When the Germanwings flight 9525 smashed into the French Alps on Tuesday, the routine investigative journalism followed suit with suggestions of poor weather and terrorism. The revelations yesterday that the plane was deliberately crashed by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, resulted in a deluge of articles about depression, many of which were problematic.
On the way to work this morning I heard an aviation safety expert talking about the fact that there are very few checks on the mental health of flight staff. This is generally attributed to the difficulty in assessing mental health, though other factors like cost and effectiveness are certainly important. The state of Lubitz at the time, as well as his history with depression, have become the centre of attention.
While it is a sensational story (and a tragedy), mental health carries many stigmas today. Both on social media and in articles from reputable journalists there has been an emphasis on shaming Lubitz for his depression. Before I go any further, I will say that handling depression by flying an airpline full of passengers into the side of a mountain is not an appropriate option. What I want to talk about here is not the violent final act, but the context in which it took place - in shame and secrecy.
To me it is unfortunate that we support Bell's Let's Talk campaign about mental health but then fall into the trappings of shaming people with mental health problems. Depression is real. Just because it cannot be easily observed, diagnosed, treated, or quantified doesn't mean it is not to be taken seriously (or outright rejected).
Attitudes that depression is a sign of weakness promote the further desire to keep it secret. If people can't get help, or will lose their jobs because of it, then the culture of secrecy continues. In the case of Lubitz, a voluntary disclosure system which would allow him leave from work would have prevented him from flying the plane without him losing his career. These are the types of changes that we need to contemplate, and we have to move beyond characterising Lubitz by his depression.
The reality is that depression is the most common form of mental illness. In some form or another, virtually everyone is affected by depression. Accurate statistics are hard to come by, but we all experience significant changes in mood and character. According to the CMHA, 8 per cent of Canadians experience serious depression and suicide is one of the leading causes of death for people from adolescence to middle age.
Plenty of people with depression live very productive lives. They can be our greatest artists, our leaders of commerce, and our loved ones. It comes down to getting support in the time of need - help without reprisal. So let's get real about mental health and stop stigmatising people who already feel like they don't have many options.
Is This Progress? This Is Progress.
Friday, 27 March 2015
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
A New Cult of the Personality?
We're all familiar with the philosophical question about a tree falling in the forest. But what about a modern permutation? If you have a deep thought, a frustration, or an accomplishment - is it real if you don't share it on social media?
Upon first reading, that may seem ridiculous, but let that set in. This something I've been thinking about recently given all the noise made about the banning of selfie sticks in tourist destinations around the world. While people argue about safety issues, isolation in public spaces, and boorish ettiquette, I can't help but think about the fact that the selfie stick is a tool in advancing the ongoing construction of our self-image. While some sharing is more personal (sending a text message for example), much of the sharing of pictures is done through social media.
I write this post fully cognizant of the fact that I participate in this culture. It's another modern mutation, this time of the cult of personality. In the traditional sense, this referred to the deification of leaders (commonly Stalin or Mao), aggrandising their accomplishments and character. Typically this was done in print, with newspapers and pamphlets leading the charge. Think of the rather laughable exploits of Kim Jong Il, available here.
In our modern world, we use the internet to share our exploits. And sometimes to exaggerate them. Or outright lie about them. I think a reasonable question to ask ourselves is, are we often doing things just to share them on social media? Is the attention that we get from these accomplishments a large part of our motivation? There has been rising interest in climbing Mount Everest, and I'd posit that a large part of this is the ability to share your accomplishment with others. It also explains the popularity of apps that share fitness accomplishments like Strava.
The phenomenon of building our online profiles is called crafting. There was a lot in the news about crafting last year, and I am curious as to why the talk of crafting hasn't been grafted into the current debate about selfies. We consume media about our friends and infer much about their interests, values, and personalities through their Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other social media.
Here's a case study about the impacts of crafting. I read a great article last week about how people are apt to share articles, often poorly researched, about science in order to look like they are knowledgeable or interested in science. There is a wide proliferation, accordingly, of junk science that has survived on account of crafting.
Because I am comfortable enough with criticism, I've taken a look back on my own Facebook profile to look at what I have been sharing. In the past month or so, my posts have been related to:
Sharing articles that broadcast my values (11 times)
Adding photos that show I was in Europe and Asia (4 times)
Promoting my blog (3 times)
Getting a new job (1 times)
Epic walking (1 time)
A picture of a ticket to the first show my band played (1 time)
These examples show what I evidently want others to see of me - someone who likes travel, writing, politics, music, and being a teacher. I'd encourage you to take a look at your wall and see what you have shared.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with living a life of sharing on social media. I think there is a possible concern with doing it without being aware of what you're doing. I frankly believe it would be impossible to engage with social media without ever broadcasting who you are. Ultimately, some elements of crafting are more overt or pernicious than others, but it is inescapable in the online world. I'll just note that I think it's worthwhile reflecting on what it means to share, before you share.
Upon first reading, that may seem ridiculous, but let that set in. This something I've been thinking about recently given all the noise made about the banning of selfie sticks in tourist destinations around the world. While people argue about safety issues, isolation in public spaces, and boorish ettiquette, I can't help but think about the fact that the selfie stick is a tool in advancing the ongoing construction of our self-image. While some sharing is more personal (sending a text message for example), much of the sharing of pictures is done through social media.
I write this post fully cognizant of the fact that I participate in this culture. It's another modern mutation, this time of the cult of personality. In the traditional sense, this referred to the deification of leaders (commonly Stalin or Mao), aggrandising their accomplishments and character. Typically this was done in print, with newspapers and pamphlets leading the charge. Think of the rather laughable exploits of Kim Jong Il, available here.
In our modern world, we use the internet to share our exploits. And sometimes to exaggerate them. Or outright lie about them. I think a reasonable question to ask ourselves is, are we often doing things just to share them on social media? Is the attention that we get from these accomplishments a large part of our motivation? There has been rising interest in climbing Mount Everest, and I'd posit that a large part of this is the ability to share your accomplishment with others. It also explains the popularity of apps that share fitness accomplishments like Strava.
The phenomenon of building our online profiles is called crafting. There was a lot in the news about crafting last year, and I am curious as to why the talk of crafting hasn't been grafted into the current debate about selfies. We consume media about our friends and infer much about their interests, values, and personalities through their Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or other social media.
Here's a case study about the impacts of crafting. I read a great article last week about how people are apt to share articles, often poorly researched, about science in order to look like they are knowledgeable or interested in science. There is a wide proliferation, accordingly, of junk science that has survived on account of crafting.
Because I am comfortable enough with criticism, I've taken a look back on my own Facebook profile to look at what I have been sharing. In the past month or so, my posts have been related to:
Sharing articles that broadcast my values (11 times)
Adding photos that show I was in Europe and Asia (4 times)
Promoting my blog (3 times)
Getting a new job (1 times)
Epic walking (1 time)
A picture of a ticket to the first show my band played (1 time)
These examples show what I evidently want others to see of me - someone who likes travel, writing, politics, music, and being a teacher. I'd encourage you to take a look at your wall and see what you have shared.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with living a life of sharing on social media. I think there is a possible concern with doing it without being aware of what you're doing. I frankly believe it would be impossible to engage with social media without ever broadcasting who you are. Ultimately, some elements of crafting are more overt or pernicious than others, but it is inescapable in the online world. I'll just note that I think it's worthwhile reflecting on what it means to share, before you share.
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
Should Life be Life?
Yesterday Justin Trudeau spoke on the new legislation that the Conservatives have proposed, the controversial Bill C-51. He caused quite a stir. A stir that, in my opinion, was much anticipated. This bill, which has received virtually unanimous criticism from experts in law, has been slowly boiling over in this, an all important election year. The injection of partisan politics in the judiciary is as dangerous as it is ill-advised. Unfortunately, it is also not unprecedented - particularly from Harper.
Harper has produced a bill that is designed to make it much more difficult to rehabilitate Canadians who have offended. Specifically, he is attacking the parole board with a campaign called "Life is Life", in which he suggests that someone charged with a life sentence should never have the opportunity leave prison. The claim has been repeated that violent offenders are getting out and that this deeply endangers our society. Much like the government's discourse on terrorism, this is all about building fear.
Our current judicial system is, like all systems, imperfect. We have high rates of incarceration for First Nations. We have a systemic problem with maintaining our federal penal infrastructure. There have been numerous cases where prison guards have not intervened in suicides. Among these problems is the rare person who comes out of prison for a murder charge who reoffends. While non-violent crime recidivism rates are generally about 40 per cent, those who are on parole after a murder sentence reoffend at one per cent. That means that most who go through the penal system are capable of following their conditions of parole and reintegrating into society.
Fundamentally, that is the point of prison. Or so I thought. There are broadly two theories on the purpose of correctional facilities.
The first posits that prison should be to rehabilitate those who have erred. This means that prisons need to be connected to the world. There needs to be a cultural exchange between those on the inside and wider society. It also includes having rewards for personal development and good behaviour.
Another way of looking at prisons is that they are designed to isolate segments of the population from society. As mentioned before, Canada has a problem where we hold onto racial segregation by formalising it through prisons. The same is true of black people in the United States. The goal here is to criminalise a segment of the population and make it exceptionally difficult for them to integrate or reintegrate, even if their crimes were non-violent (such as with drugs or theft).
If we look at both models, we see a significant ideological divide - one where we see prison as a vehicle to aid those who are in need, another serving to propagate isolation. In the case of Canadian political discourse, there should be no question where our government stands. This newest bill is just part of a long stream of initiatives designed to target populations and perpetuate their stay in Canadian prisons. The Canadians have championed their tough on crime stance, even when it is consistently shown that tough on crime doesn't lead to more peaceful societies. And it has to be asked: what is the impact on the incarcerated? Why should someone who has committed a violent crime be deprived of the opportunity to better himself or herself?
We should all be concerned that our government is introducing this bill in order to have wider sweeping powers to prosecute various groups, not the least of which including "terrorists". Harper wants to increase the powers of both the RCMP and CSIS without adding greater oversight. Moreover, he wants to implicate the Ministry of Public Safety in the judiciary by having them involved in parole decisions. These changes should worry Canadians deeply.
I don't trust the Conservatives with our judicial system and we do not need further steps toward a police state. Hopefully Canadians will resist this bill and join in with experts in law and society in decrying this thinly veiled attack on our freedoms. I take solace in knowing that, ultimately, the liklihood of this legislation going anywhere is minimal. I'm looking foward to the October election.
Harper has produced a bill that is designed to make it much more difficult to rehabilitate Canadians who have offended. Specifically, he is attacking the parole board with a campaign called "Life is Life", in which he suggests that someone charged with a life sentence should never have the opportunity leave prison. The claim has been repeated that violent offenders are getting out and that this deeply endangers our society. Much like the government's discourse on terrorism, this is all about building fear.
Our current judicial system is, like all systems, imperfect. We have high rates of incarceration for First Nations. We have a systemic problem with maintaining our federal penal infrastructure. There have been numerous cases where prison guards have not intervened in suicides. Among these problems is the rare person who comes out of prison for a murder charge who reoffends. While non-violent crime recidivism rates are generally about 40 per cent, those who are on parole after a murder sentence reoffend at one per cent. That means that most who go through the penal system are capable of following their conditions of parole and reintegrating into society.
Fundamentally, that is the point of prison. Or so I thought. There are broadly two theories on the purpose of correctional facilities.
The first posits that prison should be to rehabilitate those who have erred. This means that prisons need to be connected to the world. There needs to be a cultural exchange between those on the inside and wider society. It also includes having rewards for personal development and good behaviour.
Another way of looking at prisons is that they are designed to isolate segments of the population from society. As mentioned before, Canada has a problem where we hold onto racial segregation by formalising it through prisons. The same is true of black people in the United States. The goal here is to criminalise a segment of the population and make it exceptionally difficult for them to integrate or reintegrate, even if their crimes were non-violent (such as with drugs or theft).
If we look at both models, we see a significant ideological divide - one where we see prison as a vehicle to aid those who are in need, another serving to propagate isolation. In the case of Canadian political discourse, there should be no question where our government stands. This newest bill is just part of a long stream of initiatives designed to target populations and perpetuate their stay in Canadian prisons. The Canadians have championed their tough on crime stance, even when it is consistently shown that tough on crime doesn't lead to more peaceful societies. And it has to be asked: what is the impact on the incarcerated? Why should someone who has committed a violent crime be deprived of the opportunity to better himself or herself?
We should all be concerned that our government is introducing this bill in order to have wider sweeping powers to prosecute various groups, not the least of which including "terrorists". Harper wants to increase the powers of both the RCMP and CSIS without adding greater oversight. Moreover, he wants to implicate the Ministry of Public Safety in the judiciary by having them involved in parole decisions. These changes should worry Canadians deeply.
I don't trust the Conservatives with our judicial system and we do not need further steps toward a police state. Hopefully Canadians will resist this bill and join in with experts in law and society in decrying this thinly veiled attack on our freedoms. I take solace in knowing that, ultimately, the liklihood of this legislation going anywhere is minimal. I'm looking foward to the October election.
Tuesday, 3 March 2015
The State of Post-Secondary Education in Canada
Last night contract staff and teaching assistants at York University in Toronto voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action. Of course this has become a huge story and, as a York alumnus, it's been all over my news feed. I heard an unfortunate interview on CBC's Metro Morning with university president Mamdouh Shoukri. While the debate about contract instructors is legitimate, I feel that in large part the wider context of what is happening with universities is being relegated to the background. The changing role of university is what I'd like to address in today's post.
Universities have existed for roughly a millenium. During most of that time, their role remained rather constant: providing society's elite with tools to become critical thinkers, thus empowering those who revolutionised fields of study like philosophy. Most universities were places to study liberal arts - politics, anthropology, religion, and history. In the nineteenth century economics and sociology came into the fold.
The latter half of the twentieth century saw universities grow modestly as professional schools expanded. With this came, in my opinion, a conflation between university and job training - such that now it is considered a smart career move to go to university, even if it's not for specific training in one domain or another. Stundets are going to university at unprecedented rates. However, there is a great amount of dismay amongst university graduates (myself included in 2008) when there is no work, save for poorly paid internships, service jobs, or work outside their chosen field. What's worse is that graduates have been saddled with debt, often called good debt because it is supposed to help them in the future.
Seldom are we asking ourselves as a society: what should the role of higher education be? Whereas universities used to be a place of free exploration of the world around us (natural and human), they have come to be viewed as conveyor belts for employment - a fast track to success. Most students who go to university are doing so because they feel it is part of reaching up in obtaining better career options or earning potential. Universities, governments, media, and parents are all to blame for propagating educational inflation, a race wherein we protect ourselves from underemployment by seeking more and more formal schooling.
The benefactors of this have not been students, or even the economy. Look at any report from Stats Canada and you'll see that new graduates are largely underemployed or unemployed (and unhappy). I'd argue that educational inflation has really served the best interest of universities. As a sector, education has grown year over year for some time now. A good marker of university success is the number of cranes erecting new buildings on campuses across the country. Not surprisingly, this has led to the further transformation of universities not only into career assembly lines but also into places to party. In the United States there is a growing demand for universities to provide an attractive lifestyle: private pools, tanning services, and luxury accomodations on campus.
I think that a few changes should be made to the university model.
University should be close to free and more difficult to get into: While this may sound elitist, universities should not be accepting virtually everyone so long as they have money. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on students entering university based on grades, community service, or affirmative action.
Universities shouldn't be marketed aggresively: I don't see any reason why university should be billed as better than other forms of career training. It'd be also helpful if universities weren't seen as conveyor belts for the job market. The added bonus of this would be that universities could ease up on their oft-sketchy relationships with the corporate world.
University should focus on independent learning and critical thinking: Students should be exploring the world around them through seminars, online forums, papers, and workshops - not in lecture halls with four hundred other students. University should be about developing abilities to reason and communicate, not to absorb information.
In Europe, where these values are closer to the norm, university attendance is low and there is not the same expectation that a degree will lead to employment. This also helps make post-secondary education more accessible. In most of Canada and the United States, tuition is prohibitively high (and rising) which prevents bright students who happen to be poor from going to school.
Ultimately, we have a lot to think about as a society when it comes to education. This is by no means an answer, but it is an attempt to start a conversation. Let's stop building up the university experience and leaving so many young people disappointed that there isn't a job waiting for them afterward.
Universities have existed for roughly a millenium. During most of that time, their role remained rather constant: providing society's elite with tools to become critical thinkers, thus empowering those who revolutionised fields of study like philosophy. Most universities were places to study liberal arts - politics, anthropology, religion, and history. In the nineteenth century economics and sociology came into the fold.
The latter half of the twentieth century saw universities grow modestly as professional schools expanded. With this came, in my opinion, a conflation between university and job training - such that now it is considered a smart career move to go to university, even if it's not for specific training in one domain or another. Stundets are going to university at unprecedented rates. However, there is a great amount of dismay amongst university graduates (myself included in 2008) when there is no work, save for poorly paid internships, service jobs, or work outside their chosen field. What's worse is that graduates have been saddled with debt, often called good debt because it is supposed to help them in the future.
Seldom are we asking ourselves as a society: what should the role of higher education be? Whereas universities used to be a place of free exploration of the world around us (natural and human), they have come to be viewed as conveyor belts for employment - a fast track to success. Most students who go to university are doing so because they feel it is part of reaching up in obtaining better career options or earning potential. Universities, governments, media, and parents are all to blame for propagating educational inflation, a race wherein we protect ourselves from underemployment by seeking more and more formal schooling.
The benefactors of this have not been students, or even the economy. Look at any report from Stats Canada and you'll see that new graduates are largely underemployed or unemployed (and unhappy). I'd argue that educational inflation has really served the best interest of universities. As a sector, education has grown year over year for some time now. A good marker of university success is the number of cranes erecting new buildings on campuses across the country. Not surprisingly, this has led to the further transformation of universities not only into career assembly lines but also into places to party. In the United States there is a growing demand for universities to provide an attractive lifestyle: private pools, tanning services, and luxury accomodations on campus.
I think that a few changes should be made to the university model.
University should be close to free and more difficult to get into: While this may sound elitist, universities should not be accepting virtually everyone so long as they have money. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on students entering university based on grades, community service, or affirmative action.
Universities shouldn't be marketed aggresively: I don't see any reason why university should be billed as better than other forms of career training. It'd be also helpful if universities weren't seen as conveyor belts for the job market. The added bonus of this would be that universities could ease up on their oft-sketchy relationships with the corporate world.
University should focus on independent learning and critical thinking: Students should be exploring the world around them through seminars, online forums, papers, and workshops - not in lecture halls with four hundred other students. University should be about developing abilities to reason and communicate, not to absorb information.
In Europe, where these values are closer to the norm, university attendance is low and there is not the same expectation that a degree will lead to employment. This also helps make post-secondary education more accessible. In most of Canada and the United States, tuition is prohibitively high (and rising) which prevents bright students who happen to be poor from going to school.
Ultimately, we have a lot to think about as a society when it comes to education. This is by no means an answer, but it is an attempt to start a conversation. Let's stop building up the university experience and leaving so many young people disappointed that there isn't a job waiting for them afterward.
Friday, 27 February 2015
Going Viral
This morning I listened to The Edge on my way to work instead of the CBC. I heard the announcers discuss an inane story about #thedress, a dress that looks different colours dependent on lighting conditions and your eyesight. During my prep at work I noticed that not only was this phenomenon trending in the right hand corner of my Facebook homepage, the story has appeared numerous times in my newsfeed, was on the front of news websites, and my students kept asking me about it.
What appears to be something incendiary is, in reality, merely a distraction. I've read article titles from reputable organisations stating that #thedress is dividing the internet. What passes for controversial today is abhorent. The fact that something so completely irrelevant can go viral is already sad enough. However, when you consider that there are so many other stories right now that deserve our critical attention, it actually hurts. Imagine if everyone were devoting this level of interest to issues that have an actual social and material impact?
I remember when reality television emerged at the turn of the millenium. It changed our patterns of media consumption dramatically, and viral social media is another step in this direction. I've worked hard, admittedly, to have a news feed that mostly shares stories about racism, sexism, homophobia, terrorism, poverty, and other crises that I find fascinating. But even at that I'm constantly running into trivialities, and apparently #thedress was a breaking point for me.
Another element of this particular story that I find compelling is that you get to pick a side, and the defense of the side involves no work or justification. I read a really great piece a few months ago by a friend who runs a blog called Gin and Tacos. In it he talked about his experience teaching undergraduates who have minimal interest outside of themselves. The idea of bringing identity into viral campaigns is part of its success, and we don't have to go far to find examples. Just think about the Ice Bucket Challenge from last year.
Entertainment is great. And there's nothing wrong with disagreeing about the colour of a dress. But think twice before you share an article about it and consider the footprint you're leaving and the chance for something else to take root.
What appears to be something incendiary is, in reality, merely a distraction. I've read article titles from reputable organisations stating that #thedress is dividing the internet. What passes for controversial today is abhorent. The fact that something so completely irrelevant can go viral is already sad enough. However, when you consider that there are so many other stories right now that deserve our critical attention, it actually hurts. Imagine if everyone were devoting this level of interest to issues that have an actual social and material impact?
I remember when reality television emerged at the turn of the millenium. It changed our patterns of media consumption dramatically, and viral social media is another step in this direction. I've worked hard, admittedly, to have a news feed that mostly shares stories about racism, sexism, homophobia, terrorism, poverty, and other crises that I find fascinating. But even at that I'm constantly running into trivialities, and apparently #thedress was a breaking point for me.
Another element of this particular story that I find compelling is that you get to pick a side, and the defense of the side involves no work or justification. I read a really great piece a few months ago by a friend who runs a blog called Gin and Tacos. In it he talked about his experience teaching undergraduates who have minimal interest outside of themselves. The idea of bringing identity into viral campaigns is part of its success, and we don't have to go far to find examples. Just think about the Ice Bucket Challenge from last year.
Entertainment is great. And there's nothing wrong with disagreeing about the colour of a dress. But think twice before you share an article about it and consider the footprint you're leaving and the chance for something else to take root.
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Updating Ontario's Sex Ed Curriculum
I was fortunate to have good sex ed, particularly when I was in elementary school. That included being exposed to concepts that, at a young age, can be awkward or difficult. Public health workers came to the school and offered workshops where we could ask questions and where there was a climate of respect and openness. As I got older, however, I soon realised that not everyone had such progressive sex education. That's why I'm writing this post following the Ontario government's announcement of changes to the sex ed curriculum.
A lot has been made of the fact that these changes were first introduced when Kathleen Wynne was education minister. I was in teacher's college at the time and I was really excited for these updates. Not everyone has access to accurate and progressive sex education, and it should be the province's responsibility to ensure that this is standardised, just like algebra, Canadian geography, or science.
For after all, the point of public education is to provide everyone with the necessary tools to be able to integrate successfully into society. That means life skills like respecting difference, listening, and learning about the world of sexuality.
The changes to the curriculum are awesome and include new information about gender identity, sexting, and consent. Naturally, it's also propted a visceral reaction; the reason why it was not implemented five years ago. It's not random that these items are here, they are designed to deal with the fact that misinformation is rampant in schools (and in society) when it comes to issues around sex and sexuality. When children don't get information from reputable sources, they get it from their parents, their peers, the internet, or from formal media like movies. Many of these sources only proliferate innaccurate or wrong information.
Students live in a world full of sexualisation where they have minimal sexual literacy. This is in part due to harmful messaging around consent, body image, gender binaries, and other themes. Equipping students with the tools to resist against this messaging is important.
Anyone who wants to prevent this from happening is promoting willful ignorance. While I am fully respectful of the right to religious freedom, I feel like it is irresponsible to prevent a young person from learning about basic concepts like the fact that consent is absolutely necessary or that other sexual identities exist.
It is, quite frankly, in the best interest of both the child and society that there be a progressive, inclusive sex ed curriculum that prepares youth for the realities of a modern cosmopolitan society. Those who have serious issues with the curriculum should have their children exempted rather than trying to block these changes.
A lot has been made of the fact that these changes were first introduced when Kathleen Wynne was education minister. I was in teacher's college at the time and I was really excited for these updates. Not everyone has access to accurate and progressive sex education, and it should be the province's responsibility to ensure that this is standardised, just like algebra, Canadian geography, or science.
For after all, the point of public education is to provide everyone with the necessary tools to be able to integrate successfully into society. That means life skills like respecting difference, listening, and learning about the world of sexuality.
The changes to the curriculum are awesome and include new information about gender identity, sexting, and consent. Naturally, it's also propted a visceral reaction; the reason why it was not implemented five years ago. It's not random that these items are here, they are designed to deal with the fact that misinformation is rampant in schools (and in society) when it comes to issues around sex and sexuality. When children don't get information from reputable sources, they get it from their parents, their peers, the internet, or from formal media like movies. Many of these sources only proliferate innaccurate or wrong information.
Students live in a world full of sexualisation where they have minimal sexual literacy. This is in part due to harmful messaging around consent, body image, gender binaries, and other themes. Equipping students with the tools to resist against this messaging is important.
Anyone who wants to prevent this from happening is promoting willful ignorance. While I am fully respectful of the right to religious freedom, I feel like it is irresponsible to prevent a young person from learning about basic concepts like the fact that consent is absolutely necessary or that other sexual identities exist.
It is, quite frankly, in the best interest of both the child and society that there be a progressive, inclusive sex ed curriculum that prepares youth for the realities of a modern cosmopolitan society. Those who have serious issues with the curriculum should have their children exempted rather than trying to block these changes.
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
In Conversation I: American Sniper, Killing, and Honour
There has been a lot of talk recently about American Sniper. In the midst of this controversial film and the firestrom it has created, I've been reading a book called On Killing by Dave Grossman. I really wanted to pair these two pieces together, so I decided to go see American Sniper with my friend Liam and then have a brief conversation with him about the film, where we will talk about how the film was controversial and how it was not.
So to start, Liam is a former member of the armed forces. He was a technician for fighter aircraft and served for six years. He is very knowledgeable of military history and also the impacts of war on society. We have bonded together talking about the HBO series Generation Kill, and he was kind enough to lend me On Killing. After powering through the book I decided that I would invite him out to see American Sniper so that we could talk about what's been deemed the most controversial film of 2015. As a note, the analysis of the film is not meant to be a conversation about the real Chris Kyle as he is nothing like the film makes him out to be.
I'll first start by providing my impressions of the film. I was expecting something far more egregious given all the intense commentary. While I found the film to be at the very least problematic, it was not the glorified piece of propaganda that had been suggested to me in my reading beforehand (as much as I love Noam Chomsky). I felt that, while I was supposed to deeply sympathise with the main character, Kyle, I didn't see the implication that what he did as necessarily honourable or dishonourable. I believe the film left a lot to the audience to figure out for itself, which again I was not expecting.
I brought up the question to Liam, who told me that he feels like the film, while Hollywoodised, portrayed with some accuracy the life of a sniper. As well, he said it touched on the ethical dilemmas soldiers are faced with in combat, some of which he has talked about with former colleagues. We talked about when killing was clearly honourable and not, and agreed that there is no clear definition for many cases that fall in between. Kyle's killing of civilians is meant to be a grey area and the audience is meant to see the internal conflict that a soldier faces when a split second evaluation needs to be made.
We also talked about what Michael Moore has said regarding snipers: he called them all cowards. I can see the propensity to believe that an enemy in hiding is dishonourable, but warfare has always relied on some form of deception and to think otherwise is to sugarcoat war. Snipers may be killing someone who does not know they are there, but snipers also expose themselves to greater danger by being deep within enemy territory. The film only aludes to this challenge, but Liam mentioned that snipers often spend days in one location in order to take only one shot. After they make it they have to run for their lives. While it is true that sniper are engaging their targets from a great distance, they are not the only ones to be doing so; in fact, they are one of the few hidden units that is still exposed to the enemy.
I would argue that those who fly bombers, direct movements from headquarters, or load artillery are both safer and further removed from the killing process. Are these acts not more cowardly or dishonourable? As Grossman mentions in On Killing, every foot of distance is a corresponding decrease in reality, meaning that as you get phsyically further from the target you are more likely to go carry out the kill and also to not feel guilty about it later. A good example of this is the use of drones in the US military. Controlled remotely, soldiers can kill a target thousands of kilometres away. I can't think of something more cowardly or detached. It seems strange to dote on the sniper when so many other parts of the military are removed from the combat arena.
I also think it's worthwhile pointing out a double-standard - snipers have most certainly been glorified in other contexts, not the least of which being in Enemy at the Gates, where our hero (a Red Army sniper) was in pursuit of his German counterpart. To me it seems to suggest that a sniper is only as "good" as the conflict he is fighting in.
We spent some time talking about the conflict in question: the second American invasion of Iraq. The film showed a man with little purpose finding his calling when terrorists strike. We see the 1998 attacks on the American embassies followed by a scene where he enlists. Of course we seem him sobered by the events of September 2001. Liam and I talked about this narrative and we both agreed it was blatant patriotism as a plot device. Liam felt that the film was meant to be purposefully hateful of jihadists and thus elicit sympathy for American intervention in the Middle East. I do agree to some degree with Liam here, if only for the fact that some of the first kills in the film were met with cheers from the audience, much to my horror (especially since they were civilians being shot). However, my impression of the situation was that it looked more like justification on the part of the character for his participation in the military.
We see that, as the film goes on, Kyle has deep troubles with his work. He struggles with killing as much as he does with losing his compatriots. While we see him detach from reality and develop a cold exterior, we see him experience great difficulty when faced with having to pull the trigger. In particular, there is a scene where he is faced with killing a boy who is carrying an RPG. He is shaking, praying that the boy puts down the RPG. He begins to squeeze the trigger, only to find that the boy has decided not to fire it. He is so full of relief he doubles over. To me this signals that a main message of the film is that war is awful and that it deeply affects those who participate in it.
This brought us to talking about how in On Killing soldiers have an aversion to killing, much unlike what we see in Hollywood. Through careful analysis of battles during the industrial period we can observe that the average person recruited for military service has minimal interest in killing, and will often go to extremes to avoid it. However, in the time since the end of the Second World War many militaries, specifically the United States, have adopted programmes designed to programme soldiers to get past this resistance. The effectiveness of these tricks was first truly demonstrated in Vietnam and has carried through to American action in Iraq. Liam points out that elements like dissociating the enemy is one of the key parts of these strategies. He noted that in the film the enemy was referred to as hajjis and other derogatory terms meant to turn the enemy into a cartoon character. While I agree that this is in fact how the US military works, I feel like the inclusion of this in the film was not to promote the xenophobic sentiment, but rather to show that it is embedded in the culture of the military. To illustrate this point, I'd note that Kyle (in the film) doesn't seem to participate in this villification of the enemy. Moreover, he gets visibly annoyed when a marine that is stationed with him displays these values. Beyond this, the word "evil" gets thrown around a fair amount, but it's always other characters talking about this morality.
Fundamentally, this film was worthwhile watching and certainly has made an impact. Was it offensive? Less so than I was expecting. Was it inaccurate? Absolutely. As Liam notes, the film includes the sniper making kills at obscene ranges and endangering his own units in the pursuit of an unrealistic kill. He also mentioned that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which is completely right. It is, at the very least, misleading to have presented it this way. I also happen to feel that the film lacks the presence of good Arabs or good Muslims. I think that this film does a decent job of pointing out how military culture works in the United States. It most certainly is not the best exemple of a scathing exposé of abuse, but I also deeply feel that it is also not the propaganda that many have labelled it.
So to start, Liam is a former member of the armed forces. He was a technician for fighter aircraft and served for six years. He is very knowledgeable of military history and also the impacts of war on society. We have bonded together talking about the HBO series Generation Kill, and he was kind enough to lend me On Killing. After powering through the book I decided that I would invite him out to see American Sniper so that we could talk about what's been deemed the most controversial film of 2015. As a note, the analysis of the film is not meant to be a conversation about the real Chris Kyle as he is nothing like the film makes him out to be.
I'll first start by providing my impressions of the film. I was expecting something far more egregious given all the intense commentary. While I found the film to be at the very least problematic, it was not the glorified piece of propaganda that had been suggested to me in my reading beforehand (as much as I love Noam Chomsky). I felt that, while I was supposed to deeply sympathise with the main character, Kyle, I didn't see the implication that what he did as necessarily honourable or dishonourable. I believe the film left a lot to the audience to figure out for itself, which again I was not expecting.
I brought up the question to Liam, who told me that he feels like the film, while Hollywoodised, portrayed with some accuracy the life of a sniper. As well, he said it touched on the ethical dilemmas soldiers are faced with in combat, some of which he has talked about with former colleagues. We talked about when killing was clearly honourable and not, and agreed that there is no clear definition for many cases that fall in between. Kyle's killing of civilians is meant to be a grey area and the audience is meant to see the internal conflict that a soldier faces when a split second evaluation needs to be made.
We also talked about what Michael Moore has said regarding snipers: he called them all cowards. I can see the propensity to believe that an enemy in hiding is dishonourable, but warfare has always relied on some form of deception and to think otherwise is to sugarcoat war. Snipers may be killing someone who does not know they are there, but snipers also expose themselves to greater danger by being deep within enemy territory. The film only aludes to this challenge, but Liam mentioned that snipers often spend days in one location in order to take only one shot. After they make it they have to run for their lives. While it is true that sniper are engaging their targets from a great distance, they are not the only ones to be doing so; in fact, they are one of the few hidden units that is still exposed to the enemy.
I would argue that those who fly bombers, direct movements from headquarters, or load artillery are both safer and further removed from the killing process. Are these acts not more cowardly or dishonourable? As Grossman mentions in On Killing, every foot of distance is a corresponding decrease in reality, meaning that as you get phsyically further from the target you are more likely to go carry out the kill and also to not feel guilty about it later. A good example of this is the use of drones in the US military. Controlled remotely, soldiers can kill a target thousands of kilometres away. I can't think of something more cowardly or detached. It seems strange to dote on the sniper when so many other parts of the military are removed from the combat arena.
I also think it's worthwhile pointing out a double-standard - snipers have most certainly been glorified in other contexts, not the least of which being in Enemy at the Gates, where our hero (a Red Army sniper) was in pursuit of his German counterpart. To me it seems to suggest that a sniper is only as "good" as the conflict he is fighting in.
We spent some time talking about the conflict in question: the second American invasion of Iraq. The film showed a man with little purpose finding his calling when terrorists strike. We see the 1998 attacks on the American embassies followed by a scene where he enlists. Of course we seem him sobered by the events of September 2001. Liam and I talked about this narrative and we both agreed it was blatant patriotism as a plot device. Liam felt that the film was meant to be purposefully hateful of jihadists and thus elicit sympathy for American intervention in the Middle East. I do agree to some degree with Liam here, if only for the fact that some of the first kills in the film were met with cheers from the audience, much to my horror (especially since they were civilians being shot). However, my impression of the situation was that it looked more like justification on the part of the character for his participation in the military.
We see that, as the film goes on, Kyle has deep troubles with his work. He struggles with killing as much as he does with losing his compatriots. While we see him detach from reality and develop a cold exterior, we see him experience great difficulty when faced with having to pull the trigger. In particular, there is a scene where he is faced with killing a boy who is carrying an RPG. He is shaking, praying that the boy puts down the RPG. He begins to squeeze the trigger, only to find that the boy has decided not to fire it. He is so full of relief he doubles over. To me this signals that a main message of the film is that war is awful and that it deeply affects those who participate in it.
This brought us to talking about how in On Killing soldiers have an aversion to killing, much unlike what we see in Hollywood. Through careful analysis of battles during the industrial period we can observe that the average person recruited for military service has minimal interest in killing, and will often go to extremes to avoid it. However, in the time since the end of the Second World War many militaries, specifically the United States, have adopted programmes designed to programme soldiers to get past this resistance. The effectiveness of these tricks was first truly demonstrated in Vietnam and has carried through to American action in Iraq. Liam points out that elements like dissociating the enemy is one of the key parts of these strategies. He noted that in the film the enemy was referred to as hajjis and other derogatory terms meant to turn the enemy into a cartoon character. While I agree that this is in fact how the US military works, I feel like the inclusion of this in the film was not to promote the xenophobic sentiment, but rather to show that it is embedded in the culture of the military. To illustrate this point, I'd note that Kyle (in the film) doesn't seem to participate in this villification of the enemy. Moreover, he gets visibly annoyed when a marine that is stationed with him displays these values. Beyond this, the word "evil" gets thrown around a fair amount, but it's always other characters talking about this morality.
Fundamentally, this film was worthwhile watching and certainly has made an impact. Was it offensive? Less so than I was expecting. Was it inaccurate? Absolutely. As Liam notes, the film includes the sniper making kills at obscene ranges and endangering his own units in the pursuit of an unrealistic kill. He also mentioned that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which is completely right. It is, at the very least, misleading to have presented it this way. I also happen to feel that the film lacks the presence of good Arabs or good Muslims. I think that this film does a decent job of pointing out how military culture works in the United States. It most certainly is not the best exemple of a scathing exposé of abuse, but I also deeply feel that it is also not the propaganda that many have labelled it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)