Carbon Tax Rant

Commentary, Politics, Rants, Society
carbtax

My Facebook feed strikes again

I’m actually sharing this post not because I agree but because it’s kind of a terrible idea, and I’d like to explain why I think so.
It misrepresents what the carbon tax is.
 
The carbon tax isn’t revenue in the same way that something like income tax is. The money collected from the carbon tax MUST go towards paying for initiatives to combat climate change and reduce Alberta’s dependence on oil and gas. This money doesn’t go into their larger government pool to spend on whatever government things they want.
Maybe you think the NDP should be funding energy innovation from their regular revenue, or maybe you think they shouldn’t be funding such innovation at all. I think that since continued government funding on innovation in oil and gas is what allowed this crazy profitable industry to get started in AB in the first place, maybe it’s that industry’s turn to fund the next innovation.
I think we should keep the tax. It’s only fair that industries that have profited so immensely for so long while contributing to climate change also now contribute to repairing the damage and building a more sustainable future. To be fair to these industries, it seems like a good number of oil and gas companies are willing to step up to the plate in this regard. It’s just Conservative politicians and media who are having a hard time with it, and spreading shit like this around so that you’ll vote for them instead of the NDP in the next election.
 
It misrepresents what federal equalization payments are.
Transfer payments don’t work like this, and people need to stop sharing stuff that propagates this misconception. It’s dishonest at best. This makes it sound like the Government of Canada takes money from the Government of Alberta and gives it to the Government of Quebec. What actually happens is this: the Government of Canada collects income and business taxes from ALL Canadians, and some of those taxes get distributed to poorer provinces so that they can maintain a minimum standard of public services.
Stopping transfer payments doesn’t give more money to the government of Alberta, it just leaves the Federal government with more money, and all the provinces with less. Maaaaybe if the Feds also lowered income and business taxes at the same time (good luck with that), it would result in some individual Albertans having a tiny bit more money in their pockets at the end of the year, but the people who would benefit the most from such a move are the people who need it the least (i.e. super wealthy people who pay higher percentages and larger sums of tax). So you would be giving money back to mostly wealthy people across the country and taking services away from mostly poor and middle income people in have-not provinces. And the government of Alberta would still have to find the money to support their economic and climate goals from somewhere, so in this plan nobody’s goals get accomplished and almost everyone is worse off. Well done. *slow clap*
I disagree with stopping transfer payments because I have this crazy notion that as long as we’re united as a country, we should continue to have a minimum standard of healthcare, education, and social security across ALL provinces, not just the ones with lots of oil.
Also, can we just stop shitting on Quebec all the time? It’s not a good look, Alberta. 1. They’re not the only ones who accept equalization payments. 2. Asking for some of the tax revenue to offset the risk of having a pipeline run through your province is not unreasonable and doesn’t make them the bad guy here.
They’re raising a straw man to distract you, which helps no one.
 
To all my conservative-voting friends and family – they’re just building up a straw man for you to take down. Most of the stuff they say to demonize the NDP is distorted, exaggerated, or outright false. The NDP surely aren’t perfect, but they’re no worse than the PCs were, and some of their initiatives stand a really good chance of actually working and making life better for Albertans. They’re willing to take risks and try new things in a way the PCs haven’t been for a long time, and that’s very much what we need right now. Give them a chance.
While some individual PC and Wildrose politicians are good representatives who are on your side, each of those parties as a whole is most definitely not. They don’t care about whether or not you have a job in the industry, they only care about winning the government and propping up their corporate friends. Don’t buy into it and share their bullshit oil vs. NDP propaganda. Do your research, understand the issues, and demand that they do better by you as voters. Challenge them to stop the fear and hate mongering and instead build a conservative party that is actually conservative and actually cares about your bottom line. Engage in meaningful debate, consultation, and advocacy with the current NDP government to have your voice heard. Ignore the strawnotley.

Delusions of Christmas Wars

Commentary, Random, Society

The WAR ON CHRISTMAS has begun again. And frankly, I’m tired of it. The only time I’ve ever heard of anyone “attacking” Christmas is when right-wing pundits and social media shares wax paranoid about the possibility of some horrific Orwellian dystopian future in which everyone is banned from mentioning or even thinking about Christmas.

Public Service Announcement: the use of the word “holiday” instead of “Christmas” is not an attack on Christmas, or your right to celebrate it openly. I’m going to explore this from the angle of this Facebook post a friend shared:

What happens if the palm tree is covered in twinkling lights and ornaments?

What happens if the palm tree is covered in twinkling lights and ornaments? What about if I’m on holidays somewhere that has pine trees? Isn’t a palm tree actually more Christian than a decorated pine tree? I’m more confused now than when I started…

Decorated trees are actually quite secular. They originate in pagan mythologies, have nothing to do with Christ or Christianity (pretty sure they never mentioned decorating a tree in the New Testament), are enjoyed by people of many faiths, and therefor technically aren’t really “Christmas” trees. We just often call them Christmas trees because we do the tree thing at the same time as the Christmas thing. But many other faiths do the tree thing in conjunction with their mid-winter holidays as well. Most faiths have some kind of holiday around this time, because you’re celebrating being “half-way out of the dark”, as they so rightly said on Doctor Who. And who doesn’t love bringing a bit more light and beauty into their lives during a time of year when the outside world is dark and barren? I’ve known people of all sorts of backgrounds, from Jewish to Hindu to Atheist, from naturally born citizen to immigrant, who put up trees at this time of year. It’s a way of feeling connected to the broader community you live in despite other differences, which is a wonderful thing.

If you’re a Christian celebrating a Christian-y Christmas that also includes a tree, calling it a Christmas tree for convenience makes a lot of sense, even if it is a secular tradition. You put up a tree when you celebrate Christmas. It’s a Christmas tree. Fair enough. But if you’re non-Christian and doing the tree thing (which is totally allowed because decorated trees are not a Christian tradition) then having another name for it can be useful. If you don’t feel connected to the idea of Christ or Christianity, but you DO feel connected to the tradition of decorating a tree and celebrating with your loved ones, being forced to invoke the idea of Christ in this non-Christian tradition can feel a bit… off.

Part of it is that it’s annoying to be told you’re celebrating a holiday you’re not actually celebrating. People are like “THIS IS A CHRISTMAS TREE!” and you’re like “but… it’s not? There’s nothing Christian about this tree or about my own traditions at this time of year. I don’t have Jesus or angels or anything on it, I don’t go to Church, I don’t spend any time at all thinking about the life, times, and death of Jesus. Why does MY tree have to be a Christmas tree just because YOU are celebrating Christmas right now?”

Another part is that I feel like it’s really disrespectful of me to be invoking the idea of Christ when I don’t actually believe in it*. The idea of Christ is of monumental importance to many people, and when I throw it around willy-nilly in spite of having no personal connection to it, what does that communicate to people who take the idea of Christ really seriously? Who have a major emotional, social, and spiritual connection to the idea?

Luckily, language is flexible and context is important. Unless you’re in some kind of scientific field conducting experiments, things don’t have single, set, precise names assigned to them. You can call yours a Christmas tree and others can call theirs a holiday tree without all communication breaking down and society falling to pieces. And it makes a lot of sense for secular people and groups, such as atheists, governments, corporations, whatever, to use more general and all-encompassing terms. It’s not actually offensive to say “holiday” instead of “Christmas”. The world doesn’t revolve around you, and just because you’re celebrating Christmas doesn’t mean everyone else has to as well.

*Having said all this, I still often refer to them as Christmas trees out of habit – it’s how I was raised. It makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but we’re all imperfect works in progress and I’m trying really hard to improve myself in this area.These things take time and practice, you know.

Gender Parity in the Cabinet

Commentary, Politics, Rants

Stephen Harper had an extremely unstable cabinet, shuffling ministers around regularly and often making appointments that were questionable at best. Remember the environment minister who was a climate change denier in his spare time?

This isn’t unique to Mr. Harper. Patronage has been the method by which most of the top positions have been chosen in Canadian politics for most of our history. For some people, this has been a consistent concern, particularly when Prime Ministers make terrible choices like the example I gave above. But the vast majority of Canadians don’t really care. I’ve often seen them claim with an indifferent shrug of their shoulders that those ministers must have been chosen for a reason. There’s a general feeling of trust that a mostly male, arbitrarily appointed Federal Cabinet is probably somehow qualified to do the job. When they prove themselves to be unqualified by doing a bad job, they’re judged individually on the merit of their work, not collectively on the reasons they got the position the first place, and the country gets on with its day.

Introduce gender parity as Justin Trudeau just did, and suddenly people come out of the woodwork and decide they give a MASSIVE shit about merit-based minister selection.

Prime Ministers overlook qualified female candidates in favour of their friends all the time and few even notice, but introduce even the slightest chance that an even slightly better male candidate may have been overlooked in order to make the cabinet look more like the actual Canadian population, and suddenly it’s a problem. No one even stops to consider that maybe we have gender parity not because Trudeau is throwing out qualified male candidates, but because he’s actually bothering to consider female candidates in the first place, something that previous PMs rarely seemed to do.

Few people have bothered looking at how qualified the new ministers are: they see a news headline about gender parity and jump to the conclusion that most of them must be unqualified because they must have been chosen on the basis of their genitals alone. It’s assumed that men got their position because they’re qualified, and that women or minorities got it to fill a quota. The widespread assumption that men are automatically more qualified results in more qualified women being turned down in favour of less qualified men all the time. It’s a problem that Justin Trudeau set out to overcome, and he seems to have succeeded.

Everyone is suddenly clamouring for merit-based appointment over representativeness-based appointment, but hiring is more than a simple, objective checklist that can be equally applied to anyone and everyone to come to a 100% guaranteed best conclusion. I’ve done this kind of appointment work before, where you’re given way too many qualified candidates for a limited number of positions, and have to find a way to organize them into those positions. In these processes, things like representativeness and interpersonal ability/circumstances become really important. You’re putting together a team that has to work cooperatively to effectively represent and serve a diverse social landscape.

When you go into this kind of process, you create an image in your mind of how you want the group to look as a whole once it’s formed, and then balance that against how you want each individual position to look. Sometimes you get lucky with the perfect group and the perfect candidate for each position, sometimes you have to make small sacrifices to one in order to improve the other, and that’s okay. Attempting to apply complete objectivity to people’s so-called “merits” to pick the exactly most “qualified” person for each position would overlook an important fact of humanity: humans are not work experience robots, and you can’t slot them into positions in the same way you would choose which smart phone to buy or which accounting software to install for your business. They’re complicated, and their ideas, work ethic, interpersonability, and yes, even their representativeness, all matter. Those things are all part of their “merits”. If you’re looking at specific work experiences alone, you run the risk of creating a dysfunctional and incapable team.

People complain about representativeness being chosen over qualifications, but when it comes to a representative body like a federal cabinet, representativeness is a qualification. This should go without saying, but a cabinet that’s more representative of the population will do a better job of representing the population. Ministers do more than just lead their individual ministry, they also do a lot of team work to create policy, and an unrepresentative cabinet cannot hope to make representative policy.

It’s also worth mentioning that in a government where policy is determined by a team and ministers have access to massive support and staff structures, underqualification does not have to be the end of the world. Most of Harper’s cabinet ministers were woefully unqualified for their specific positions, but Canada kept chugging along.

Look, I’m no fan of Trudeau. I have many misgivings about him and the Liberal party, and I don’t trust them any more than all of you nay-sayers. However, forced gender parity in the cabinet is not the massive problem all these people seem to think it is. If anything, it’s a step up from the “appoint your old, white friends and a token minority or two” system used by previous PMs, because at least this one is relatively representative of the population. So stop your complaining. If you’re bothered about a specific minister’s lack of specific experiences, then be critical in that way, but don’t jump to the conclusion that the ministers must be unqualified just because Trudeau had the audacity to actually seriously consider some female candidates for once. Try to treat our gender-equal cabinet the same way you treated the mostly-male one: judge them individually on their level of experience and the quality of their work, rather than assuming they just got the job because they happen to have a certain set of genitalia. If you were fine with previous ministers getting their position because they were white men who were chummy with the PM (and all evidence suggests that this could be the only reason many of them got it) then you have no right to complain about the possibility that this time around, maybe some were more strongly considered for a ministry because they were women.

Title Twists Story To Uphold Patriarchy, and It Makes No Sense

Uncategorized

Today I am addressing an article titled: Woman Thanks Man For Slut Shaming Her And It Makes Total Sense.



First of all, the woman was not thanking the man for slut-shaming her. He noticed other men in the area behaving in a predatory way, noticed she was completely unaware, and chose to go out of his way to warn her about the potential danger she was in. Good move, bro. You a good guy. That’s what he was being thanked for. The other thing he did, however, was blame their behavior on her yoga pants.




She chose to ignore the slut-shaming aspect, thank him for the warning, and leave the area – a perfectly reasonable and sensible reaction by all accounts. What is not reasonable or sensible is the way this article tells the story. The man did two distinct deeds that day, one of them good and one of them sexist. The article twists the narrative to make it look like the two deeds were one and the same, encouraging readers to think that it’s sometimes a good thing to be sexist. It’s not.



This is why we need to strive for more nuance in journalism. You can be a good person (as this guy probably is) and still be sexist. The two are not mutually exclusive, and we need to stop treating them like they are if we ever want to deal with systemic sexism.



The world isn’t split into good people and death eaters.





Of course, you won’t get nuance from Chicks on the Right because they don’t want to be part of the solution to systemic sexism. They want to deny it’s existence altogether, presumably because the people who run this publication directly benefit from sexism and would lose support and power if sexism were successfully dismantled. This article wasn’t singing praises to the man’s good deed, it was using the story to push a narrative that reinforces one of the most damaging aspects of patriarchy. Here’s what the article was really communicating:


Don’t be in public spaces. They don’t belong to you. If you have to be in a public space, make yourself as invisible as possible, or else. You know what? Maybe just stop existing. That’s probably the most sensible way to deal with this problem. And if something does happen to you, it’s definitely all your fault.


What’s so damaging about this is how pervasive it is – it seeps into every single aspect of every single woman’s life, and no woman is free, equal, or even safe while it continues to dominate discourses about public safety and personal responsibility. I really hate having to be paranoid and afraid all the time, just because I was born with female anatomy. Why do I have to look out for my own behavior and for every man on the street? Why can’t men take some responsibility for themselves? Why is it always, always, my job? There’s a certain irony in claiming that you can’t change others’ behavior, only your own, in relation to a story that aims to reinforce the idea that women are responsible for the way men behave.


The guy deserved thanks for looking out for her safety (if someone warned me about predatory behavior I hadn’t noticed, I’d be thankful), and I can understand just thanking him and continuing with your day without addressing the sexism (it doesn’t seem like a worthy hill to die on, and he was trying to help). However, there’s no need to assume that she was at fault for being unsafe and it’s a bit saddening that she’s internalized that narrative and the guilt that comes with it.


Criminals cause crimes, not victims. Her clothing had nothing to do with their pervy behavior. I’ve been sexually harassed and catcalled in all manner of attire, from tight dresses, to t-shirt and jeans, to full winter gear in all its bulky and form-hiding glory, to fucking pyjamas.


I’ve been catcalled while dressed like this. Really. For real.


If men such as the pervs in this story think there’s a vagina hiding under the clothes, they will harass or catcall. It was nothing to do with her yoga pants. She would have received the same attention if she had been wearing sweat pants and a hoodie. By suggesting her yoga pants were the reason for the men’s behavior, this article perpetrates dangerous misinformation about what sexual violence is, and why it happens. It’s got nothing to do with sexual desire, and everything to do with power and control. Her yoga pants were not the problem.



I understand that this is the world we live in, but I refuse to accept it. Because if we accept it and bow to it, then it’s never going to change. We CAN change others’ behavior, by making it known that their bad behavior is unacceptable and expecting better of them. Jumping down that guy’s throat would not have made things better, and I won’t criticize how she reacted. I probably would have done the same. However, writing off the pervy behavior as logical and expected, and internalizing guilt about being dressed the wrong way (or, you know, existing), is actively reinforcing an unacceptable status quo. We are capable of greater things, and I’d personally like to be part of the movement to achieve them.

How to vote strategically (actually)

Elections, Politics

Strategic voting refers to voting for the candidate most likely to beat the one you don’t like in order to make your vote count for more. There are all sorts of websites set up to try to make this kind of voting as easy as possible for you. However, a really good voting strategy involves a little more complexity than just choosing the most popular lesser evil.


The first thing you want to do is figure out the popularity of each candidate in your riding. Even though your vote no longer contributes to parties’ election funding, showing your support to the party you like by giving them your vote can still help increase their legitimacy, and that’s worth quite a lot – your vote always counts, even if your candidate won’t win because of it. The more of the popular vote they manage to secure, the more seriously other parties have to take them – this is particularly important for historically smaller parties like the Green Party, which frequently gets left out of debates and interviews. If you know that the candidate you dislike is unlikely to win anyway, then go ahead and vote for the party or candidate you like the best! Sometimes “strategic voting” isn’t necessary.

 

If you find that strategic voting may be necessary in your riding, then you can consider voting for the most popular lesser evil, but donating to or buying a membership for the party or candidate you actually like. More registered members means more legitimacy, and more campaign money means better advertising and lobbying efforts so that their policy ideas can reach more minds and have more influence over the more popular parties’ actions.

 

You can also write to the candidates and their party leaders, and pressure them to consider the platform points you support from the party you wish you could vote for. Even if a candidate is not going to win, their ideas, if popular enough, can still influence the behavior of other candidates and their parties, during the election and after. This kind of citizen lobbying can do a lot more than you realize, especially if a lot of people engage in it! It’s also free – all you need is an e-mail address.

 

Candidate Popularity

 

There are a few ways to figure out candidate popularity, and I recommend using them all for the most accurate results.

 

1. Look at polls – multiple ones, since a single poll is rarely accurate on its own.

 

2. Take a walk around your riding and see which way it’s leaning based on lawn signs. Anyone with non-PC signs, or signs supporting CBC, public libraries, or other publicly funded operations, probably won’t vote PC (for example). If there is almost no signage supporting the party you dislike (or its policies), then they’re highly unlikely to win that riding and you can feel pretty safe voting for whoever you want.

 

3. Consider your riding’s demographics. Is it mostly old white people? Mostly students? Young families? Immigrants? Old and/or well-off white people and fundamentalist Christian families tend to vote for the most “conservative” candidate available (sorry for overgeneralizing, old white people and Christians). My riding growing up was mostly young families and students, and that riding has been pretty strongly held by the NDP for a pretty long time. My current riding is mostly professionals, immigrant families, and low income/single parent families, so it’s unsurprising that the Liberal party has held it for some time, and since the Liberals have been slowly falling out of favour with their historic voting base at other electoral levels, I wasn’t much surprised when they were ousted and replaced by a NDP candidate in the recent Provincial election. Demographics can tell you a lot about how your riding will vote.
*Remember that new seats have been added and federal riding boundaries have changed this year, which could change your riding’s historic demographics, and therefore it’s historic voting habits.

 

4. Check out the parties or platforms of other successful politicians in your riding. In Edmonton, we had provincial and municipal elections fairly recently, so their results can serve as a good test for how your riding votes – who is your MP, City Councillor, and School Board Trustee? The kinds of platforms they ran on will tell you how your riding likes to vote. Sometimes you can even see how many votes each candidate received, so you can tell how close (or not) their particular race was, although the 2015 Electoral report for the Provincial election hasn’t been released yet so you’ll just have to settle for knowing who the winner was.

 

Register

 

An awkward interview with Good Day Sacramento

Books, Random, Rants, Society, Uncategorized
The newest John Green movie adaptation is out, and the cast and author are just finishing up the promotional press circuit.
Today, Green wrote a passionate article about the commodification of persons in the promotional cycle of the film industry, and what it’s like to be on the side of the interviewed, and it was in response to an interview with Cara Delevingne on a morning talk show in which they asked her if she had read the book. Curious, I looked up the interview, and I disagree with Green’s assessment that things went downhill after that fateful question. I’m pretty sure things started at the farthest bottom of the hill and sat there until Delevingne gave up trying to drag it up to a more acceptable standard of interviewing, at which point the whole interview fell apart as a result of losing her complicity and effort to hold it together.
They were incredibly rude and patronizing to her, from the very first second. As a way of venting my discomfort at having witnessed this situation in which a fellow human being was treated with unearned disrespect and unnecessary spite, here’s my summary/interpretation of the interview:
Interviewer 1: “We have here: Carla. I know I just called you not your name but I’m going to gloss over it because your feelings and identity don’t matter to me. Hey there Cara, how are you? No don’t answer, I don’t actually care or want to hear about it. The book is taught in a lot of high schools, and you’re pretty much a child so you might have read it for that reason, but you’re just /sarcasm oh so busy being a famous little princess lololol /end sarcasm, no really though did you get a chance to read the book the movie you starred in was based on?”
(Cara diffuses situation with witty joke)
Interviewer 2: “lololol your joke was not appreciated because you know my cohost was just trying to point out that you’re taking part in what we consider to be a freakishly high frequency of projects. Isn’t it hard to keep your little air head focused? Do you work continuously because your life is otherwise empty and unmotivating? What’s your Meyers Briggs type? What do you think?”
(Cara registers confusion at the random, context-lacking line of questioning, attempts to explain what it’s like to have a real job, gives up and attempts to explain what it’s like to actually like your job, gives up and trails off)
Interviewer 2: “So it’s not hard? Alright, if you say so.”
Interviewer 1: “Are you even capable of identifying with this character you portrayed across a feature length film?”
(Cara makes another sarcastic joke, in an almost defeated, knee-jerk manner at this point, as if thinking – for the love of sanity, are we really only a minute into the interview? How much more of this do I have to take?- and then answers the question they should have asked about her relationship with the character, giving an interesting insight into the dynamic between actor and character and its effect on the end product)
Interviewer 2: “HURhur oh RLY?”
Interviewer 3: “Hey I love this movie because the characters talk like people instead of like teenagers (who are not people, as everyone knows). LOL I was such an idiot in high school so I know everyone else was, it’s like these characters aren’t even REAL, it’s like the writers don’t even know how to write a teenage character and the actors don’t even know how to play a teenage character, because these teenage characters are so similar to actual people. LOVE IT. Now, keeping in mind that I just gave your movie and its target demographic a really back-handed complement, can you tell us why you aren’t excited to be talking to us? You were excited talking to other people. Is the wittle baby tired? Are you PMSing or something? What’s your problem?”
(Throughout all of this, Cara appears to become offended at the backhanded complement, realizes that being offended isn’t worth her time or energy, stops being offended and tries to take the next question seriously, becomes reoffended when they finish asking the question, pulls herself together, spits out a stock answer to keep things moving, and attempts to take the high road and be empathetic to the interviewers, explaining that maybe she just seems lower energy because it’s the morning)
Interviewer 1: “Yeah. You seem irritated. Perhaps it’s just us. Look, we’re giving you a clear opening to stroke our egos here. We’re handing you this one for free. Don’t mess it up.”
(Cara can’t take their BS anymore, calls them out)
Interviewer 1: “Well, if you don’t want to talk to us, we don’t want want to talk to you. How ’bout that? I guess it’s just past the small child’s nap time.”
(Cara attempts to respond and they cut her mic, but continue to film her as she looks on with a look of cold, calculated hatred in her eyes – after a few seconds the video feed cuts from her end)
Interviewers: “WOAH WHAT A MOODY LADY TEENAGER GEEZ. I know it’s hard soul sucking work going to all these interviews but STILL. You made money for doing a job, so you OWE US all the ego stroking we want! We are entitled to that ego stroking! We are entitled to your time and energy! We are entitled to whatever we want from you, regardless of whether or not you had any way of knowing we wanted it, regardless of whether or not we deserve it. This isn’t a business transaction based in tradition, mutual benefit, and mutual understanding/respect, it’s where you’re supposed to show us the attention we’re owed! Bitch can’t even take a joke. We were treated SO BADLY but I guess we just have to shake it off, like the poor TV talk show host martyrs that we are. So moving on to our next story about cholesterol…”
Of course, I hardly quoted them directly at all, but instead replaced direct quotes with my interpretations of what they meant by what they were saying. Whether those meanings were intentional or not, doesn’t matter. That’s how it all came across, Delevingne handled it incredibly graciously.
This opens up a lot of thoughts I’ve been thinking lately about the way we handle celebrity interviews and how it represents the failure of traditional mass media to understand the context in which it exists, but this is already pretty long so I think I’ll just leave it as a rant and save those thoughts for their own post, should I ever get around to writing it.

I just need to swear profusely for a bit

Rants, Society

Don’t mind me.

So, I read this really difficult (really real) article about why cries of “not all men!” are so damaging, and some asshole in the comments basically acted out what the author was calling out like a friggin’ idiot. I wanted to reply but couldn’t since commenting was closed, and I wouldn’t have commented to the fullest extent of what I wanted anyway since it seems like most people in the comments were being much more respectful than I wanted to be, and I didn’t want to ruin the vibe. Anyway, here’s what I’d like to say to that guy. If you don’t like frustrated rants or profane language don’t read it.


 

The author’s not just talking about calling out harassment when you see it. She’s telling you to STOP with your “not all men” bullshit, which you somehow missed in spite of it being in the FUCKING title. Every time you divert the conversation with “I can’t do anything” or “but that’s not me” you’re diverting attention from an important issue and drowning out the people trying to talk about it. THAT’s what she means – that certain men are constantly ignoring what’s being said about those who harass or remain idle in favour of taking personal offence. Guess what? Every time you do that and try to make it about you instead of listening to someone else’s problems for once, you become part of the fucking problem. You complain that she’s presuming you’re a problem when you think you’re not, but in complaining you became the person this article was written about and for. Ironic, isn’t it. Think this article’s claims don’t apply to you? Then maybe they don’t and you should PIPE THE FUCK DOWN and let someone else talk for a bit. Not everything has to be about you all the goddamn time. The fact that you automatically took offence and got all defensive like this article was attacking you personally just shows how fucking privileged and self-centred you are. I know that for your whole life you’ve been led to believe that the world revolves around you and your thoughts, desires, and problems, but I have news for you. It fucking doesn’t.

I’m not just calling out your flagrant privilege in a cheap attempt to silence any disagreement. I know your defensiveness is a sign of your privilege and lack of perspective because I’ve been there. A Facebook acquaintance who I admire and respect posted “I hate white people” and my first response was, “hey! I’m not that bad! I try to be a good ally! Why are you complaining about me?” and I was about to comment but I stopped. You know why? Because I chilled the fuck out for one fucking second and realized that if she was saying something that bad, she probably had a good reason, and I know I’m not a bad person and that she wasn’t attacking me personally, so there’s no need to take it personally, and I’m capable of realizing that as much as I try to be a good ally and would like to think I’m not part of the problem, I still might be part of the problem in ways I can’t even comprehend without some serious listening and introspection. Want to know what I did instead of commenting? I PIPED THE FUCK DOWN AND LET HER FUCKING TALK FOR A WHILE.

No, I’m not going to try to come up with some stupid answer to your stupid-ass “what do the construction workers have to lose?” question. Want to know why? Because men in business suits TOTALLY cat-call and harass. That’s a HUGE part of the problem with the idea that women can avoid harassment by avoiding certain types of men or certain areas: besides the fact that it puts all the responsibility on the victim, which is stupid and shitty, it’s actually just terrible advice. Not all men do it, but any man could – there’s no way to tell by appearances who’ll be a danger and who won’t. Construction worker harassment is just a stereotype – some men who work in construction do it, but not always, and not just them. It could be any man. Personally, I couldn’t pinpoint a “type” of man who is more likely to randomly harass me, because they’ve all been so different from each other in any physically apparent variable you can think of. There’s no pattern, except that they’re basically always male. Stop trying to derail an important conversation by asking me to answer your shitty, classist, meaningless questions. We’re trying to have an important conversation over here, and you’re interrupting. You get to talk all the goddamn time so for once could you please just PIPE DOWN AND PUT YOUR FUCKING DICK BACK IN YOUR FUCKING PANTS.