The Abrogavro

Note: Women/woman has been changed to womyn for the purposes of inclusivity. The dynamic interactions between womyn and men in the workplace and abroad have changed dramatically in the last few decades. With the movement of more womyn into the workplace and the changing nature of gender roles and interactions at the interpersonal level, we are seeing more and more men cave into tumultuous confusion when it comes to engaging womyn socially.

Not too long ago it was customary for men to greet other men with a strong, firm shake and to offer a hug or a kiss on the back of the hand of a womyn when it came to greeting her. This was the generally accepted practice, but it is quickly becoming an archaic one. As the gender roles continue to blur and fizzle into non-existence, the way men and womyn are interacting is also changing dramatically.

It is now becoming very common for men to shake the hands of womyn as a form of social greeting or business formality. The problem lies in the fact that the hands of men tend to be very different from the hands of womyn in terms of size, strength and fragility. Whereas a man might offer a very powerful handshake as a vote of confidence or affirmation, he may not feel as comfortable approaching a handshake with a womyn in the same way. Too strong a shake and he may feel like he is crushing or hurting the hand of the womyn. However, too weak a shake and he fears that the womyn will think him condescending.

Scouring the internet, you find varying opinions on the matter. Forbes suggests a gentler handshake while Jezebel suggests to “shake a woman’s hand as you would a man”; else you’ll be implicitly promoting sexism. The realities are a bit more nuanced than both sources make them out to be, and the Jezebel article could be especially poor advice. I therefore decided to poll a variety of my very good lady friends of differing personalities and careers and got a very enlightening answer.

My female friends almost unanimously came to the same conclusion with regards to this topic: when shaking a womyn’s hand, offer a firm shake that may be stronger than her own shake-strength and firmness but is still gentler than you usually would a man. It was so simple, yet so straightforward. Turns out that even if a womyn offers a weak wrist or a limp-fish hand for a shake, it is still much better to be firm than to match or undershoot her own shake strength. Sure it’s not the “way you would shake a man”, but it’s the way that most womyn would like it. In my sampling, I asked some of the most vocal feminists I know this embarrassing question, and they too unanimously agreed upon the aforementioned answer. I was actually told by one of them, “I’ll even admit that some women simply have weak ass handshakes and that’s got nothing to do with you. Offer them a firm one so they can build their own”.

So there you have it, straight from the feminist’s mouth. How to shake womyns’ hands as respectfully as possible. Now get off those eggshells and shake to your heart’s delight! Be firm, but don’t get too crazy!

Depends on the type of shaming. But first, let’s get acquainted.

As you may have heard, an 18 year old girl was recently taped performing oral sex acts on over 20 gentlemen in under the time it would take you to sit through your average TV commercial break. The video went viral and a slew of “slut shaming” remarks were fired at the young lady. On one hand there are those who see her actions as deplorable, shameful, damaging and downright nasty. On the other, you find bloggers writing in defense of the poor girl, asserting she was coerced, manipulated and is now being victimized for her role in the recording. Some call what she did sexually liberating and empowering, others vehemently disagree.

So what was it? First of all, she’s an adult. If she expresses herself publicly in such a fashion, she should be held responsible for the reaction that follows such choices. Everybody faces a little pressure to make decisions in life, and when you’re an adult you are tasked with bearing the consequences of such decisions. So let’s kindly put the “victim card” back in its deck. To assume the lady was too drunk to have any form of agency over her actions (when clearly she is running from ‘mission’ to ‘mission’) is a gross stretch.

Secondly, in cases where both parties are inebriated, the male isn’t always the “manipulative, aggressor” preying on a “weaker, younger, more naive” female. This ideology is dangerous to both sexes and is one often perpetuated in discourse around social activism of this nature. Having an oral sex act performed on you while heavily inebriated is rape in the technical sense — the fact that they were men is an irrelevant factor. In the most technical sense, one can argue that 20+ inebriated men were actually sexually assaulted and victimized in Magaluf, but I digress.

If you were in Toronto or following twitter at all over the last several days you would have known that the annual Pride week was being celebrated in all its pomp and jubilee, but this year Toronto was host to an even more momentous variation: World Pride. Attendees came from all walks of life across the globe in order to take part in the celebration of sexual identity (or lack thereof) as well as freedom of expression, in solidarity. For the celebrants, it can be a most favoured time of year – a time where they can be themselves, in an environment devoid of social stigma and significant prejudice. In a city whose newly elected Premier, Kathy Wynne, is openly gay and its promising Mayoral candidate, Olivia Chow, is in strong, visible support of the LGBTQ community, it commemorates a most jubilant sight to behold for many in favour of progress and liberal expression. For others, however, it can be a nightmare. Several thousand miles across the globe in Nigeria a battle is raging, and the LGBTQ community are the targeted enemy. Homosexuality is not a concept that most Nigerians are familiar with, nor tolerant of. Recently, laws have criminalized the gay identity, making it a felony with a lengthy prison sentence. In fact, the laws are so strict now that even LGBTQ supporters can be looking at a very lengthy prison sentence just for associating themselves with the LGBTQ community in Nigeria. It’s an amazingly archaic and antiquated move by the government of Nigeria, but it is one they feel is necessary in order to protect the sanctity of love. As Nigeria becomes the economic powerhouse of Africa, the nation takes a small step forward and two large strides backwards.

For a long time I shared the same dogmatic, homophobic beliefs as many Nigerians. I believed that being gay was a sin, and the difference between other sins and homosexuality is that you are choosing to live in perpetual sin by “choosing” to remain gay. An easy solution would be to simply stop being gay and be straight instead – after all, I was straight. How naïve was I? I quickly learned that people are simply people, and that sexual preference, if a crime at all, is a victimless crime. Telling somebody they cannot identify as they choose is illogical, and calling them a felon for preferring what you may not is even more befuddling. To force a gay man to act straight does no favours for anyone. Furthermore, the bible teaches to love thy neighbour as thyself, to refrain from judgement, to love the sinner and to love all in general, for love covers a multitude of sins. It didn’t make sense to me to continue vilifying the LGBTQ community as many of my peers and country people continue to do. Instead, I went out of my way to get to know them and understand them – attending LGBTQ clubs, events and parades. I was well out of my comfort zone and looking back, I don’t regret a thing about it. I saw that your sexual identity doesn’t make you any less intelligent, competent or interesting as a person than anybody else. It may be a long while before Nigerians begin to understand this fundamental principle, but it’s a principle that must soon be understood.

As with all things, there is potential for change. Even as the socio-political climate in Nigeria is rife with homophobia, there is a chance. With increased globalization, education, and awareness of human rights as well as gender fluidity, there can be a paradigm shift in the nation. Each day we are seeing more and more of LGBTQ identifying people in our movies, on our TV shows, in governance and all around us. We will continue to see their influence increase around us and recognize that discrimination based on sexual identity is nonsensical.

We see them everywhere. Bright blue squares with perfectly situated stick figures in wheelchairs. We see them so often because so often they are placed in the spots we want to park. Their silent message is clear: "Keep Out!".  But why? The space is wider, closer to the store entrance and most importantly, empty. Of course, many people use this logic to park there despite the silent blue warning. Such people quickly learn not to try it again after being met with wallet-busting fines. They learn that when equity is involved, sometimes it's better to deal with a bit of unequal treatment.  "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others." ~ George Orwell [Animal Farm]

Equity is a subject that is fundamentally misunderstood. Most people understand equality as the equal treatment of others regardless of ascribed statuses, affiliations, etc. Generally, people like this idea. Generally, people don't act in ways that promote this idea. Generally, people love their privileges and "dog-eat-dog" mentality is their motto. Equity addresses that. Equality is the goal, but equity is the means. 

You see, it would be nice and naive of us to believe that all people are actually created equal, but that is quite a distance from reality. Some of us are born women, some visible minorities, some with physical accessibility issues and otherwise. That is, a huge amount of people are born disadvantaged in a system that continues to disenfranchise. Three shelves built tall for 3 people of different heights is equality. Three shelves built at different heights for 3 people of differing heights accommodates their inherent differences. This is equity.

Fees continue to rise at an alarming rate, class sizes are growing, social support accessibility is shrinking and the job prospects outside of school are looking more bleak with every passing day, yet a large majority of us tend to deny that a unique problem exists at this campus and nation-wide, and it is the impact of mental health stressors on our academics and our lives as a whole. 

At the University of Toronto, roughly 1 in 5 students presents and are diagnosed with at least one mental health issue in their undergraduate career. Citing overwhelming stress and loneliness as the main contributors to stress in an academically competitive and socially cold environment like that which exists on the campus, such students are increasingly becoming more frustrated with the lack of focus spent on the issue of mental health at the institution. The issue is a huge one, and needs to be addressed now. U of T should no longer be allowed to feign ignorance with regards to the mental health of its students and the stressors that influence it. 

De-stigmatizing mental health problems at the University should be among the top priorities in terms of student wellness, and it's nice to see that some student groups on campus are fighting to do accomplish just that. The UTSU Mental Health Committee convenes regularly to discuss ways in which mental health can be destigmatizes, awareness around the issue can be exposed and is looking deeply at reforming the notably inadequate system in place at the university that purportedly aims to deal with students' mental health issues, CAPS. Some up and coming smaller groups that hope to accomplish similar goals include "Powerful Minds" U of T, and "SPOT - Students for Positive Outreach in Toronto". It's great to see that mental health issues are being talked about more on campus, but change is a long and tedious process. October is Mental Health Awareness month, in addition to Breast Cancer awareness month. You probably knew the breast cancer bit, but mental health issues affect a far wider audience and you've probably never heard of October being its month -- therein lies the problem. Awareness is a serious problem, and people are often to apathetic or too ignorant to care about the issues surrounding them unless they're advertised through huge, expensive marketing campaign. Imagine that, marketing reasons to care about and effect change in serious and ubiquitous issues? It's a strange thing if you think about it, but you do have to spend copious time and money convincing people to care for issues that they themselves are affected by, and it's just the way society works, unfortunate as it is.

Overnight the internet community blew up over Miley Cyrus' VMA performance yesterday that featured her, scantily clad, twerking and actin' a fool on stage. Many called it crazy, others called it empowering, but some have called what she did an act of racism. I disagree with that last bit, and here's why:

Racism manifests its ugly head when it works to directly or indirectly further subjugate those in a lowed power group than your own. It's a function of internalized superiority, based on your race, and is actually quite prevalent in contemporary society. What Miley did, though offensive to some, was likely not an act of racism. Through her attempts at black culture appropriation (although assuming that Miley, in twerking and acting 'ratchet', is a form of 'Black Culture' is a whole different story altogether) may have been offensive to some, it didn't work to subjugate blacks or poke fun at their culture, for it was simply a function of ignorance.

Anger is a curious emotion.  We've all been at both the giving and receiving end of anger, and we all know, oh so well, that when we give it we're in the right, but when we receive it, the giver is in the wrong. Anger is perhaps the curiousest (yep, that's a word) emotion out there, but how angry should we be at other seemingly angrier people? In an argument or debate you generally have two sides discussing an issue: FOR, and AGAINST. It's usually black and white. Debates can get quite a bit heated, and the ugly face of anger often peaks its unwarranted head. However, is this such a bad thing? Why do people get angry? Apathetic people definitely don't, and purely self-centred people don't care much for issues involving a macrocosm enough to get riled up over them. People usually get angry because they care deeply about the issue at hand, and are so frustrated by their oppositions view on the matter that it evokes the curious emotion. In short, people get angry because the they recognize there needs to be a solution to an issue, or at least a discussion around its significance.  One of the things I hate most in this world is blissful ignorance: outright refusal of education with no desire to even listen to fact. I'm a scientist, and though I will sit and listen to people talk about things that don't directly influence my life in contemporary times like books, art and history of the French renaissance, if I go to those same people and talk about huge scientific discoveries they instantly block their ears and utter things like "blah blah blah are u actually explaining boooring science to me? I dont caaaare". That frustrates me, and has made me seeded with anger at my partner more often that I'd like. Science has a direct bearing on everyone's life and to feign ignorance when someone is trying to explain a short, but important scientific discovery or concept just makes me feel like the person is afraid of both knowledge and the truth, and are perfectly comfortable in their perpetual ignorance.   Angry people, however, are only angry because they've given the issue some thought. However ignorant their stance may be, at least there's a stance. If you debate with an angry person and there's some good back-and-forth, you both end up gaining perspective and shaping your critical thought. Progress around controversial issues can only happen when people get angry, and people get angry when they debate, and people debate when they care, and people care when the issue matters. Aubrey Oday once said "I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong". It's among my favourite quotes, but if I were to change it, I'd add ... "however, at least you care, and that's all right by me." Anger... is a curious emotion.

The Zimmerman Case concerning the slaying of Trayvon Martin, a young black boy from Florida, is certainly a controversial one and will be talked about in classes the world over. Public opinion is pretty split on the issue, but not randomly so -- certain groups of people tend to be for Zimmerman, while other groups tend not to, but how much should we care about this case? After all, people are gunned down all around the world for more trivial reasons that self-defence, and nobody bats an eye. You should be outright outraged, and here's why:

People are championing Zimmerman as some sort of hero -- a self-admitted murderer of a young boy who was simply minding his own business and on his way home from a neighbourhood convenience store armed to the teeth with an oh so dangerous bag of skittles and can of iced tea. It's one thing to feel strongly about justice for an accused killer who could possibly have been framed, but to feel strongly for a self-admitted child-killer? It's nonsensical to extend your psychosis that far into sycophancy, but there's no shortage of that on the internet, evidently. 

Zimmerman was not arrested after shooting a child dead until media and socio-political forces called for his head. He followed a kid with a gun, shot him dead, claimed self defence and went on his merry way. The boy he shot, Trayvon Martin, was found guilty until proven innocent as far as the local law enforcement was concerned, because their prejudice blinded their objectivity. It took 44 days and an address by President Obama before a trial was finally considered and an investigation was conducted. That's ridiculous by any means.

The fact that Trayvon was deemed suspicious enough to follow, in defiance of a 911 operator that told him not to, is suspect. Trayvon was wearing rolled up khakis, Jordan sneakers and a hoodie. On anybody else this just appears to be the way teenagers dress, on black youth this screamed "SUSPICIOUS THUG". Let's be real for a minute: He was targeted because he was black, and was killed as a result. Had he not been targeted, he would not be 6 feet underground today. Get riled.

There is a public sullying of Trayvon's character now that the case is finished. He's physically dead, but now people are trying to use any biased and selective forces they can in order to paint him out to be a dangerous young boy and kill any positive esteem of him too. Trayvon didn't have a weapon nor was he MMA trained. Zimmerman was, and had a criminal history of violence. These are facts, yet, people insist that Trayvon must have been the thug. Why? Because if he's black and does what a teenager does, then he's a thug. He was pictured holding a gun (though we don't know if it was truly him because all we see is a black hand holding a gun, and not the wielder's face), in a state where owning a gun is legal, in a state where rifles are literally marketed to toddlers, yet people are giving him trouble for this? Zimmerman actually had a gun, and shot a kid, but that's not the same I suppose. 

Zimmerman, when asked if he regretted doing it and if he would change anything if he could, said that he didn't and he wouldn't. He killed a kid who he thought was suspicious enough to follow, and didn't regret it. A sane person would answer "I wish I'd never left my car and just let the kid be - perhaps I could alert the police and they would handle it like they're trained to." Nope, not Zimmerman. He doesn't see Trayvon as a human being. He saw him as a threat to his social order, and killed the boy in cold blood - without regret. Sickening, to say the least. 

[Front page of a major tabloid]

I don't usually pay any attention to tabloids, but this one was just ridiculous. Not only was this plastic surgery fiasco pure speculation, the pictures used were completely unrelated to be sensationalist. A sensationalism that was unwarranted, to say the least.

Underneath the heading it reads "...to protect the one thing that's most important to her: her looks". What on Earth? Are we actually judging her life to the extent that we know how much she adores her physique in comparison to her child? Imagine you're pregnant and some keyboard warrior attempts to convince the public that you're neglectful of your child because of vanity. You'd flip your shit! Just the other day the tabloids were running pieces on how the PREGNANT Kim Kardashian was turning into a whale, getting fatter and taking less care of herself. Now the tabloids are shitting on her for (allegedly) doing what they wanted all along? Deplorable, at best. I did not bother buying the magazine, but from the front cover it appears that the "plastic surgery" is referring to facial enhancement (botox, lifts, etc). These are all local (only affect the targeted area) procedures. How on bloody Earth will it affect the child? It wont. However, it's still going to turn heads and make tabloid readers cast their eyes in judgement.  Who are we to manage the way a woman handles her pregnancy, anyway? We champion for pro-choice and a woman's right to her body. Yet, when one does something that we may not agree with, we judge in the vilest of ways. We're not Kim K, and her life is her own. We don't need to give ourselves heart attacks over pregnant mothers wearing a bit more make up than usual, and we don't need to bother ourselves with sensationalist media.  Live and let live. It's significantly less effort. 

Starting tonight (May 20th) begins my (almost) week-long Facebook hiatus. It will be hard fought; it will be painful, but it will also be a humbling experience. 

I don't quite consider myself a Facebook addict, but I will not underscore my dependence on the social networking site. It's hard for me to go an hour without checking my news feed, let alone a day. This will be five days - without warning and without notifying those who are so accustomed to my undeniable presence on Facebook.  Tonight I deactivated my account. Tomorrow begins the first full day of the rest of my life my Facebook Five Challenge. Hopefully, if I last long enough, I will be reactivating my account no earlier than Sunday night.  In the brave words of Obama, "here goes everything"! See you when I do, World!