blogcutter

During my high school and university days, it was the dawning of the Age of Androgyny. There were unisex jeans stores all over the place, along with the boutiques selling incense and Indian-print bedspreads, tops and dresses. It was an age not so much of gender diversity as gender uniformity. Everyone who had hair wore it long. Afros were a thing regardless of the colour of your skin. So was hair so straight you had to iron it regularly unless it was naturally perma-press.

Today marks the end of a mostly-virtual Pride Week. Yesterday I went on a bit of a rant at the Royal Canadian Navy over its RIMPAC exercise but today I'll highlight a couple of the more progressive measures they are taking towards inclusivity. Like their real-life Pride Parade on the canal:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/boat-pride-parade-rideau-canal-ottawa-1.5705150?cmp=rss

And their move towards more gender-inclusive job titles, still controversial in some quarters:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-canadian-navy-seaman-sailor-1.5702842

But is there still room for gendered spaces in all this would-be broad-mindedness? Personally I hope so although if I were active on social media, I'm sure I'd face a flaming Twitter-storm of protest for that stance!

Some of the most positive environments I've been in in my life have been female-only. Like CGIT, like the Ottawa Women's Centre and the Consciousness-Raising group I briefly participated in during the mid-70s. Or like the Women's Committee of my union local at Labour Canada. Since I worked in a predominantly female occupation, there were also a number of all-female job environments I worked in too.

In many cultures, my own included, girls and boys were, and to a considerable extent still are treated differently. Certainly those of us growing up as girls and boys in Canada were not treated AS differently from each other as we would have been in some other parts of the world, but the differences were definitely there and have shaped our lives accordingly. For that reason, it's difficult if not impossible to ascertain precisely where nature leaves off and nurture kicks in when looking at sex-linked differences.

At this end of the twenty-first century, we are gradually adding concepts like gender identity and gender expression to our institutional framework of human rights. For the most part, I see this as positive. But it does bother me when I sense that we are no longer allowed to celebrate our differences and be our authentic selves. Take, for example, someone who dares to state publicly that trans-women are not quite the same as cis-women. I for one strongly believe that, even though (or perhaps precisely BECAUSE) trans-women are very much a part of my day to day reality. But I'm just a private individual, not a high-profile woman like, say, J.K. Rowling, who recently stood up for what she believed in by returning a human rights award she had received:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/rowling-award-return-1.5704196?cmp=rss

And what of gender expression? If someone who is male opts to wear a dress or any kind of garment or make-up or other items the culture regards as feminine, is that really gender expression? Or is it just personal expression, wearing what they feel comfortable in, or whatever?

And to go even farther out on a limb, what about the racial equivalents to these gendered categories?
Race has in recent years been acknowledged to be quite an artificial construct. You can't necessarily peg it conclusively by skin colour alone, or by any other overt quality that I know of. So why is it considered so appallingly racist and culturally misappropriating for an ostensibly white person to publicly appear in blackface or brown face, while men in dresses or drag queen story times are celebrated as examples of alternative gender expression? What about a black person like, say, Venus Williams, bleaching her hair? What about using skin lighteners? Do we need categories for racial identity and racial expression?

We should dare to ask some of these currently unaskable, politically incorrect questions because only then will we begin to address them and move towards a truly inclusive society.

I have long been a fan of Bridgehead and the whole notion of fair trade. I remember when they had a shop on Sussex Drive and an annual catalogue of fair trade items you could order. I was even a regular customer of the Bridgehead coffee shop on Wellington Street where the Abdirahman Abdi incident occurred. It was a pleasant place to while away the time, with its comfy furniture and its corner with toys for the kids, and a good selection of city and neighbourhood newspapers.

The incident occurred nearly four years ago but has waxed and waned in the public spotlight ever since. It's definitely in "waxing" mode right now with all the anti-racism protests following the brutal killing of George Floyd by a white police officer in Minnesota, and then a march this past Saturday specifically organized by the Justice for Abdi Coalition. Today on CBC's Ottawa Morning, former Bridgehead CEO Tracey Clark was interviewed along with anti-racism advocate Farhia Ahmed. Clark offered an almost grovelling mea-culpa-style apology for her reaction to the incident four years ago:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1754840643742

But personally, I don't think she really had anything to apologize for. Here's the CBC news item from four years ago - I'll let you be the judge:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/bridgehead-owner-speaks-abdirahman-abdi-1.3708589

The thing is, there are a lot of sets of rights to be considered here. Abdi was a black man with a mental illness and and apparently a regular customer of the Wellington Street Bridgehead coffee shop. But whether he was in control of his actions or not, he was also physically strong and capable of considerable violence - as was clearly in evidence when he harassed and sexually assaulted at least half a dozen women. Could he have been treated more humanely? Yes. Did he deserve to die? No. But other people have rights too!

What about the women he assaulted? If even one of them had opted to pursue a complaint to the full extent of the law, we might be hearing a far more complex and convoluted story than what we're getting today. Not that I blame them - we have a long and not-so-proud history of painting female victims and survivors as guilty parties! I myself could tell my own story, though it's far less dramatic or traumatic. Back in the 1970s, a black security guard at the National Gallery of Canada (when it was still in the Lorne Building on Elgin Street) made a pass at me when I was there on a Thursday evening. I was wandering about the modern art when he asked something like "Are you staying at a hotel?" I said no and moved away to another artwork. Then I felt someone put a hand on my hair and shoulder. Startled, I looked around and he asked, "Are you scared?" "No," I said and escaped into a nearby stairwell. Fortunately that was the end of it. I did consider making a formal complaint but had the feeling that particular with him being black, my complaint would be construed as racist. And being busy with schoolwork and the like, it frankly felt like too much bother.

So anyway, my biggest concern would be for the women he assaulted. But I also feel for the staff and the other customers in the coffee shop. And also the police officers, who have a difficult job to do, are required to make split-second decisions and lack effective tools and social and community resources - and quite likely an adequate amount of training and education - to properly handle confrontations involving serious mental health problems.

So before we come out with knee-jerk demands to eliminate "police brutality" by "defunding" the police, let's take a cold hard look at how we treat ALL segments of society, whether that's black folks, women, the mentally ill, the poor or anyone we think of "different" or "other".

That's how things look to me. Am I missing something here?