Going Home Star: a review, of sorts

Up until recently, I had never left a show right in the middle of it.  I still have a hard time not finishing a book I've started, even if I'm having trouble getting into it, or am simply not enjoying it.  But life is too short to waste time on something you're truly not enjoying.  This post is a sort of review, sort of discussion of the value of art, using a recently produced ballet piece as a jumping off point.

I had a ticket to see The Royal Winnipeg Ballet's new piece, Going Home Star - Truth and Reconciliation as part of my Dance Victoria subscription, and as someone who studied Canadian history and enjoys the exploration of darker themes through performance art, I was really looking forward to seeing this piece.  The piece basically looks at the impact the residential schools had on First Nations people, which is groundbreaking in terms of content and the chosen medium with which to tell this story (ballet).  Check out RWB's page to learn more.

From the very beginning of the show, I was unimpressed.  First of all, The Royal Winnipeg Ballet is one of the best ballet companies in the world, so I was expecting world-class performances.  What I felt I got was rather uninspired, especially from the lead female dancer (the male dancers impressed me more than the women in general - the man dancing the part of the violently Catholic school headmaster was a standout.)  I was also not at all keen on the music, which, in the first half, was comprised mostly of throat-singing, which normally I find really beautiful and moving, but in this piece, alongside the lackluster dancing, I found grating and distracting.
A bigger issue for me, though, was that in this retelling of a significant story in Aboriginal history, there were no Aboriginal dancers.  For some reason I felt really put off and oddly offended watching Asian dancers portraying First Nations people and blond Russian dancers portraying North Americans.  Come on folks - we couldn't find ANY First Nations ballerinas in the entire world of dance to perform in this story of First Nations people?!  This seemed like such backhanded cultural appropriation to me, even though the whole idea of this piece (and the caveat that it must be performed as a ballet) actually came from a First Nations woman!  As a white woman perhaps it's not my place to feel offended by something like this, but I did and I do.

I also just could not imagine sitting through this entire show and witnessing at the end of it the impassioned standing ovation that was surely coming, surrounded by uppity middle- to upper-class white folks who felt that because they bought a ticket to the ballet they were part of some great reparation.  I'm aware this is a contentious stance to take, considering this is exactly what the piece aims to do... it has the words "truth and reconciliation" in the title, after all.  But I can't help but wonder how many of those audience members are the same people who also rail against the homeless in our city, many of whom are First Nations and have landed on the streets as a direct result of residential schools and our successful decimation of their culture and their people.  This, of course, is total speculation and could be way off base, but these are the things I think about and wonder if people make the same kinds of connections.

Now, admittedly I left at intermission, so I can only speak to my experience of the first half.  And I've heard the second was a bit better, and of course everything all came together and the point was made.  I think in terms of the content and having this story reach a new demographic, the piece is successful.  If it comes to your town and you're interested, you should go see it.  But overall, as someone who studied, in particular, this dark part of Canadian and Aboriginal history, I was unmoved, unimpressed, and disappointed with the overall execution.

I will say though, that this piece obviously holds much more importance for First Nations people, whose story is being told.  Perhaps that's what's most important.

As part of the same yearly dance subscription I had seen a show brought in from Ballet BC, which had similar themes in one of its pieces.  This dance was not at all as literal, but the audience certainly got the meaning, and the performance was breathtaking.  The dancers' movements were articulate and fluid, the music was varied but paid beautiful homage to First Nations culture (there was a whole section danced to whalesong!), and there was a moment when all dancers lay on the red-lit washed stage, alternately pulsing with the music, which spoke to me of the First People's struggle far more intimately and powerfully than any moment in Going Home Star.  The Ballet BC piece was subtle, powerful, and beautifully performed.  To my mind, it vastly outshined RWB's heavy-handed, almost schmaltzy portrayal.

This leads me to a wider discussion of the value of these types of pieces.  We recently had an exceptional piece of theatre come to my work from Buddies in Bad Times Theatre in Toronto, called The Gay Heritage Project, which looked at gay culture throughout history and asked the question "Is there such a thing as gay heritage?"  The piece is performed by 3 uber-talented young men and is comprised of vignettes based on their experiences as gay men and their studies on the subject of gay history.  When speaking with one of my coworkers about this play, she mentioned that she finds it difficult to comment on a piece like this, considering the content - obviously the subject matter is of importance, and therefore to critique it would be a tricky line to navigate.  I disagree.  I think this line of thinking is a cop-out that a person may use instead of speaking their mind about a piece of art and possibly offending people.  Just because a piece of art talks about an important issue does not automatically make it a high quality piece of art; sometimes a monologue is just self-important, pretentious drivel.  Sometimes a painting is just crap.  Sometimes a play has a weak script and uninspired delivery.  The theme of the piece has nothing to do with its quality of execution, and artists who assume they've done a good job simply because they are talking about a certain subject are obviously more interested in self-service than in creating meaningful art.  Artistic merit has to be based on more than content.
(Going back to The Gay Heritage Project: if this piece comes to your town, see it.  It's an incredible, celebratory, and moving piece of theatre.)

It's always really important to remember that art is subjective (and that's one of the wonderful things about it).  I've always had a problem with people who judge others based on the type of music they like, for example.  Maybe you think Nickleback is crap (or Steely Dan, or Styx - whatever), but making an assumption about someone based on the fact that they enjoy their music says more about you as a person than it does about the Nickleback-lover, you judgemental prick.  What bearing does someone else's musical taste have on you and your life?  Why do you even care?  Does everyone have to agree with your tastes?  Why can't we let people like what they like?!  It's like judging a person based on the type of food they like to eat; I abhor mushrooms and always have, but I don't think any less of someone who loves mushrooms, because that would be fucking stupid.
What I'm saying is this: the fact that I didn't enjoy my experience of Going Home Star does not and should not make the piece any less meaningful for someone else. And anyway, being a supporter of the arts often means taking risks and possibly paying to see a piece you don't like.  But the important thing is that we are going out and supporting the arts and (hopefully) having open, respectful dialogue afterwards.  At the end of the day, art that incites any kind of discussion is worthwhile and valuable.

The picture of heroism

Several images were circulating awhile ago comparing Caitlyn Jenner to various other people, with the intent of cutting her down.  Today's post discusses these images and why I fucking hate them.

The above image compares Caitlyn Jenner to our Canadian hero, Terry Fox.  Every single Canadian grows up knowing who Terry Fox is, but for my American and international friends (of whom I'm suuuuure there are many reading this...), he was a young man who, after being diagnosed with cancer and losing his leg to it at age 18, decided to run across Canada to raise money and awareness for cancer research.  Throughout his journey Terry amassed a huge national following, but was never able to complete his cross-Canada run, having to stop in Thunder Bay only several months after he started, due to his cancer having spread.  Less than a year later, he died in hospital at age 22 - just shy of his 23rd birthday.  Since then, Canadians have participated in the yearly Terry Fox Run and the Terry Fox Foundation has raised over $700 million for cancer research.  (For a much more detailed account of this awesome man's story or how to donate to his cause, go here or here.)

OK now that we've got that (mostly unnecessary) Canadian history lesson out of the way, let's get into it.  Obviously the above image attempts to mock not only Caitlyn Jenner, but those people (in this case, Americans), who recognize her bravery - because "HA HA, people think this "woman" is a brave man!"
This is SO WRONG in SO MANY WAYS and makes my heart sick.
First of all, there is not one single definition of what bravery is.  A person can be brave in myriad ways.  A father can be brave to his daughter because he removes a spider from her room.  A woman can be brave for speaking out about women's issues (or men's issues, who cares!)  A child can be brave for jumping into a lake to save another child from drowning.  A person can be brave for conquering something from climbing K2 to surviving cancer.  Courage is not the lack of fear of something - it is acting despite the fear of something.

I've also seen an image with a firefighter rescuing a small, ash-covered naked child, with the caption: "If Bruce Jenner wants to be a woman, so be it. His body - he can do what he wants to it. But please - stop calling it heroic, courageous & brave because it isn't. This is heroic, courageous & brave........."

These images have aaaaall kinds of connotations and and implications.  I'll start off with the gender aspect.
You'll notice in both these images Caitlyn Jenner is compared to a cisgendered man.  Can only a cisgendered man be heroic?  Was Caitlyn only a hero when she was Bruce Jenner - a masculine, athletic, Olympic medalist - and now that she is a woman she has lost the respect awarded to him?  She is the same person who achieved athletic success as Bruce Jenner - her body is the same body (with some tweaks, to be sure - though none of that is anyone's fucking business but her own) that won gold at the Olympics.  Her mind and spirit are the same mind and spirit that helped her focus on and conquer her athletic goals.  We need to be aware of these inherent gendered assumptions and reshape our ideas that have (whether we're aware of it or not) been influenced by them.

Someone had commented on this image: "That is correct.. the photo of a rescue is heroic,courageous & brave.. Bruce Jenners' is a choice.." (sic)
The idea that it is a person's choice to be born in a body whose sex does not match who they know they truly are is fucking outrageous, small-minded, and (most importantly) scientifically incorrect (as discussed here, and here).  And if courage is not a lack of fear, but acting despite that fear, then a trans person's very scary decision to transition - in the face of a society that doesn't understand or accept this decision (and often mocks and vilifies them for it) - is, by definition, courageous.  You've just been word-ninja'd, fools.

My sister had a beautiful, informed response to the firefighter image and its commentator, which I'm pleased to share as part of this discussion:

"There are so many things wrong with the way that argument is framed. It is not a choice to be trapped in the wrong body your whole life - to feel anger, depression, and anxiety because you're trying so hard to adhere to society's expectations of a macho white male athlete while your soul is screaming at you to do the opposite. It is absolutely heroic to claim and proclaim your true self in a public forum. And if we're measuring heroism by lives saved, consider that millions of LGBTQ people die as a direct result of prejudice - whether it be via suicide due to the worthlessness that one feels when they know that they are not accepted by peers or family members or from direct acts of disgusting bigoted violence. People like Jenner help to educate the general (often ignorant) public and show LGBTQ people that it's ok to be who you are and to be proud of it. There are exceptionally high rates of suicide in the LGBTQ community and if Jenner's actions change the minds of a few people considering ending their lives, that is indeed heroic. A friend of mine went to 8 funerals last year. All LGBTQ people, all suicides. All because at one point or another, the people in their lives who were supposed to love and support them the most (along with society) made them feel unwelcome, unwanted, and unworthy. Yes people who put their lives on the line directly are heroes and are brave, but people who go against the grain to inspire those who need it most in spite of what a large portion of society might think are also."

I could not have said it better.
(I'll also note that my sister's response actually received a "you're right, I had never thought of it that way" from the original commentator, which is an AWESOME outcome of any discussion, and exactly what I aim to do with these types of conversations.)

The most disturbing aspect of this type of attack to me, though, has more to do with the comparison to Terry Fox, and more specifically the comparison of people's suffering.  There is no doubt that people with cancer suffer - we've all seen it and I'm not at all discounting or disrespecting that.  And Terry Fox is absolutely a hero and a Canadian icon who contributes to my pride as a Canadian.  But I've heard people argue that the suffering of people with cancer far outweighs a trans person's suffering, which to me seems a ridiculous assertion; first of all, since we can't actually know the extent of a person's suffering (duh), how can we compare it?  Secondly, can you imagine being born with the expectation of behaving and functioning as someone you know you are not?  Can you imagine struggling to figure yourself out, and once you do, realizing that you are not at all accepted by society, and possibly not even by those closest to you?  Can you imagine constantly wondering who you are, what you are, fighting for visibility because people still believe it's impossible to be born in the wrong body and that (much the way some people still somehow view being gay) it's a "choice"?  Some trans people suffer their entire lives.  So you can not tell me one situation is worse than another.

All this aside, though, WE SHOULD NOT BE COMPARING PEOPLE'S SUFFERING.
Trans issues are a very new thing at the forefront of society, I know.  So I can (to an extent) understand people's ignorance on such issues.  But simply because you don't fully understand or aren't properly educated on one subject does not delegitimize the subject or make you right (in fact, it sorta does the opposite).  You are never going to know what truly goes on inside a person's head, or fully understand a person's experience; the angst a trans person might feel is unimaginable to someone born cisgendered, just as the pain and suffering a person with cancer might feel is unimaginable to someone who has never gone through it.  Most importantly, though, your experience or suffering absolutely does not invalidate someone else's, or give you license to compare or comment on it.
Also, I just fully don't understand the need or impulse to pit one group's suffering against another.  What's the fucking point?  We are all human beings and we all feel suffering, regardless of the cause.  Rather than arguing "oh I've suffered more than you because..." or "my suffering is more valid than yours because..." my hope is that the knowledge that we have all felt the pain of suffering would incite empathy within us, fuel us to try to ease each other's pain instead of compounding it with our own irrelevant judgement.  I feel the same when I hear people arguing over who has had it worse: blacks, Jews, gays, women... when we have these arguments we are missing the point entirely; having these arguments only serves to further divide us, instead of inciting unity and solidarity in the shared experience of humanity.  As much as certain people would like to convince you, it is not "us against them."  It is never "us against them" and never should be.  We are all human beings, and though we certainly experience life differently, we all have the capacity to love, to feel pain... and we are all worthy of the same respect and acceptance.

I also wonder if people are simply sick of Caitlyn Jenner as a celebrity.  It's true - as Bruce Jenner she was part of the incredibly annoying Kardashian-fuelled trend of people being rich and famous just for being rich and famous, so I kind of understand if some people are feeling like they've had enough already.  And from what I can gather, Bruce Jenner was kind of a huge asshole (which I feel can almost be excused, because wouldn't you be pissed off and miserable if you were stuck inside the wrong body all your life?)  But that shit is small peanuts compared to what Caitlyn Jenner stands for now, the strength and courage she has shown in her very public journey, and consequently the strength and courage she has given to trans people everywhere who are only now beginning to gain visibility and acceptance (even within the queer community).  For these reasons, Caitlyn Jenner is absolutely a fucking hero.
Finally, I question who actually creates these images for public viewing.  My guess is it's the same kind of person who generally likes to stir up trouble on the internet because they crave attention and have nothing else better to do: at best, a pre-teen kid whose mind and opinions haven't fully or properly formed, and at worst, some close-minded, back-country evangelical Christian who thinks earthquakes and terrorism happen because "God hates fags."   
We shouldn't be encouraging this immature drivel.
Instead, we need to think critically before posting something like this.  It may just be a simple image, a way to voice a person's (ahemmisguidedahem) opinion.  But whether we realize it or not, these hateful, hurtful, unnecessary images have extremely damaging implications. 

Deconstructing the dick pic

If you are a woman of a certain age, demographic and generation, it's more than likely you've fallen victim to the dreaded unsolicited dick pic.  (If you haven't, consider yourself lucky, ladies).  I recently saw a brilliant story about how a woman responded to an unsolicited dick pic - you can find the link to the story here:

In her hilarious response, the gal essentially asks the guy what he gets out of sending chicks a picture of his parts, which made me wonder the same about anyone who does this.  Seriously guys, what is the end game, here?  In this case, the two people don't even live in the same state, so there is zero chance of them hooking up.  And anyway, do dudes really think a woman is going to take a look at a blurry closeup of their privates and think "mmmm yeeeeah, gotta get me sum a dat."  In many other cases, the two people involved may actually know each other and have possibly gone out, so perhaps there is a chance of a hookup... but even then, a random dick pic to a girl's phone is not going to clinch the deal, my dudes, unless it has been part of a sexy conversation leading up to it, maybe.

So why, I ask, WHYYYY with the dick pics?!

When I asked my similarly critically-thinking sister what she thought, she brought up something that we've discussed in the past, especially relating to (heterosexual) online dating and the difference between a woman's dating profile and that of a man: biologically, women are wired to be more focused on and attracted to a man's face, whereas men are more discerning about a woman's body when choosing a partner.  This has everything to do with our inherent desire to carry on the best genes possible to the next generation, thereby ensuring strong, healthy offspring.  In general, a woman looks for symmetry in a man's face, for example, to make sure her offspring are similarly symmetrically and healthily formed, while men subconsciously want to choose a female mate who will be capable of carrying his child, and therefore focus more on the woman's body.  Keep in mind, this is an outrageously reductive explanation of what is obviously a much more complicated scientific process than how I'm explaining it.  For a better idea of what I mean, click here, here, here and here!

In any case, this difference is why women's dating profiles usually contain pictures mostly of their faces, and men's contain mostly pictures of their bodies - they each think they're showing off the most desirable parts of themselves, because they don't realize that each gender is looking for something different (although essentially for the same reasons). 
SO my sister's contribution ties into our delicious dick pic discussion thusly: a man sending a woman a picture of his bits is his way of showing off his body (and specifically, a part of the body obviously essential to reproduction) and what he can contribute genetically.

I think this is definitely part of it, but I also believe there is something more socially insidious going on.

I have this theory that everyone is insecure, to a degree.  Of course there are those few people who are totally self-actualized and at peace with who they are, but I think examples of these folks are few and far-between.  We all have our shit.  And we all have ways of trying to defend ourselves against this shit, or make it seem like our shit doesn't exist.  Self-effacement, or on the other side, self-aggrandizement, blatant attention-seeking, making fun of yourself before other people do, dressing up as a 9 when you think you're a 3 - whatever the manifestation, big or small, subtle or obvious, we all have ways of trying to hide our insecurities or live up to certain expectations, real or imagined.
One of the basic paradigms of gender studies is that masculinity is constantly in crisis; society has very strict expectations when it comes to "manliness" and all it entails, which contributes greatly to a lot of men's insecurity.  And society has dictated that a man's virility and manliness is directly connected to his penis.  We've all heard jokes about men who feel the need to drive massive trucks or tricked out cars - overcompensation, anyone?  Whether or not these jokes have a grain of truth, they play on the fact that a man's identity as a strong, worthy male is very closely tied to his penis.  So to my mind, a man sending a woman a picture of his bits is a man perhaps overcompensating for his insecurity (or denying said insecurity) in so doing.
...Or maybe he really is just a cocky asshole.  (Pun intended.  Pun always intended.)

My final analysis has to do with something every woman has experienced in some way or another. (Perhaps that way was via unsolicited dick pick - hooray!)  There has been a lot of discussion lately about catcalling, mansplaining and manspreading.  A central aspect of all of these things is men aggressively imposing themselves on women, which has everything to do with (among other things) the fact that being out in public has historically been a man's domain (whereas up until recently, of course, women's domain was in the house).
This kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME.  A woman will be sitting by herself under a tree, reading a book, and some man feels it's his right to walk up and interrupt her.  Would he do this if it was another man sitting under a tree reading, obviously engaged in his own space, oblivious and disinterested in the world around him?  Probably not - not only because a heterosexual man has less interest in engaging with another man than with a woman - but because men hold an inherent respect for other men, while, as much as people like to believe otherwise, they do not hold the same respect or sense of personal agency for women (this is why, when a man approaches a woman at a bar, he is more easily rejected when the woman claims to have a boyfriend than if the woman simply says she is not interested - if the woman has a boyfriend, she already belongs to someone else... but if she is simply not interested, it's more likely a man will push for more engagement with the woman.)  I can attest to aaaall of this.  I have the most intimidating case of Bitchy Resting Face an adorable woman of my size can have, and yet I still get approached by men who either don't understand or don't care that I want to be left alone, dammit.  Men, ask your female friends or relatives, and you will hear similar stories - I promise you.

WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS FEMINIST RANT I hear you asking.  The point is, unsolicited dick pics are another way men impose themselves on women.  After all, what are women if not captive audiences for an insecure man's stupid, self-serving bullshit?!

Now that I have you men all worked up (#notallmen, yo!), I should pop a note in here saying that I am certainly not accusing all men of this kind of behaviour.  When I use the term "men," I know it implies "all men," but really it's just easier than me having to specify "some men" every time.  I recognize that not every man does these ridiculous things.
On the other hand, I don't believe that the men who do these things (send dick pics, for example), are bad guys.  I really don't.  I think men who do these things are unwittingly buying into the gendered assumptions that men need to be macho, and machismo is linked to a man's penis, and therefore he has to show off his penis.  I think these situations are much more complex than writing men off as simply being bad guys, and I hold men to a much higher standard than that (in fact, holding men to a higher standard is a major part of true third-wave feminism), which is why I like to call them out for shit like this.  You're better than this, my dudes.  I think we all (men, women and otherwise) need to start recognizing the gendered expectations we are ALL playing into and the damage it continues to do to our relationships and society as a whole.  We need to turn that shit on its head, and I truly believe having discussions and dissections like this is a step toward doing that.

Men, your power, your identity, your worth as a man is not in your penis or your ability to wag it around in someone's face whenever you feel like it.  These things are in your heart, your mind, your soul. They're in being a good parent to your child, or a good son to your parents.  In the love and support you show to your friends and family.  In your strength in overcoming life's obstacles.  In your ability to call out a friend for their bullshit, or to own up to your own mistakes.  In the pride you take in whatever you do to contribute positively to society.
You'll notice that in all these examples, you can replace the male subject with a female. That's because we're the fucking same.  The difference is, you don't see women sending random strangers pictures of their vulvae.