

Seventeen years ago today Marc Lepine killed 14 women and himself at the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal in Canada's worst mass murder. From this human tragedy of no inherent political significance, a political industry emerged, which produced in the massacre's name: gun control laws, lavish public spending on women's causes, feminist-guided school curricula and a high tolerance for overt misandry.

In the massacre's wake, ideologues elevated Lepine's rampage from a random act by one disaffected individual into the gender equivalent of Kristallnacht or 9/11. A narrative evolved in which every woman became a potential victim of an organized, hate-driven enemy -- like the Nazis or al-Qaeda -- with the massacre as an ominous harbinger of more aggression to come.

Both male and female feminists colluded in promoting the myth of lone killer Lepine as the symbol of all males' innate hostility to women, however dormant it might appear. In a shameful, inflammatory broadside affirming generalized male responsibility, for example, a group called Montreal Men Against Sexism responded to the massacre with self-hating stereotyping inconceivable in the context of a similar crime committed by, say, a black or a Muslim: "Men kill women and children as a proprietary, vengeful and terrorist act ... with the support of a sexist society ... As pro-feminist men, we try to reveal and to end this continuing massacre."

What "continuing massacre"? Women have been subjugated by men throughout history, but organized massacres of women by their own culture's males? Never.

In an equally specious analogy, career arch-feminist Judy Rebick commented: "If [Lepine had] killed 14 Jews, he'd have been seen as ... anti-Semitic." Yes, and rightly so, because anti-Semitism is a historical syndrome involving a litany of actual massacres by organized Jew-haters. But no similar historical record exists of organized women haters or of women-specific massacres.

Such rhetorical duplicity, endlessly replicated, has resulted in harmful social fallout. Amongst other unjust and gender-divisive consequences, the "White Ribbon" educational movement, initiated in 1991 as a direct response to the massacre, and now integrated into more than 100 schools across Canada, sponsors a biased, error-riddled curriculum on domestic violence (read "violence against women by men"). A freak tragedy has thus become the misandric lens through which many Canadian children are taught to perceive gender relations.

Publicly endowed grievance rites like the annual Dec. 6 vigils are inappropriate responses to isolated acts of violence. National mourning ceremonies should consecrate events that have shaped our civic character. Honouring the dead should draw people together -- the whole country, not half -- either to heal historic wounds, acknowledge sacrifices made on all our parts and strengthen our sense of national purpose, or to affirm solidarity in the face of calamities inflicted by a real, external enemy.

The Montreal Massacre commemoration industry, whose emotive effect depends on scapegoating men, is having the opposite effect: For the sins of a few, the nature of half our polity is often falsely maligned, breeding suspicion and hostility in women, needless shame and guilt in all men and boys, and mutual resentment and mistrust between the sexes.

Ritualized violence against women, such as wife beating, bride burnings or honour killings, is a function of retrograde cultural notions of sexual relations. If such abhorrent behaviours were officially tolerated or encouraged here, then politicizing a particularly egregious example would be justified in order to end the practice.

But the complete reverse is the case. Officially and unofficially, virtually to a man and woman, Canadians schooled in our heritage culture utterly repudiate violence against women. Proof lies in the fact that while many gendercides in history have targeted males, none preceding or following the Montreal Massacre in the West has singled out women.

Most people assume Lepine's rage was entirely focused on women. In fact, the perpetually troubled misfit entertained serial and disparate revenge fantasies. An earlier ambition, noted in his suicide note as one of several "projects," was to join the Armed Forces as an officer cadet, gain access to the arsenal and embark on a shooting rampage. In that case, those murdered would have been males, and Marc Lepine, along with his victims -- their names inscribed on a commemorative plaque in the armory perhaps -- would by now have faded from our national memory. Something for Canadian "equality" buffs to ponder at the vigil tonight.

Labels

The problem with politics and activism is that they encourage you to take up positions - to avoid evaluating situations (and people) as you find them, because there's a set ideology that you are supposed to espouse as a tory, greenpeacer, Christian, etc etc.

Throughout my life, I have found labels to be very comforting, but I am realizing a need to move beyond them. I met a guy once who told me that I couldn't be a feminist because my father walked me down the aisle when I got married. This man had got his definition of feminism, I believe, from Foucault (another man). I was deeply offended. Several times, people have assumed I was a vegetarian, because I "look like a vegetarian." I was deeply amused. I was just discussing this with Melissa. Apparently, people are often surprised she doesn't eat meat, because she "doesn't look like a vegetarian." Apparently vegetarians don't wear make=up?

Anyway, from the ridiculous to the laughable, these experiences of having other people label me has encouraged me to look at the way I label myself, at the pigeon-hold I put myself in. When I was a teenager, and into university, I thought of myself as artsy. Then I went to law school, and realized that I have a very logical sequenced brain (or else my indoctrination was so complete that my brain was rewired through the process . . .). My image of who I was, where I fit, kept me from experiences that I was fully capable of, and being able to offer my talents to the fullest to causes that I care about.

When I lived in Scotland, it was the first time I removed myself from everything I knew. It wasn't so much that travelling was a chance to reinvent myself as some kind of wild and crazy party animal, but it was, as cliche as it sounds, a chance to find myself. I could strip away all of the identifications that I was scared to leave behind, because they were what people at home knew me as and counted on me to be = and I examined who I really was. What I believed. What I liked. What I wanted. It was scary - I almost lost my faith. But I came out stronger, and by being willing to self=examine, I realized that being honest with myself was worth disappointing, and maybe even losing, people I cared about. I didn't lose anyone, but gained a precedent of honesty and trust in my relationships.

So, since then, I've realized that being honest with myself involves seeing myself as a very multi-faceted individual. I don't fit into pigeon holes, and I guess I don't fit into a group that can be defined or identified by their clothing or the muic they listen to or what they do for a living. I am a thinking and caring (most of the time) human being, in all of my contradictions - and I pray for the courage to look beyond the labels and treat every person I meet as the same.

Chubby

Ok, so after a fairly long hiatus, I am returning with something a bit inane. I have an article about how bad the Day of Action and Remembrance Against Violence Against Women is, which I have been planning to respond to. But, I haven't organized myself on that one. So, in the meantime . . . obese children . . .

Today the Globe had articles about both phys. ed classes and school cafeteria food. The premise was sound - childhood obesity is on the rise, and something needs to be done about it. However, I felt like there were elements in the discussion which are often missing that might be worth thinking about.

GYM CLASS
I hated gym class when I was a kid. I quit gym after I'd made it through the mandatory requirement in grade 9. I was glad to see in the article in the Globe that our school systems are moving away from a sports skill based program to one of general activity and fitness. I have managed to be relatively healthy and active throughout my life, but I definitely didn't learn any love of physical activity in gym class, which I was never particularly good at, and am glad that I am now an adult and can choose activities that aren't team sports (I like to swim, bike, hike, work out on my own at the gym).

I think that school is an important place to learn to incorporate physical activity into our daily lives, but it has to come in all shapes and sizes, and not just be based on skills at sports. Maybe non-athletic children need small challenges - pedometers to encourage them to walk more. Activities where they only have to run for a short time, and don't need particular coordination. It's hard to go from being completely out of shape to running around on the soccer field or trying to hit a baseball, and it can be a turn-off (I am still trying to get over my aversion to running, grounded in the cross-country program that our elementary school did, which consisted of sending us out to run . . . I was shocked at about the age of 25 to learn there is TECHNIQUE to running . . .).

It also has to come from home. Children don't spend all day at school - so there's a portion of the day when they could be active outside of the school context. If a parent drives to the corner store, then the child is going to think that's an option. If the parent never rides a bike or goes skating, why should the child want to?

FOOD
I thought that this article missed the point a bit more than the one about exercise. A lot of the healthier options in school cafeterias, at least in my day, were quite unappetizing. When I lived in residence (1997), the pasta was good, and the salad bar and sandwich bar were both decent, but the hot meals that weren't processed were disgusting. This article talked about one school where the students were passing up shepherds pie and vegetables for french fries with gravy. That's because processed shepherd's pie and frozen vegetables are gross.

There was one mention of a school where there was squash soup and fresh baked fries. Now, that's good food that tastes good - but it costs more. So, there's the rub. Good healthy food generally costs more. Perhaps the school boards and governments, if they are going to take this seriously, need to be subsidizing fresh food. . . but when they are already cutting programs left right and centre, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Perhaps, another thing that schools should be doing is extending their home-ec classes. When I took my mandatory course in grade 8, we learned the basics, but didn't really learn to make a full good healthy meal. This is something that would transfer over from school to home where kids are in charge of meal preparation.

FINALLY
The commentary on the Globe and Mail website is often fairly cutting. I usually avoid it, but I was interested in what people had to say about these articles. There was one person who mentioned that the problem was that we coddled our lard-butt children and had to tell them they were fat and had to move. This reader suggested there should be no such thing as "love you body week" at schools. While the underpinning of this argument may be sound - that children who are obese have to be encouraged to take control of their health, I still find this tone problematic. People hate their bodies, and it's a problem. Telling an obese child that her body is disgusting is probably not a good way to encourage mental health. It seems it would make more sense to encourage children to love their bodies for what they can do - to feel good about being strong and fast and healthy. Children shouldn't be obese - but there's a large gap between obese and movie star thin . . .

Ok, that's my rant of the moment. I speak from the position of someone who doesn't have any children, and is aware that it's going to cost a lot of money to change the system . . . but I still think it's worth thinking about.