Striking on York University’s Frontlines

The strike at York University is making national headlines. It is making both students and university administration very nervous, and it is also creating much undue hostility.

The media coverage of the strike is nothing but unfavourable. City TV and CBC news focus mainly on the delays in traffic caused by picketers and provide ample information that happens to coincide with the information provided by York University. The Toronto Star has gone so far as to declare York University’s proposal “reasonable,” and great emphasis is being put upon the fact that York’s graduate students are among the most financially privileged in the country.

Aside from having to deal with angry and unsympathetic drivers crossing the picket line, many of whom know what it’s like to be treated unfairly by their employers, extreme hostility is also rising from certain sectors of the student body. “York Victims” is a Facebook group created by anti-union undergraduate students in resistance to the legal strike position of CUPE 3903. Opposing CUPE’s anti-oppressive action that seeks to reduce discriminatory and inequitable practices, York Victims is planning an anti-union protest on campus this coming Monday. Their message is clearly a misinformed one. Rather than targeting the University for its refusal to make concessions for its contract and unionized faculty, this group is attacking the union out of resentment: they perceive the strike to be a personal injustice, an infringement on their rights as students and as consumers of education.

This strike, as another Toronto Star article has mentioned, is not about strike-happy students looking to pick a fight with the university. The issues that CUPE members are addressing are very serious ones, including the demands to raise students’ wages so that university student workers do not find themselves below the poverty line. The strike is also about job security. Fully 50% of York’s teaching faculty is comprised of CUPE members who are forced to compete for jobs each year when their sessional contracts expire, a position that denies them the seniority and employment equity rights granted to tenured faculty. The University also refuses to concede to the demands that are non-monetary, such as a proposed two year contract that would re-open negotiations once again in 2010. York is touted as the most favourable institution for graduate students where wages and benefits are concerned; this raises important and alarming questions about the standards Canadian universities set out for their students.

CUPE 3903 is also proposing an Ontario-wide bargaining collective that would link universities across the province. Yesterday, in response to this proposal, Maclean’s made the following statement: “The union’s dream is the nightmare of university administrations across the province. This strike is not really about York University. This strike is about CUPE and the Council of Ontario Universities. It is a struggle for control of the universities themselves.”

My response to this comment is quite uncomplicated. Simply put, everything is about power, and the university is by no means an exception. As students, it should be our goal to disrupt the monopoly that the university institution holds over our labour, our earnings, our sense of security and our benefits. Although strikes are by no means enjoyable, fellow students should recognize that it is a necessary evil to ensure that we retain the power to oppose the university’s hegemonic principles. As a York University student and employee, I am writing to ask for support, not only from faculty, but also from the public and most importantly, from fellow students, undergraduate and graduate. Rather than planning an anti-union demonstration – a move that divides students and curtails the opportunities for future graduate students – I ask that you stand instead in solidarity with your teachers and colleagues.

-Leyna Lowe

I have to confess, I haven’t been able to blog lately.

It’s not that I have nothing to say. Anyone who knows me also knows that I am full of ideas and opinions. I found that school this year was exhausting, what with the production of a major research paper that involved hours and hours of research, transcribing and writing. The end of school has brought about interesting new tasks and challenges, which I appreciate on so many different levels. My employment for this summer, which I am so fortunate to have, involves being paid to write academic articles and have them peer reviewed and published. This work combines my two great loves- feminism (women’s studies) and literature, as the scope of my research and writing is centred on literary analysis of girls’ artwork and it is grounded in feminist discussion and analysis. As chance would have it, this work belongs to the field of girls’ studies, which is my area of academic interest. It is quite amazing how some things in life just seem to fall into place.

Girls’ studies, for those of you who are not familiar, is a sub-discipline of women’s studies. It is a new, emerging discipline that has yet to gain ground, and its contributors and researchers come from an array of disciplines, all experts on different aspects of girlhood. In essence, girls’ studies is all about girls; their psychological and physical development, gendering, sex and sexuality, youth cultures, popular culture, education, violence, relationships, family and virtually all aspects of life that shape and are shaped by girls themselves. Right now, my interest concerns girls’ subjectivities as young women and as writers: where the two meet, and how they are represented. It is all very fascinating.

In fact, it inspires me to do some writing, creative and otherwise, of my own. Maybe that is why I have been such an unfaithful blogger lately?

Dearest blog: I promise, I can change.

I am not a Guy

It doesn’t really matter where I go; when I’m out with a companion and I’m in a coffee shop, or checking books out at the library, or shopping, ordering a drink or meeting with friends, I am confronted with a well-meaning smile and the disheartening, dreaded and inevitable greeting: “Hi guys.”

“Hi guys”? It is enough to make one tear out one’s hair.

Words, the basic units of language, are loaded and value-laden. They are symbolic; they are structured. When strung together into sentences, they convey ideas and meanings and comprise that which we call language.

In structuralism, words are signs- they exist in their l-e-t-t-e-r form and possess a signified meaning. For instance, the referent of guy is the word g-u-y, and its signified meaning is, presumably, a person who possesses the traits common to a male. In structuralist thought, the sign constructs our reality by creating a network of social conventions to which we as individuals adhere to.

In postmodern analyses, language is treated as heavily embedded in our social structure- that is, governed by the gendered and racialized power relations in a given culture. What differentiates this mode of thinking from structuralism is that words and language are not seen as existing ahistorically. What brings these two concepts together is the affirmation that words are linked to knowledge and that knowledge is socially produced.

So, where am I going with all of this?

In third grade, I distinctly recall trying to understand why, in French grammar, any reference to a group that had even one person of the male gender in it took on the masculine form “ils.” Even in third grade I felt slighted. As a woman, I still take great offence to being referred to as “guy” whether in French or in English. A great cultural lie that is and continues to be taught to us is that the male referent, or more poignantly, the male himself, is neutral and stable; the quintessential human being.

When the male referent is thus utilized, it becomes a literal and symbolic representation of male power and dominance.

I see the potential of language; I think that it would be revolutionary to blur the patriarchal limits of gender and recreate ourselves as differently gendered beings. This, of course, would mean the invention of truly gender neutral words. I speak not of androgyny, a concept that arose during the 1960’s that dangerously approximated our current conceptualization of “male.” Rather, the option of truly gender neutral words, pronouns and nouns would create a climate of inclusiveness for people who do not identify simply as male or female or for those who refuse to submit to these constraints.

I am not rejecting male and female as referents, but I do feel that is important that when one is called “guy” it is because one so chooses it.

So, before you label a woman- or a man for that matter- as guy, I ask of you: please take a moment to reflect upon the political connotations of that one, seemingly benign word.

- Leyna

Heterosexual Questionnaire

So far in my 23 years, I have only encountered one non-academic survey that is worthy of being answered and circulated on the net. This is it, for those of you who are interested.

Heterosexual Questionnaire

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?

4. Could it be that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

5. If you’ve never slept with a person of the same sex, how can you be sure you wouldn’t prefer that?

6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?

7. Why do heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into their lifestyle?

8. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can’t you just be what you are and keep it quiet?

9. Would you want your children to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they’d face?

10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual men. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual male teachers, pediatricians, priests, or scoutmasters?

11. With all the societal support for marriage, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

12. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

13. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?

14. Could you trust a heterosexual therapist to be objective? Don’t you fear s/he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of her/his own leanings?

15. Heterosexuals are notorious for assigning themselves and one another rigid, stereotyped sex roles. Why must you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?

16. With the sexually segregated living conditions of military life, isn’t heterosexuality incompatible with military service?

17. How can you enjoy an emotionally fulfilling experience with a person of the other sex when there are such vast differences between you? How can a man know what pleases a woman sexually or vice-versa?

18. Shouldn’t you ask your far-out straight cohorts, like skinheads and born-agains, to keep quiet? Wouldn’t that improve your image?

19. Why are heterosexuals so promiscuous?

20. Why do you attribute heterosexuality to so many famous lesbian and gay people? Is it to justify your own heterosexuality?

21. How can you hope to actualize your God-given homosexual potential if you limit yourself to exclusive, compulsive heterosexuality?

22. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed that might enable you to change if you really want to. After all, you never deliberately chose to be a heterosexual, did you? Have you considered aversion therapy or Heterosexuals Anonymous?

- Martin Rochlin, Ph.D., 1972

Fog

Today is my first day back in class. My Christmas vacation was nothing short of exciting. Let me recap:

No. of research grants applied to: 1

No. of university graduate programs applied to: 2

No. of thesis pages written: 7

No. of pages transcribed from interviews for thesis: 30

No. of pages written for end-of-term assignments: 33

No. of books read for pleasure: 0

No. of video games played (yes, you heard right): 2

No. of hours spent painting: 8

No. of hours spent with family: Too many. Ok, just kidding.

The weather is dismal, but on the upside, I am somewhat pleased to have structure in my schedule once again even though it means that I will have a ton of reading and writing to do. Plus, with the new term I have a new class entitled Gender Issues in Education, which, as it so happens, complements my proposed area of study, which I have specified in my Master’s applications as feminist pedagogy. I have been meaning to blog; as always, there are so many things to write about, but I feel drained.

I’ve been wondering about all of the little animals and how they are coping with the weather. Just yesterday, I was informed that there was a flock of ducks swimming in an inner-city pond. This must be very confusing. I wonder what this is doing to the hibernating bears?

Perhaps I will get out of this fog and get back to blogging soon.

Philosophizing about gendered sexual relations

Today I wrote my second and last exam. I have a few assignments yet to be done, however they are interesting ones and I’m glad to have the time and energy to put into them. I have so much painting and pleasure reading to get caught up on that I do not know where to start. And there’s Christmas to start thinking about, too.

The exam that I wrote on Saturday was for my Women and Health Issues course. Women and Health Issues is the first and probably only medically-focused course that I will ever take, but it was interesting and incited me to think about issues I have not considered before. During the course of the term, I was reading and studying the theories surrounding women’s sexual health and an idea occurred to me.

I have always been aware of the ways in which women’s and men’s bodies are treated and perceived differently. Select pieces of early modern art by Picasso and Klimt, for instance, have been thought to convey the western fear of female sexuality. During that period, syphilis and gonorrhoea were rampant and women, particularly prostitutes, were blamed for the propagation of these diseases. STDs are not a “woman’s disease,” as women and men are equally susceptible to getting sexually transmitted diseases; the only difference is that women are more likely to be affected negatively by them. However, the association of STDs with women has reinforced western notions that women’s bodies are unclean and something to be both wanted, yet feared.

Funnily enough, western women are gendered to be one-man-kinda-gals, so the spread of disease can be, in large part, attributed to a male defiance of monogamy. Picasso, despite whatever reservations he may have had, enjoyed both mistresses and prostitutes. Whatever the case, the discourse that demonizes female sexuality is still well alive today. The introduction of the Gardasil vaccine is proof enough; it is supposed to protect girls ages 9-26 who have not had sexual relations from HPV. Why girls only, when men and boys also contribute to the spread of disease?

With the slew of Tampax commercials and every other feminine product that attempts to rid women of the “inconveniences of their bodies,” it is not hard to understand how the discourses surrounding female sexuality are different from men’s. It is a discourse of shame. Growing up with such ideologies means that young women are gendered to be cautious about their bodies and careful so that they can ward off excessive sexual attention. Growing up in a culture that condones male violence also means that women need to “watch ourselves” and control our bodies to evade the sexual violence perpetrated by aggressive masculinities. While women have a heightened consciousness about their physicality, I think men are taught to have less regard for their bodies, leading some to be careless about sex and about their partners.

Okay, keeping this information in mind, let me return to my original intent in writing this post. In Women and Health Issues, I was studying the health consequences of Depo-Provera as well as another birth control called Seasonale. There are all sorts of problems that may be associated with contraceptives; because they disrupt women’s hormones, these medications may cause anything ranging from headaches to weight gain to dysmenorrhoea. There are, of course, safer methods of birth control- some of which are more effective- but the general consensus is that oral contraceptives are often more convenient for their users. Pondering this, I suddenly asked myself, “Hey, why can’t men take birth control?”

So why can’t they? Our current notions of masculinity, unfortunately, would not allow such tampering with male biological processes. Male condoms are considered acceptable because they in no way interfere with the production of testosterone. It has become socially acceptable to medicalize women’s health- menstruation, birth, menopause are all medicalized processes- but it seems to me that men would not be amenable to this kind of treatment. Secondly, the issue of pregnancy is considered to be a woman’s issue, even though it takes two to conceive. Somehow, the sheer ability to carry a child ultimately makes women responsible for preventing conception.

What I am discussing here would be a radical change, as it would ask individuals to reconsider their ideas about femininity, masculinity and sex. I think it would be great if men could be more responsible for their bodies as well as be accountable for what they do with them. This would reshape how they feel about women and how they treat them; it would also eradicate the ideologies that blame women for the sexual violence that is done to them, placing responsibility on the shoulders of the perpetrator. I am not saying that women should throw all sense of responsibility about their bodies away. On the contrary, I think control (of one's body) and personal agency is power. Rather, I am suggesting that men ought to be accountable for how they conduct themselves sexually, and if a man chooses to have relations with a woman, he should share her bodily concerns and responsibilities.

Pole Dancing is not a Sport

Just the other day I was in one of my classes and a student new to Sudbury who had been looking for a decent place to take Yoga announced that she had found pole dancing classes instead.

This caused quite a stir. I was disappointed to find that the students’ reactions were mostly positive.

To regard pole dancing as a legitimate form of recreational exercise is, in my opinion, problematic. Pole dancing in its traditional form (if I dare call it that) is situated within the context of the sex industry and its sole aim is the titillation of men. The women who resort to pole dancing/stripping/prostitution are women who lack the economic means to be doing something else or alternately, women who are systematically denied economic opportunities, whether that is because of their race, class, and/or sex.

Certain branches of feminism, queer studies as well as the bulk of the North American populace do not think the sex industry- or aspects of it, such as stripping or pornography- are problematic. This, I suppose, comes from the postmodern analysis that people make their own meanings in different ways; in this framework, condemning an activity or ideology is wrong because it is only one interpretation- my interpretation. The argument that arises from pro-pornographers is that women participate in the sex industry because it is their choice.

Fortunately, a claim such as this one would be attacked by postmodernism on the grounds that the concept of "choice" is a fallacy. Insofar as we are products of a racialized and gendered context, our "choices" are informed by our environment. In our western context, then, saying that women freely choose pole dancing is like asserting that they choose their own sex or gendering.

The current acceptance and embracement of pole dancing and pornography is a reflection of our conservative political climate that demonizes feminism and feminist women as man-hating-lesbians-who-don't-shave-their-underarms. Many young women, as I see it, do not want to identify with this feminist image; they do not wish to be labelled as "prude" or "anti-sex" or "angry." For instance, I am always disappointed to hear women, some of them fellow feminists, bash Andrea Dworkin's work. Dworkin, as you may or may not know, writes on the subject of pornography and prostitution with vehemence, having been a prostitute herself. Although Dworkin's writings are a product of an earlier essentialist version of feminism, many of her arguments hold validity- particularly in the claim that sex is political and that, given the patriarchal context of male domination, the sex industry becomes an enactment of that domination.

Pole dancing, then, is not a legitimate form of exercise. Walking is exercise. Running is exercise. Lifting weights is exercise. I find it very sad that exercise for women needs to be sexualized and turned into a pole-humping session to titillate men.

-Leyna