Feminism on Television!

Since I have soccer Wednesday nights, I’m able to have at least one precious evening off from work a week. Over the past few weeks, my best friend and I have been getting together to watch the TLC show “I am Jazz.” The show is about fourteen-year-old Jazz Jennings’ struggles as a transgender youth. Jazz was born a boy named Jared, but after only a couple years of her life, it was apparent to her family that she wasn’t a boy. As soon as she was able to speak, like many transgender children, she told her parents that she was in fact a girl. Although of course this situation was difficult for them, Jazz’s parents realized that their “son” would not give up until he could live comfortably as a girl. After researching gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID), along with the shocking suicide rates that are associated with it (a study in the United States indicated that of 6,450 transgender people, 41% had attempted suicide), Jazz’s parents knew that if they didn’t allow their “son” to transition, they could lose him forever.

Instead of opting to lose their son, they chose to embrace a daughter.

Jazz’s mother and father, along with her older sister Ari and older brothers Sander and Griffen, are the most supportive and loving family you could ever imagine. Clothing was changed, bedroom was changed, toys were changed, pronouns were changed, and her name was changed!

And so, with all of these wonderful people surrounding her, Jazz was born!

Amazingly enough, not only has Jazz been able to live happily (for the most part) with an extremely supportive family, but she has also branched out of the confines of her home and hometown to be an ambassador for transgender youth around the world. She’s given speeches, she wrote a children’s book to help explain what being transgender means, and she even designs and creates mermaid tails to sell online in order to raise money to support other transgender youth (many transgender children have been known to be particularly fond of mermaids because they have no visible genitalia).

Here’s a clip from an episode of the show entitled “Boys Aren’t Nice to Her”:

Along with simply watching the program, my friend and I like to talk a lot about many of the issues being presented in the show. A couple of weeks ago when this episode aired, I was telling her how I want to write Jazz a letter assuring her that even for young women who do not share her circumstances, interacting with boys is a major struggle. If you are a strong and confident woman even from a young age, boys are taken aback. I told my friend my theory for why I think I struggled so much with boys being mean to me when I was young. Jazz always talks about how she wishes she had boobs so that boys would like her, and well…I had boobs. But I didn’t get a ton of attention. I think the reason for that though is that I stood up for myself, I challenged the guys…and I didn’t take shit. I remember getting teased mercilessly by the boys in elementary school for playing soccer with them. They would say that boys are better than girls at soccer, and even though they let me play, they were especially hard on me and laughed any time I would make a mistake. If the guys in my class were doing something stupid at lunch time, I would say something and then get all the backlash in the world for it. As a result of these experiences in elementary school (mostly the sixth to eighth grade), I held my tongue in high school and became much more passive. I want to tell her in my letter to never, ever become passive…to always be strong and stand up for herself, and (let’s be honest here…) not to get too caught up with boys until later in life. As much as I don’t like to generalize, and I’m not saying this is true for every boy…but many boys that age are not going to get it and are not going to accept her. It’s not just that she’s transgender, but also that she’s strong and confident. It’s intimidating. And most boys that age are going to be threatened.

Some of the comments that stood out to me the most in the clip are from Jazz’s mom. Rightfully so, Jazz’s mother worries endlessly about her daughter’s future. Now that she has entered puberty and soon high school, Jazz has expressed some interest in exploring different relationships. She has said that she’s not completely sure about where her feelings lie with regards to men or women, but she certainly wants to find love like most people do. Jazz’s mother knows that many (if not most) young men are not going to understand Jazz’s situation, and it will be extremely difficult for her to find someone to accept her. She wants her daughter to one day find someone who will love her, but she’s also cautious. In the clip she admits, “I think it would make her feel extra special if somebody showed an interest in her.” She also acknowledges, however, how difficult that will be: “I think the reason that Jazz doesn’t like hanging out with boys is that the boys aren’t nice to her. They don’t acknowledge her presence. They hug all of her friends and then ignore her. She says it doesn’t bother her but I think deep down inside it gets to her. How could it not?”

While it seems that many of the girls have accepted her (on the show you’ll see her hanging out with her friends, and the girls have admitted that often they forget that she’s biologically male because she’s so well integrated into their group), the boys certainly have not. Later in this episode in particular, only two boys out of many that the girls invited end up coming to the bowling alley. Being bold and unafraid to ask the tough questions (this is why I love her!) she asks one of the boys if the reason why some of the other boys didn’t come is because of her in particular. This boy claims that this is not necessarily the case, but that he does know of one of the boys for sure that does not accept her.

Because Jazz still has male genitalia, the reality is that most boys her age are not going to be interested in getting romantically involved with her because they’re afraid it will make them question their sexuality…

Does being with someone whose gender is female but whose sex is male make them gay?

This is the reality of the society we live in: “straight” people often fear homosexuality. In some cases it might be homophobia, but I think a lot of it is probably due to the realization that being homosexual would mean a much more difficult life altogether. Thus boys, and men as well, might be worried that engaging in a relationship with someone like Jazz could jeopardize their easy life as a heterosexual. And not to exclude women here, but I’m sure a female-to-male would make many women similarly confused.

I understand it. I can empathize with these positions. But it still makes me really upset that our world has to be so obsessed with gender and labelling. People should just be able to love whoever they please without thinking too much of the label that they will be assigned.

I’m getting a little too sentimental. Anyway!

I read a few of the comments on this video and I instantly regretted it. People are so ignorant it’s disgusting. And of course there’s always that one person who quotes the bible...

I wish I could line up all of these people in a row and just punch them out. There’s such a clear lack of understanding about transgender people and the queer community as a whole. I’m not going to get too much into it right now because I want to save it for my reflection, but this is why I’ve been thinking about making my own YouTube channel. I want to educate people about these issues. In reality, I can’t find all of these people in the world and punch them. Even though that might make me feel really good in the moment, it probably wouldn’t change much.

These people need an educational punch in the face.

I think I’ve said enough about this show for now. Until next week’s episode…!

And now on to my favourite comedian Amy Schumer and her television show, “Inside Amy Schumer.”

I’m not even sure how to go about describing this show. There’s just so much going on: not only does each episode include a variety of skits, but Amy also does standup and interviews people on the streets of New York in between. While some of the skits might just be meant to be funny (although I’m sure I could argue that there’s a bit of social commentary in all of them, some of them are pretty ridiculous!) many of them are actually extremely powerful. Once you finish your fit of laughter and have some time to think about what you just saw, maybe even watch it over again…the message becomes increasingly clear.

On her own, Amy Schumer represents a major feminist issue: women in comedy. Many people argue that women aren’t funny and male performers often receive much more respect and larger followings for their performances. Maybe I’m a bit bias, but Amy is honestly the funniest comedian I know right now. Not only that, but as a person she’s bold, she’s sarcastic, she’s confident in herself…she doesn’t care about having a relationship or getting married. She’s living her dream, doing what she loves, working hard on television and now even in film (“Trainwreck” was pretty fantastic I must say…although I could have done without the romantic plotline!) and I respect her so incredibly much for that.

I am not ashamed to admit that I have seen every episode of her show, while watching many of her skits two or three times a piece. Combing through her skits on YouTube to choose the best ones to represent the feminist slant she puts on her comedy was admittedly a highly enjoyable exercise.

The first skit I chose was “Last Fuckable Day” co-starring Patricia Arquette, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Tina Fey. The skit is about sexism in the entertainment industry: women age a lot quicker than men in television and film, while men somehow are always “fuckable”:

From this skit, I picked out a few quotations that stood out the most:

“In every actress’ life the media decides when you finally reach the point where you’re not ‘believably’ fuckable anymore” (Julia Louis-Dreyfus)

All I could think of when I heard this line was how patriarchy somehow finds its way into every avenue of society! It clearly controls the media, as older men and older women are not treated equally. For older men, that “salt-and-pepper” hair is presented as this super sexy physical characteristic that women both young and old desire. There’s no such thing as this sexy “salt-and-pepper” look for women. For women it’s not “salt-and-pepper”…it’s grays that need to be covered up with expensive hair colouring treatments.

What this product is really saying: Women, cover your grays! If people see you with gray hair, they might be able to guess your age! Don’t let anyone ever know how old you are! Remember: old people are disgusting! Do you want to be old?! No?! Then cover yourself up like you have to cover everything else on your withering bodies!

What this product is really saying: Men, don’t hide those grays! Women love that salt-and-pepper look! It makes you look sexy, sophisticated…like a wealthy man who owns a yacht and summers in the Hamptons! You know if you look like you’re older and have money, women will flock to you! Show it off, men! Just like you show off your packages in those tight-fitting speedos well into your eighties!

“Nobody really overtly tells you, but there are signs. You know how Sally Field was Tom Hanks’ love interest in Punch Line and then like twenty minutes later she was his mom in Forrest Gump?” (Tina Fey)

It’s always younger women who are partnered with older men, but rarely do you see older women being partnered with younger men. It’s just not socially acceptable both on-screen and off. Women are called “cougars” for going after younger men, but what do we call men who go after younger women? If there’s a term for it, I don’t know it.

“Or you go to a movie set, you go to wardrobe and the only thing they have for you to wear are long sweaters, like cover you up head-to-toe kind of thing” (Julia Louis-Dreyfus)

The aging body is one that society tells us is unattractive and should be covered “head-to-toe.” That’s why we often find it unappealing for older women to be seen in short dresses or skirts, showing their cleavage and other body parts. We consider it to be “inappropriate for their age”…but why? It’s funny to me how women at a certain age might opt for full-piece bathing suits instead of bikinis when swimming to cover themselves up more, while men, no matter the age, will always be in their swimming trunks or even speedos! There isn’t nearly the amount of shame for men as there is for women, and it isn’t because the female body is fundamentally more unappealing with age than the male body. We were all just made to believe this to be true. People often say “men get better-looking with age” compared to women…but is this actually the case? Patriarchy, you are a powerful, powerful force!

“Or like the poster for your movie is just a picture of a kitchen” (Tina Fey)

In one of my third year English courses called “Filming Canadian Literature” our professor told us about how movie posters with men on them tend to do better at the box office than those with women. I’m not sure how one could determine conclusively that the movie poster had anything to do with the success of the film, but I found that interesting nonetheless. What was more interesting though (and less questionable) was that movies that have female leads are often shoved in the background of the movie poster. For example, romantic films where the female character is portrayed as the protagonist will show her love interest in the foreground and then she’ll be pushed to the background.

Of course, we need both Iron Man and Tony Stark! Yes, make all the men large except for the Hulk…he stands out pretty well on his own being a huge green thing! Thor is a little smaller than we would have liked but he has that big hammer with all the lightening around it to make you take notice of him! As for Black Widow…well, we can just put her in all black and have her stick her butt out a bit. That should suffice. 

Amy Schumer: What about men? Who tells men when it’s their last fuckable day?

*The three women laugh*

Patricia Arquette: Honey, men don’t have that day.

Perfect. Absolutely perfect. Moral of the story: men are always fuckable! And us women should just accept it and move on!

The next video I chose expands a bit on this idea of the female body and societal expectations that are constantly being enforced regarding the ideal female figure. The video, entitled “New Body,” is about the unrealistic expectations women put on themselves when they are dieting:

This video pretty much speaks for itself with regards to the insane pressures women put on themselves to lose weight. I only picked out one quotation from this one:

“Alright listen to me. If I were you, I would just make my delusional diet a little more unachievable. Then it will hang on you” (unnamed sales associate)

The sales associate at the clothing store “New Body” brings Amy to the “five months from now” section after Amy tells her that she is “going to be” a size 2. Amy picks up a dress that is a size zero that she really likes and the sales associate tells her this in response. When Amy goes to try the dress on though, she is only able to get the dress around one of her thighs.

This video reflects how women are constantly made to feel dissatisfied with their bodies and always looking to a “future” version of themselves. Of course it’s a little exaggerated, as most of Amy Schumer’s videos are to make them funny, but it still holds a lot of a truth in terms of women’s body image.

Getting into a size two isn’t even good enough: it’s time to strive for that size zero!

When I first saw this next skit, I didn’t really understand it. After watching a few more times and even looking at the YouTube comments (as I’ve mentioned previously, I tend to regret doing this…but in this case, it actually helped a little bit), the video became much more relevant than I had originally thought. The video is called “You Can’t Go In There”:

While on the surface it may seem like a skit parodying the lack of respect given to female secretaries and even women in the workplace in general, there is a lot of evidence to support that it is also an allusion to rape culture. Because Amy does not say that the men “can’t go in there” with “umph,” the men feel like they can “still go in there,” which suggests that when it comes to sex, a woman simply saying no is not enough to deter a man from trying to be with her anyway:

Mr. Blake: Ed, did she tell you you can’t come in here?

Ed: Yes she did.

Mr. Blake: Well how did she say it?

Ed: *mocks Amy*

Mr. Blake: Okay well that’s pretty good.

Ed: But the way she said it, it felt like I could go in there.

Mr. Blake: Mhm. Amy, there are thousands of women who’d kill for the opportunity to tell people they can’t come into my office!

Not only does Amy’s authority to refuse the men’s entry into her boss’ office get ignored, but her boss himself also makes her feel bad about herself by telling her that other women would “kill” for the same opportunity. The fact that the men don’t respect her authority serves as an excellent representation of rape culture: women saying “no” is not enough because there’s always some sort of loophole that the man can use. In this case, she didn’t say “no” with enough force behind it. Not only that, if we’re talking specifically about rape culture, the man can also make the woman feel even more insignificant by telling her that other women would “kill” for the opportunity to have sex with him (or something similar to that effect).

“Look Amy. You’re a woman, and you can only focus on one thing at a time, I get that. That’s why I gave you just the one task!”

This quotation goes back to my initial perceptions of what this skit was suggesting: the lack of respect given to women in the workplace. In this example, Amy’s boss Mr. Blake is reinforcing female stereotypes regarding their proficiency in the workplace. Women can apparently “only focus on one thing at a time,” and that is why they are only able to hold menial jobs.

Always a secretary, never a boss.

BONUS VIDEO TIME!

This last video is both hysterical and critical at the same time! The hilarity speaks for itself, but it is especially critical of the stereotypes surrounding women in relationships.

Try not to laugh. I dare you.

Feminism on YouTube!

While there are a ton of other YouTubers with feminist-slanted content, I just wanted to talk about the two I have discovered this summer that have really caught my attention: Alexis G. Zall and TheRoxetera. I’m sure there are more but if I got into every single YouTuber that has “wow’d me in one way or another we would be here all day and night.

First up is Alexis G. Zall! I believe I came across her channel after watching her collaborate with another YouTuber I watch. From my research, I was surprised to learn that she is seventeen years old (and just by looking at her that doesn’t seem too far-fetched). The reason I was surprised by her age, however, is that she doesn’t speak like a typical seventeen-year-old. She has an extremely elevated way of expressing herself that could make a fifth-year university student jealous. Amidst her intelligent banters, I came across one video that I found both refreshing and hilarious. Around Valentine’s Day when she was sixteen years old, she created a satirical video essentially mocking societal expectations placed on women when pursuing a relationship. Alexis makes her beliefs very clear: relationships should not be at the center of every young woman’s universe, men should not be in complete control of where a relationship should go and if it should be pursued, and women don’t need men to do everything for them when on a date (such as hold open doors and pay for the meal) as women are more than capable of doing these things themselves and for their date as well.

The video is called “How to Get a Boyfriend”:

It’s really refreshing to see such opinionated, feminist approaches to dating coming from someone this age! I worry a lot about what the future holds for young women…if I didn’t receive the education I received, I would probably still have all of the sexist and clichéd ideas about dating that were presented in this video. “Don’t ask him out…wait for him to ask you…”, “chivalry isn’t dead...”, “you should straighten your hair for your date!” (that last one was more of a personal one…I’ve been told frequently throughout my life that my hair looks better straight, even though that’s not my natural hair…and I should wear it like that more often). It’s hard for me to remember how I thought or what I was like at sixteen, but I can at least say that getting boys to like me was certainly a priority.

Now at twenty-two years old I realize that as “fun” as relationships can be, there are more important things in life…

Like good food. And family and friends. And soccer. And school. Especially food.

…I wish I could say that was a joke, but if I could just be fed amazing food for the rest of my life I would be perfectly content remaining single forever.

Anyway. I picked out some of my favourite lines from the video. The first line especially hits home for me:

“Who needs life passions and career goals when you have movie dates and bouquets of red roses?”

“You want to be revealing, yet classy, sassy yet…not too opinionated”

“If you’re not happy with the way you look, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is what the boy thinks of you! You should turn yourself into the perfect girl for that man”

“You need the guy to ask you out. Do not, I repeat, do not ever make the first move with a guy! Because in case you forgot, this is the 1950s and making the first move could result in the execution of yourself and your close family”

“Appear helpless and meek! If he doesn’t open the door for you, just collapse into a puddle on the ground due to the heavy burden now placed upon your shoulders!”

I wish all teenage girls thought this way. The sad part is that I find that a lot of girls are in fact aware of these issues, but they don’t actually do anything about it. They want equality (or at least claim to) but at the same time expect for their boyfriends to pick up the check at the end of every meal. Or maybe they might feel obligated to be someone they’re not to impress a guy they really like…even though they know deep down that they shouldn’t. Young women need to be more aware of these contradictions in their ideas about dating and relationships. I think it would be really interesting to do some sort of survey of teenage girls to find out how they think about dating traditions and relationship roles. There are probably many out there who don’t see any issue in these dating traditions at all…and there are also probably many (like Alexis) who would surprise me with how well-informed they are.

So many questions…but only so much time! Can I just quit school now and do research forever?

What’s that? I need an education for anyone to take me seriously?

Well alright then. I guess I’ll have to wait a little longer.

Now on to TheRoxetera!

I actually have no idea how I stumbled upon this YouTube channel. TheRoxetera features a twenty-five-year-old bisexual woman named Rosie who often features her wife Rose in her videos as well. While her bio states that she does videos about makeup and hair, I haven’t actually come across any of these! The videos I’ve watched from this channel (and her wife’s channel) have been discussions about feminist issues, especially those surrounding the queer community.

The video I’ve chosen to discuss here is called “Scissor Shaming”:

In this video, Rosie and her girlfriend Rose talk about lesbians telling other lesbians how they should have sex. I thought this video was interesting because it shows how even within otherwise oppressed groups like the gay community, hierarchies are assigned and there is still a lot of judgment and criticism regarding sex: in this case, how it should be performed! You would think that of all people, lesbians (who are at least doubly oppressed since they are gay and women) would be sensitive towards different lifestyle choices. This, however, is evidently not true. Just as the title of the video suggests, Rose and Rosie discuss how there are some lesbians who claim that “scissoring” is not a “real” part of lesbian sex and that “real” lesbians do not scissor. According to these women, “scissoring” was something contrived for movies and television, but is not realistic in actual lesbian relationships. I really liked how Rosie and Rose deconstruct this position by pointing out how ridiculous it would be if heterosexuals went around asserting how “real” straight people have sex. Their discussion reminded me a lot of the article I read in GEOG 3P74 about the discrimination that was occurring among the trans community at “The Pussy Palace” in Toronto. Many of the women at the event were arguing against male-to-female individuals being allowed to participate for pretty much the same reason Rosie and Rose are talking about: they’re not “real” women.

Even though she goes on a bit of an impassioned tangent here, the message Rosie delivers in the following quotation is powerful:

“Some people have such struggles coming out of the closet, coming out to their parents, people get kicked out of home, people get bullied, people get beaten up, you know people are afraid to come out, people live double lives, people don’t get jobs, people get their teeth pulled out in Russia for being lesbian. And then we have this community where we’re meant to support each other and be like, ‘you know what? Be yourself. It’s okay to be you.’ And we spread messages saying it’s okay, come out, be proud. If anyone doesn’t like you, fuck ‘em. And then we say, ‘don’t scissor. You’re not a real member of this community. Get out.’ What the fuck?”

I honestly couldn’t have said it better myself. “What the fuck?” is right. Of all places and spaces a geographer could study, there is little dispute that the bedroom should be the ultimate space for freedom. The bedroom is where we go to be alone, to be ourselves, to free our bodies and minds from the confines of an oppressive society. And when we bring partners into these rooms, or we choose to share this room with a partner, this feeling of freedom should continue. Societal pressures should not be allowed to enter.

I apologize for the inappropriateness of the following statement, but it needs to be said: If you want to scissor, if you want to doggy, if you want to reverse-cowgirl…that’s all up to YOU and your partner. Two’s company and three’s a crowd (that “three” being society). Unless of course you’re polyamorous…

In that case. Carry on!

  

Plans for the next few posts...and a little rant about "The Bachelor"

I’m going a little off the map this week (three points for cheesy geography joke!). I want to demonstrate the impact that this research opportunity has had on me. I think the greatest evidence one could obtain that something has changed her life is that the entire world around her somehow looks different. I see things, hear things, read things and watch things from the perspective of an almost completely changed woman. Perhaps that sounds a little dramatic, but in the next few blog posts I’m going to prove just how deeply these last three months have affected me, and what better way to do that than to turn to media? Throughout this research opportunity I have relied predominantly on books and academic articles. During times when I am not reading, however, like most people my age my face is glued to some screen or another: my phone (which is so large that I can comfortably have extremely long-winded YouTube binges), my laptop and my television are constantly bombarding me with new ideas and information to apply my critical eye to. While on the surface some of the things I watch might be shameful for someone who will one day have a PhD framed on their wall (this sounds cocky but I think that if I keep saying it, it will happen!), there’s actually a lot to learn from some of these seemingly shallow programs.

While I didn’t choose this television show for my analysis, I want to point out The Bachelor for a moment. Now this show gets a lot of heat, and rightfully so! Although many educated feminists would probably refuse to watch even ten minutes of a program like this, I actually find it quite interesting (and often infuriating). In order to make the whole process of one man having his pick of twenty-six gorgeous women who all happen to be in love with him (it is rare that someone will leave on their own because they realized that they don’t actually have feelings for the person…which in reality doesn’t make a whole lot of sense), they created The Bachelorette to even the playing field. So instead of twenty-six women vying for a man’s affections, it’s twenty-six men vying for a woman’s affections. Okay, I mean…that sounds alright. But then you get seasons like this past Bachelorette season, where they throw in this ridiculous twist where they have two bachelorettes and then the twenty-six men have to choose between them. How is that fair?! This is supposed to be the WOMAN’S time to shine, but instead she has to compete with another woman and win all the men over in order to continue? And then there’s the double-standard when it comes to sex on the show: the bachelorette this past season had sex with one of the guys and she ended up receiving messages on social media calling her a whore and other atrocious insults. She even admitted to getting death threats! This is all because she wanted to further explore a relationship with someone. In the real world, when people are dating…they have sex! At the end of this show, there’s supposed to be a proposal…and as much as I respect people who choose to wait for religious or other reasons, I’m not marrying anyone I haven’t been intimate with. It’s such a huge part of a relationship…how could you walk down the aisle with someone if that kind of chemistry is not there? At the end of the day, this is about a marriage. And if the bachelorette wants to have sex with someone she cares about, it's her choice.

Would the bachelor receive similar taunts for making the same decision? Absolutely not. There has been sex before…but since it’s the bachelorette to decide to have sex with someone and come clean with it, she’s a whore.

See? There’s actually a lot to learn from television shows like this. They serve as a great reminder that regardless of the progress women have made in terms of equality, our society hasn’t nearly come as far as we think.

Now with that little rant aside, in the following three blogs I’m going to be exploring YouTube, television and online news media that have really stood out to me over this past summer as emphasizing some powerful feminist issues. There will be a blog dedicated to each of these media platforms, and then there will be a following blog that will serve as a personal reflection. I’ve been meaning to do a personal reflection for a long time now, and I finally feel like I'm in a good place to write one.

So without further ado, YouTube is first up!

“Applications [for social assistance in Ontario] would soon be processed via telephone pre-screening and an ‘interactive voice-response’ system, changes which undoubtedly proved more challenging to those with poor language skills and/ or low educational attainments” (27)

REFERENCE: Kneebone, R.D., & White, K.G. (2009). Fiscal retrenchment and social assistance in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 35(1), 21-40.

To say I struggled with this article would be the understatement of the century. The struggle was just so, so real—as they say (I swear, I’ll keep it academic from here on out). I must admit that I didn’t get a lot out of it. Articles that are very numbers- and data- and graph-focused (ouch…that didn’t sound very academic, either. I’m sorry…this is my brain on summer vacation!) tend to induce a lot of eye-crossing, head-scratching and face-numbing on my part. I’m a much bigger fan of interview methods, personal essays…articles where I can actually see, hear and understand the people I’m reading about.

I can say, however, that in the midst of all of the eye-crossing, there was still quite a bit of eye-opening!

Sifting through all of the figures and equations…which looked a little like this…

 

[As you can see, this is a picture. There’s a reason why this is a picture and not copy-and-pasted text: it’s not WORDS! I honestly thought I was done with math forever after twelfth grade data management. I mean sure, there was a bit of this in introductory psychology, but nothing this complicated! I’m trying really hard not to blame my education, but WHY DON’T I KNOW HOW TO READ THIS? I’m sorry for this rant…luckily I was able to pick out the key points of this article, beneath the calligraphic scrawl. It’s times like these when I’m reminded that I’m not smart at all. What’s this about grad school? Am I perpetuating stereotypes about women being inferior to men in science and mathematics? Okay, I’m shutting up now.]  

…I came across one very poignant conclusion: SOCIAL ASSISTANCE IN THIS PROVINCE IS GARBAGE. Along with the other two wealthiest provinces in this country (ironic, isn’t it?), Alberta and British Columbia, we really aren’t very good at helping the most vulnerable members of our society. But what we are in fact really good at is making complicated application processes that ultimately scare people out of even trying to get help, even if they desperately need it.

What happens to these people? Well, as I’ve heard many times in my education and geography courses, they “fall through the cracks.” No one ever really seems to elaborate on what “falling through the cracks” entails, but my guess is that these cracks fall along the lines of poverty and even homelessness. Interesting how this is happening in the “wealthiest” provinces in Canada! I can’t seem to be able to get over that.

Kneebone and White provide many reasons for why drastic cuts were made to social assistance, especially in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Under these “fiscal pressures” included “increased program costs” and “rising deficits, debt, and debt-serving costs.” That’s all well and good. The government needs to make some cuts: we’re in debt, and people are whining about taxes. I will admit that I don’t know a ton about politics, and I’m probably being naïve in saying this: but of everything you can make cuts to, why are social services being targeted? We want to help people to get back on their feet, give them the tools to enter or re-enter the workforce. Does this not help our economy? I’m sure other cuts are being made elsewhere, but social services is something we desperately need. I just hope that we never end up following the United States’ lead and adopt this shitty “everyone for themselves,” “we’d-rather-take-the-risk-of-getting-sick-and-paying-thousands-of-dollars-than-help-anyone-else” mentality. When you hear about cuts like these being made, you can’t help but ask yourself: what’s next?

Even though I wasn’t a huge fan of how the information in this article was presented (that’s more a critique of my own lack of understanding than it is a critique of the authors’ work), the information I was able to pull out of it has still managed to motivate me. In the coming month, I’m going to be working with information pertaining to the Niagara Region specifically concerning social services. From what I’ve gathered so far from both my professor’s comments as well as the article I have linked below this paragraph, Niagara is not a great place to live. Contrary to this bubble I’ve been stuck in my entire life thinking how fortunate I am to grow up in Niagara Falls, I’m realizing now that if my family was not in the good financial state that they are in as a result of their occupations, I would be having a pretty miserable time. The place that I’ve always had positive associations with would make me feel alone and unsupported with nowhere to go—especially as a woman. This article is a testament to that:

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/best-and-worst-places-be-woman-canada-2015

Though the article talks about each category in more detail, this chart provides a useful summary to show us St. Catharines/Niagara women just how great we really have it (if it didn’t come across, I was being extremely sarcastic). The article focused on ranking Canada’s 25 largest metropolitan areas…and out of those 25 areas, we came in 16th. If you ask me…that’s pretty awful. We’re not last, granted, but we’re still in the bottom half. Since this is a ranking of Canada’s best and worst places to live, that would mean we are one of the WORST! I mean…20th in economic security?! 22nd in health?! I’m truly shocked and appalled. Those are probably the two most important categories and we essentially failed both.

Anyway. Now it’s time to return to Kneebone and White. I tried to focus my notes on Ontario specifically since I’m going to be working more intimately with Niagara very soon. In my typical fashion, I have included the quotations (which are mostly facts and figures) that stood out to me the most and provided my own comments and questions. In my not-so-typical fashion, I have also included the graph that Kneebone and White developed to show the decline in the social assistance rate in Ontario at the end of this blog.

Here it goes!

“In 1991, further reforms made some aspects of special assistance mandatory, increased STEP funding, and eliminated compulsory home visits—changes which contributed to further increases in the social-assistance rate” (25)

What I want to know is: in these years where obtaining social assistance was comparatively “lax” and the numbers of people obtaining social assistance increased, was this because people were just taking advantage of the system, or is it actually because more people were able to fulfill their needs? I’ve heard a lot about the “hidden poor” but, true to its name, it’s not something I have any experience with personally. Niagara Falls is a city where until I was probably a teenager, I thought everyone was as affluent as me. Everywhere I went, I saw nice houses. Everyone I went to school with wore nice clothes. Everything around me seemed, well…nice. Neat. Clean and put-together. My parents and grandparents did a good job of reminding me that there are “starving kids in Africa” and so I should probably eat the rest of my grilled cheese (why my eating the rest of my food has anything to do with helping the starving kids in Africa or having any impact whatsoever is seriously beyond me…) but I had no idea that poverty existed in my own backyard. My grandparents live on the other end of town—in a neighbourhood filled with other retirement-age folk like themselves—but also filled with some less-fortunate families. How do you pick these families out of a neighbourhood like this? Do we look for the homes that are maybe a little shabbier than the others…the ones with a broken window, maybe parts of the roof peeling off, and an overgrown lawn? My lawn is constantly overgrown because no one in a household of three insanely busy work- and school-focused women have the time to cut it every week (do people mow the lawn every week? Two weeks? Who am I kidding…I’ve never mowed the lawn before). But does that mean we’re impoverished? If someone hasn’t gotten around to patching up their roof, does that mean they’re in need of social assistance? The people with the manicured lawn might be struggling a lot more than we think. You just can’t make assumptions. Who really needs it, and who doesn’t? How do we make that decision? Something tells me that there are more people who actually need help than there are those who “take advantage.”

“…the process was criticized for restricting entry and denying benefits through excessive requests for information and a complicated application process. However, as the Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC 2000) suggests, this was the intent; processes like these are intended to ‘scare’ people away from applying for social assistance” (28)

The above quotation was taken from the section of the article that talks about Ontario specifically. For that reason, I thought it was especially important to include the information Kneebone and White found about our difficult application process. We don’t want to spend the money, and so we make it next to impossible for people to claim welfare.

“The dummy variables [which are variables that indicate years where social assistance was uncharacteristically easy to obtain and uncharacteristically difficult to obtain: so essentially, they’re figures of the extreme ends of both sides of the spectrum] are large and statistically significant. They suggest that changes to the approach to administrating social-assistance programs in Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia reduced social-assistance rates in those provinces by an average of 1.2 percentage points after one year and 4.5 percentage points in the long run” (33)

When we’re informed that our social assistance rates have declined, what are we supposed to think of this decline? Are we made to believe that this decline has to do with the fact that more people are finding meaningful employment and thus the demand is much less? Or, as indicated in the aforementioned quotation, has the application process gotten so complicated that less people are being supported and are instead plummeting down into those infamous cracks? Maybe on paper it looks more like the former…but if you compare poverty and homelessness rates, the reality of the latter would certainly come across.

“Ontario was witness to the largest decline in a social-assistance rate. By 2003, the rate had fallen by 11.1 percentage points from its high of 19.5 percent in 1993. Of this fall explained by our regression, 18.2 percent was due to a fall in the unemployment rate, 25.3 percent was due to a fall in the real value of the social-assistance benefit, 9.4 percent was due to an increase in the real value of earned incomes, and 47.1 percent was due to the change captured by the dummy variable which is the best available measure of the influence of changes in administrative procedures introduced in Ontario after 1996” (34)

Hmmm....based on these figures, it doesn’t look like a greater employment rate has much to do with the decline in social assistance. Only 18.2 percent of the fall can be explained by a decrease in the unemployment rate! That’s pretty lame if you ask me. Oh, and look! Only 9.4 percent of the fall can be explained by increased incomes! The icing on top of the cake—which makes everything all the more clear here—is that almost half of the fall, at 47.1 percent, can be explained by “changes in administrative procedures.” If you break everything down as Kneebone and White do in this article, it becomes apparent that the decrease in social assistance rates have virtually nothing to do with improvements in people’s economic stability, and a lot to do with our province’s difficult application process.

“In those three provinces which introduced the most significant changes in administrative procedures, the state of the economy, as measured by the responses to changes in labour market tightness and changes in earned income, accounted for between 18 percent and 30 percent of the reduction in the social-assistance rate. Thus, the state of economy deserves ‘credit’ for a sizable amount of the fall in the social-assistance rate in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia” (34)

“[B]etween 18 and 30 percent” refers to the three provinces holistically. 30 percent is not a completely pathetic figure, but if you ask me: 18 percent is. And this 18 percent, as mentioned previously, belongs to Ontario. So even though the authors are playing devil’s advocate here and giving some credit to improvements in the economy to explain the changes in the social assistance rates among these three provinces, I’m playing devil’s advocate to their devil’s advocate…if that makes sense. At the end of this research term, my goal will have been to tackle local issues, and it is quite evident that Ontario has some pretty big issues! Sure, we can give that measly 18.2 percent of the decline in social assistance to improvements in our economy, but we also have to give 47.1 percent of those changes to that ridiculous application process!

Overall, in the author’s own findings, they discovered the following with regards to decline in the social assistance rate:

“…changes in administrative procedures accounted for between one-half and two-thirds of the fall in the social-assistance rate explained by our regression” (36)

Here’s a more detailed look at Ontario. Even though it’s a little outdated, I’m sure if this graph was continued to the present day, the trend would only continue…