I don’t pay my annual licensing fees, and I don’t donate to Mira.

I remember doing some research on the Mira Foundation when my dog, a shelter mutt with no special training other than what I learned from the internet and reading books, was doing zootherapy with children. She is fantastic with people, a real natural. And ok, she is special, but you know, they all are. (tldr; that is my point.) Mira, on the other hand, is intent on breeding their own animals or at the very least, only putting purebred dogs of a few select breeds to work.

While Mira does not claim to be any kind of animal welfare organization, I find their position surprising. Given the business they’re in, I’m sure they’re well aware of the transformative power of dogs. Domestic dogs can do some pretty incredible things. They change and enrich people’s lives. They are beautiful, honest, happy creatures that deserve much better than the short, miserable lives afforded to most of them the world over as well as in our own country.

Dogs bred by Mira have no trouble finding loving, stable homes, this is true. Thousands of people get on waiting lists in the hopes of acquiring just such a dog, one that didn’t make the cut to assist a person with a disability. But a lot of these homes would be perfect for a shelter dog, too, maybe it wouldn’t be a Labernese or whatever, but still a dog that is really just as good for your average family. (It’s true. Take a purebred puppy, for instance, acquired from a breeder at an age when you can’t even really tell what the temperament will be like at maturity, not that would-be dog owners know jack about that sort of thing, or care. A person would have a very difficult time, to say the least, convincing me that that puppy is somehow a better option, like a smarter purchase for them or some shit. Dogs are living, sentient, intelligent beings, not manufactured goods. I can’t understand how people who pretend to care about animals in any capacity can breed them, and/or, in most cases, $upport breeding operations, no matter how “ethical,” when so many die simply for lack of a home. Let me reiterate: they are put to death, in droves, because there is nowhere for them to go.) It is well known that mixed breed dogs live longer and have fewer health problems than purebreds, and they can be very bright. The expected lifespan of a Bernese Mountain Dog is a whopping 6 to 8 years.

Basically, Mira insists on trying to accomplish through breeding what could be done by applying some elbow grease to what is currently an out of control fucked up situation. In trying to establish a Labernese breed standard for themselves, they reject dogs with the wrong colouring, for fuck’s sake. Shelters and rescues are literally overflowing with sound animals with strong working abilities, trust. With these dogs, you also wouldn’t have to wait for months, providing costly care for a puppy, to know if they will be able to do the job as a young adult, and then of course bury them at the ripe old age of seven. And on and on it goes, litter after litter after litter. It’s ridiculous.

I know you can hardly post a negative opinion of animal breeding in certain corners of the internet without a bunch of people jumping all over you for being just so MEAN and don’t you know responsible breeders do it for the love etc. I’m sure it’s real nice to be so devoted to a breed and all, but when you’re done being super defensive via walls of text, kindly join us back here on planet Earth. Spend a day with the dogs at a shelter, or better yet, get to know tons of them by volunteering regularly or fostering. You’ll see, NOTHING is worth that kind of suffering. The idea that you must breed and breed and breed to get the dog you want, or to get some kind of idiot-proof working dog (as if that’s how it works, and as if all that breeding itself comes at no cost), that is just plain wrong.

1 comment April 5, 2012 ginginbonbon

White people are PISSED.

I have, at times, embarrassed the people around me with my casual complaints about white people. It is true that I often complain about white people, and that I do so in a casual manner. It is also true that I try to surround myself with people who are moderately aware of and generally on board with ideas pertaining to social justice and cultural critique, and/or people who prefer not to identify as white.

A big part of the backlash against ever daring to mention race while in polite company is that (not just white) people find it alienating. It’s true that you’re not going to win allies by making people feel awkward, or worse still, bad about themselves, they’re just going to stick to their guns, whatever guns they have lying around, with even more conviction. I just find the idea of walking on eggshells around the existence of white privilege or racism is a slippery slope; we need more honest, frank communication, not less. Not to mention, I have no idea how that kind of hand-holding would even work. I don’t need permission from people who have never given the issue a moment’s thought to have a conversation about it. I’m certainly not asking these hypothetical people to frame the terms of the discussion or decide what kind of language is appropriate. (And anyway, people who want to pick apart how or when you approach white privilege are never interested in talking about white privilege. They want to change the subject as quickly as possible, or maybe make it seem like you were wrong about something one time and therefore nothing you have to say about anything has any value whatsoever. Apparently this is how argument works in 2012.)

I wish I could say things in a way that made everyone feel comfortable enough to really give it some thought. But for now, if my white mama doesn’t get it, or it makes me unpopular at parties or something, so be it. I’m working on it. If someone gets offended, I don’t think there is a whole lot I can do about it. It’s bigger than you and me and our delicate sensibilities and our social circles and and and. I do wonder about how I must come across, as a white-looking person complaining about Shit White People Say. Mostly I think it’s probably something I can live with. And because I try my best to consider this, the notion of perception, I’ll have to remember to ask someone playing devil’s advocate* in a conversation about marginalization what they think they look like.

1 comment April 5, 2012 ginginbonbon

Ethicologies

I have few sustained interests that don’t directly involve my own carnal enjoyment (food, music, you know, good times). Judging from what I read, I like feminism and dogs. My intellectual pursuits in feminism as well as dog training provide a kind of egotistical validation–I expect that being fluent in these things makes me a better person, and I am hell bent on being a decent person, because I have always been so very proud, and vain.

Let’s be clear: when I say feminism I mean basically everyone getting yelled at on the internet and me occasionally being able to go yeah! That’s the kind of feminism I’m talking about, the check yourself and mind your privilege, also did you know you are totally racist? kind. At least, I seem to learn way more when someone’s ass is being handed to them by vastly more articulate and intelligent people.

So, my passions fit pretty squarely within either Ethics or Behaviour. Also, I consider Ethics and Ethology (the study of behaviour) to be two sides of the same coin, a coin with which I’ll be attempting some far-reaching conclusions about life in this post.

A blog I sometimes read, by a dachsund owner, once had this pearl in it:

You can be “right” or you can get what you want, and you often have to choose between the two.

It’s easy to apply this to just about anything. True problem-solving is about finding a way to satisfy everyone, whether or not they “deserve” it. Teachers, for example, are constantly being challenged by their students, especially in high school. A teacher can try to be “right” all the time, by arguing, or they can encourage their students to call them out on stuff, which may inadvertently cause the students to give a shit, learn something, and respect their teacher for providing those kinds of opportunities. I don’t know.

I also think the word “right” is interesting in the context of that quote. Where does doing the right thing come into play, and when is that roughly equivalent to getting what you want? When is it not? Or the many ways to protect one’s rights–some of them seem to involve abusing other people, who may or may not have had it coming, in the process. Etc.

A great deal of ethics has to do with understanding behaviour. Certainly with dogs, one must be able to interpret behaviour, since it’s the only language we have in common. I try not to ascribe overly negative motivations to any behaviour, canine or human. I’d prefer to think that my neighbours feel like they have no control over things that happen in their lives, so they act like little tiny bitch authoritarian tin pot dictators in the affairs of our building, rather than assuming they’re out to get us because they’re jealous or something. (Although to be fair, since they do in fact have limited control over lots of things, mostly as a function of their lack of interpersonal skills, I don’t doubt they resent us for appearing to have it all. And we do, actually. Have it all, that is. Except nice neighbours.)

Ethics is also something I believe can only be correctly ascribed to behaviour. I don’t wonder too much about whether a person can be ethical or not, because the only way to ascertain it is through their behaviour. With dogs, it’s straightforward. Do you want to be “right,” feared, intimidating, alpha, top dog, or do you want a happily compliant pet? Do you know that you can’t hardly tell the difference between “respect” and training, when the training is done properly?

It’s a little more complicated with people. Sometimes people think that vindication is what they want, but that’s actually just being “right.” This idea of vindication is much more satisfying when you win people over. To your “side.” Willingly! So actually, not so different than dogs. I’m sorry this post made no sense. I was just sick of it being in my drafts.

Add comment April 5, 2012 ginginbonbon

something I’ve noticed, usually in feminist spaces

A writer will say, “so this happened to me once.” And then they start to etch out a theory, probably just about a lightbulb moment in their own personal development, and it becomes a Thing. Heaven forbid, a Feminist Thing. And there is bound to be one or two commenters, usually only one (or none) that is articulate enough to get their point across without getting held up in moderation, who says, PROVE IT. Like, I don’t care how many women self-report having this exact thing done to them, you can’t prove that it’s a gender thing rather than a dynamic between two individuals that has nothing to do with their gender.

That’s the thing with social sciences though. It’s observation based, and like behavioural sciences, you can’t go and “prove” that something tends to happen specifically because of a social force (say, sexism) rather than oh, Totally random, Every time. You can even take it a step farther and say that women just complain about it more, but that it happens to men roughly equally. Iunno! Maybe some women’s nerves are just rubbed raw from EVERYTHING FUCKING ELSE.

So I think that is just pretty insulting, and it goes along with so many of those preconceptions about feminists that they are always making shit about gender that isn’t, and they are looking for stuff to get mad about. But also, and here I wonder if people who pull the stupid “prove it” move know how oppressive they are being, it kind of _is_ a perfect way to shut down a conversation because THERE IS NO WAY to provide the evidence. I’m not sure if they know it, but people actually do make it impossible to move forward when they behave like this. It’s more than like what they say on derailing for dummies, that you have to submit a certain kind of peer-reviewed scientifically documented phenomenon (as if that were even possible) for them to think over and determine whether or not you are actually being discriminated against (remember, they are objective! You are not!) Because there is no such thing. In addition to being a dick to the person who makes the observations in the first place, you are out-of-hand dismissing the entire realm of social theory. You could pop up in absolutely any discussion relating to social sciences and say “prove it! Can’t? I win. BOOYA”

Add comment March 9, 2011 ginginbonbon

Lindy West’s kinda ironic Sex and the City 2 review

Hooooo boy. I used to like Lindy West’s writing and I thought it was probably a pretty good review, but only because I had to remove and like, completely annihilate anything resembling the lens thru which I usually try to interpret things, around her whole “rape it to death with a stiletto” part. At the end, girlfriend is so exasperated with the movie that she demands to be veiled and have all her holes sewn up. Remember that? Funny!

Tell me, am I turning into a total stereotype myself or did I just grow the fuck up, because I managed to make it through the whole review without even wanting to laugh? I don’t find Sex and the City offensive, but Lindy’s comments scared the shit out of me? WHAT IS GOING ON?

In the comments after, if you slog thru the hordes crawling all over each other to lick Lindy’s ass, there are a few complaints about how we all can’t stand the women of SatC because they upset our feminist sensibilities. AIYAAH! See, the thing is, the Sex and the City characters are just that, characters. To whine that they do a disservice to us, as women, because they are rich and out of touch and they like shiny things and they did xyz with a man is fucked up because that’s trying to make them out to be a whole lot more than characters, as in you know a vehicle used to TELL A STORY. I don’t have to be personally offended by how shallow they are because hello, they don’t represent me or some other woman or all women just because they are female and they are in a movie for fuck’s sake. Let me say that a person would also have to be a crappy “feminist” if they expect to sit back and allow the stupidest mainstream movies to champion their social justice causes instead of, like, contributing some meaningful commentary and discussion themselves? But posting stuff on the Stranger website is totally productive! (For the record I don’t bother anymore. What a bunch of maroons).

Yes, it’s conspicuous that the SatC franchise is prolly the only recent blockbuster-maker that comes to mind that passes the Bechdel test (and does it? even?) but let’s not confuse the issues. A real critique would uncover lots of problems with SatC I’m sure, but it wouldn’t look anything like this review, and actually it wouldn’t have so much to do with the vejazzle bling of Middle Eastern women. I promise.

My world is changing, guys. I kind of can’t even believe I’m typing these words. Honestly I think what Lindy said is about a million times more vile than any of the stupid shit that transpires anywhere in Sex and the City. I guess people can be talented, funny or smart (or think they’re way superior anyway, I’m not sure anymore) and still be assholes in the end. By asshole, I mean, using the most unspeakable, horrifying things that are done to women to illustrate thru hyperbole how much it displeased her to do her job as a movie reviewer and sit thru a fucking movie, with female leads. PartyDONE, Lindy West. You suck now.

Add comment June 4, 2010 ginginbonbon

and that shit ain’t funny

I saw a thing on the internet this morning that was supposed to be a clever and hilarious composite of women’s magazines. This post isn’t exactly about that image, which is too gross and mean to even touch on my lovely blog. But it did get me thinking about a few unproductive conversations I’ve had about Stuff Women Like (à la Sex and the City).

You see, I pretty much get painted into a corner with shit like this. We’re talking about women’s magazines, right? Let’s look at some of the options:

If I agree that god those magazines are so stupid and shallow, and people who like them deserve our scorn, I’m essentially trying to distance myself from “those women” (and men? What are they gay or something? EW AMIRITE) and admitting that they are worthy of contempt. I shouldn’t have to do that. Even if I were able to successfully separate myself from other women every time someone told a sexist joke or disparaged women, not only would would it still be sexism, but I would be playing right along with it.

It’s really hard for me to explain, because the more I try to unpack how sexism works the more I realize it doesn’t make any sense or have a standalone, internal logic, and then it just looks like I have a giant chip on my shoulder. But it’s kind of like this. Women are often judged as having inconsequential, frivolous interests like getting their nails done, instead of caring about important things, and when they do it somehow reflects poorly on all women, or all women who get their nails done, as well as getting one’s nails done. By association. With women. In case you thought that was a coincidence. Note that sports, video games and other more traditionally masculine things are usually excluded from this list of meaningless pursuits. It’s one of the many ways that feminine=inherent and feminine=bad. Alternately, one might believe that those dumb people who read trashy magazines INCIDENTALLY happen to be almost exclusively women, and also they totally don’t have to be like that, yo. The system supports both contingencies. But come on. CHICKS are supposed to like this stuff, and at the same time when we do we’re vapid.

So what else is there? Take your pick:

- override all gendered social conditioning, become “neutral” and immune to injustice and extract myself from this conversation (and this culture);

- be girly, or not, in a few of the expected ways, or not, and be made fun of and diminished because I’m an easy target no matter what;

- take exception and spend all morning trying to verbalize why, agonize over whether I’m being oversensitive and/or just looking for someone or something to be angry with, deal with the constant pressure to explain myself properly, wonder if I’ve actually gotten through to someone or maybe they just didn’t want to talk about it anymore;

- tbc?

1 comment May 7, 2010 ginginbonbon

old ass studies in Feminist Therapy

From http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/female-traits/: (my comments are in blue)

This is from an article titled “Feminist Therapy: Redefining Power for the Powerless,” by Adrienne J. Smith and Ruth F. Siegel.

“Increasing evidence indicates that the differences between women and men in their expression of power are due to status rather than sex. According to Frieze, Parsons, Johnson, Ruble, and Zellman (1978, p. 304) status is ‘a hierarchy of inferiority and superiority on some dimension or set of dimensions.’  Because ‘male in itself means higher status’ (p. 305) the two variables of gender and status are almost completely confounded. Unger (1979) in an extensive review of the literature on status, gender, and power, shows that ‘male-female relationships are essentially similar to relationships between high and low status individuals and thus status is a more parsimonious explanation of behaviour than gender.’ (p. 6)

“Women ‘get what they want’ through indirect, covert influencing techniques, often using the assigned sex-role-appropriate behaviors of helplessness, dependency, coyness, and appeal to emotions. Under the oppressive constraints of patriarchy, women, who are low-status people, use second-class power tactics that usually are not acknowledged as power (McClelland, 1975). Even when women achieve their objectives, therefore, both sexes continue to see a woman as powerless. The frequent attribution of women’s successes to luck and men’s successes to skill is evidence that neither sex believes women have sufficient abilities to control their own lives.

Contrast this interesting theory with contemporary evolutionary psychology, when someone writes an article saying that women behave in certain ways because of fundamental biological differences, and that since they control men through sexuality, there is no need for feminism or even parity. [And this crap gets a hell of a lot more mainstream exposure than the shit I have to go dig up on the internet.] Hmmmm Iunno does using feminine wiles to get resources from men (traditionally, things like security, money and not getting abused as much) seem like a sound power structure? Even if, say, we could explain away all behaviour with only evolution and biology–it wouldn’t change the basic (ethical) premise of feminism, that we are equals. Or is the jury still waiting on Science’s findings?

One of the most basic exercises in Ethics programs is to design/imagine a society, and then ask yourself if you could live as any one of those citizens, and if you consider all of their individual situations acceptable, then the society is just. Being able to rationally observe and understand someone else’s experience does not mean you lack objectivity. If you reject what people say as too subjective, the problem isn’t their point of view, it’s yours; it means you aren’t ready to listen. I don’t think I have ever seen a scientific study or an appeal to my rationality used to serve any interest in equality, although those tactics are frequently used to justify things that are unfair, especially when it comes to social structures. We see it in every aspect of life where one party has power over another and therefore an interest in maintaining that power. Look at economics. The same techniques are used in the subjugation of women.

Add comment April 23, 2010 ginginbonbon

so.

we went to a sex party last night… we were the only ones to remain fully clothed. The hired “dancer” was really high on something and almost burned the house down. There was a game of naked twister. Lots of clam. Old people in vinyl underpants doing it. A giant cage with a yoga mat inside. It was surprisingly not creepy! I just blocked out all the peen, successfully. A+++ totally worth it.

Add comment February 21, 2010 ginginbonbon

craaaaayzay cross-posting

http://la-riz.livejournal.com/153068.html

Add comment November 10, 2009 ginginbonbon

redirect!

I don’t really volunteer in mental health anymore, since I’ve been too busy trying to live my life for the last 6 months or so, and also I’m not planning on having a career in the field anymore and I’m totally selfish like that. I am going to keep this blog to post my verbal diarrhea, tho. I leave little squirts of comment all over the internet (Gin Gin Bon Bon on dog blogs, the Stranger articles and Slog posts), but I want a place to put down actual articles, other than my OKCupid profile I mean.

I had one of those annoying conversations with an old friend where he was all harping on the “but men and women are so different on a fundamental level” thing. This really chaps my ass, but it took me months to lay out the reasons why. Here they are.

First of all, when someone says that men and women have behavioural/psychological differences that are rooted in biology, it does seem kind of like a common sense concept. Thing is, people often use that “argument” to partially explain pathologies, too, like how the vast majority of rapists are dudes, and it’s because they have these urges to contend with that women just don’t. That’s a whole nother angry post for me–I’ll need a couple more years to elaborate.

Anyway. When biological differences are pointed to, I’m going to pretend it isn’t some bullshit evolutionary psychology crap and what’s actually being referred to is innate behaviours and not the learned ones. When men and women grow up with the same opportunities and are subjected to the same expectations, then we can talk about that, but for the time being you are just gonna make me really mad. So yeah, let’s say we can put the nurture part of it aside and deal with actual biological differences: that men and women have different drives, their brains work differently, they have different ways of processing information, which translates into different ways of going about their business and expressing all those things. That says that men tend to do it in ways that are particular to men, and women, in their own ways. That’s statistics, right? Studying populations, not individuals. Because on an individual level, all of that breaks down. What about men who are more like what you’d expect a woman to be like, and vice-versa? HOW INCONVENIENT!!! People who don’t fit aren’t likely to be very enthusiastic about this fascinating population study, because you’re marginalizing them. (And why are you doing that? Read on, readers.) What you’d really be saying is, some men and women aren’t like the generalizations you have come up with. Fine. And people who do fit the stereotype might not really give a shit about all this, but it’s not because what you’re saying has any value, it’s because they’ve got the privilege or the will to be as intellectually lazy about gender politics as you do.

So what is the point again? The only time anyone’s going to be having this kind of conversation, where a guy quips “but men and women are different,” is when people are hashing it out, in person or over the internets. They’re all going to be individuals. No one participating in the discussion is a population or group. No one is even going to be representing a group, unless all of the members of that group have asked to be represented (hint: it’s not going to be “all the men/women in the world”), or unless maybe you are a giant fucking misanthrope. When you interact with humans you are not dealing with statistics or populations or groups, you are dealing with individuals, who might like to be treated as such.

It’s interesting that some people feel targeted during conversations about gender, and try to explain behaviour using scientific research they might not know that much about. Conversely, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a girl say “WHAAAAAT, I’m less of a logical thinker than you because I’m female! That’s why I don’t get it! It’s biology!” Awfully convenient, isn’t it, that all these “biological” differences make men the more practical, funner sex to be, while at the same time TOTALLY ‘SPLAININ WHY SOMETIMES THEY DO BAD THINGS. Hm. Wonder why that is.

Also, I’ve (momentarily! I am human!) had all these questions brushed aside by being told that I’m exceptional. Yes, blush, I am, but really, are you still referring to that faceless mass of women, all over-emotional-like and who can’t be trusted with management positions?? Still sexist. Sorry. I’m glad you can make the distinction between “Gin Gin Bon Bon” and “women”. The same thing can be done for every single other woman out there. See how that works?

People scoff at feminism as the radical notion that women are people, but the same people can simultaneously believe one or ten or a thousand women to be an acceptable representation of all women, or at least all the women that count when they’re trying to get their warped little point across. Still begs the question, what is the purpose of saying that men and women are different? Could it be to reinforce the opinion you already have about men and women being a certain way? How on earth could that even be remotely linked to promoting a sexist agenda?… It certainly does make it easier to continue treating them differently, because according to your research they have different needs and tolerances that can be neatly divided along gender lines (except when they can’t, but I guess we never resolved that, did we). It’s very useful, actually: it means you can continue to be a sexist moron, because science is on your side.

I would really like to hear about a positive use for this idea of “women” that we’ve all made up in our heads. I’m a feminist, so I’m a pessimist you see. Someone still needs to tell me what’s actually good about bringing up the fact that men and women are so naturally different, as opposed to why it makes us feel good to say so. TIA.

6 comments November 10, 2009 ginginbonbon