Last week, the John Humphrey Centre invited one of our own to speak for the Human Rights Facilitators on the topic of gender and media. The presentation focused on the view that while “gender rights” are legally enshrined and protected, culturally, we have stagnated as a society. Gender rights, which are emphatically NOT the same thing as “women’s rights”, have moved forward incrementally but in a reactionary sense–that is, instead of taking a pro-active stance on improving gender rights for women, LGBTQ and others, we tend to regress to stereotypes and false dichotomies.

Celebrity culture or mass media culture has a tendency to perpetuate the old stereotypes about the “virgin/whore” trope, as evidenced by the ongoing saga of Angelina Jolie versus Jennifer Aniston (we know it’s not in anyway an important issue; it was just a funny example). Mainstream media continues to portray women politicians through a sexual lens, using words like hysterical, hissy fit, emotional, etc to describe behaviours and commentary on wardrobe choices. Hillary Clinton, Belinda Stronach, Nancy Pelosi and other high-ranking female politicians are particularly susceptible to attack partly because of their high-profiles and because they are outspoken.

That is not to say that women cannot participate equally in society as electability of women politicians is not the issue. The studies seem to indicate that if a female candidate is put into a viable riding, the voters basically don’t care if they are female or male. But the studies also confirm that there are very few women running for public office at all, which is a problem with regards to fair representation given that half the population is female.

There was also discussion over the changing medium of media itself and that online media and web 2.0 has put up a seriously challenge to the hegemony held by traditional media. Web 2.0 is more likely to be gender friendly as anyone with a computer can make their voices heard and produce a variety of POVs and arguments, which changes the dynamic.

Overall, the presentation did a good job of presenting one facet of gender rights and media.

photo by Kennymatic

There were a lot of things to complain about for the Olympics but also a lot of great moments. No matter how you feel about the companies who sponsor the Olympics and their day-jobs, their sponsorship also allowed for dozens of young Canadian athletes compete on the world stage doing what they love to do best and we can all be very proud of their achievements as Canadians.

But this isn’t a post about the value or ethics of the Olympics. Rather, this is a post about that Tim Horton’s commercial that has been making the rounds. It features a young black father who is clearly IMMIGRANT (as in, that is how he is identified), whose family is finally coming to join him in Canada. It was a beautifully done commercial, full of good hope and joy. (If you haven’t seen it, you can watch it on youtube here)Oh and there’s Timmies in the picture too but as Paula Simons articulates here so well:

What we’re being sold, of course, isn’t just coffee. We’re being sold a vision of Canada as a multicultural country that welcomes hardy refugees and immigrants from around the world, and absorbs them into its national fabric — one Timbit and double-double at a time.

Now, Tim Hortons has the commercial branded as “based as a true story” but as it turns out, it’s not really. They sort of smashed together a bunch of stories and made an ad out of it. All stories, to some extent, are based on true stories and no doubt there are several stories similar to this one.

Paula’s article does a fantastic job of articulating my thoughts on the commercial as well but in addition, I don’t find this ad to be offensive or even terrible. I actually found it to be rather…nice. Tim Hortons could have easily chosen to do the ad in a thousand different ways (remember the angry Chinese hockey dad? ) or worse, make it an ad about the coffee itself but they didn’t. They told an immigrant story instead (even if it isn’t wholly true), a gentle, touching story that makes you hope and wish that this really was the Canada we lived in.

Oh and it’s a brilliant ad, marketing-wise. Evocative, touching and emotional–hits all the right notes.

The Government of Alberta can learn something about advertising from this ad alone. Case in point: there is an ad floating around out there called “Climate Change Central” featuring the Government of Alberta logo. I thought it was a Government of Alberta initiative. The website tells me it’s an NGO that empowers Albertans to take action on climate change but honestly, my first impression of the Climate Change Central ad was an incredibly ironic double entendre!

What do you think of the Tim Horton ad? Did you like it? Why did you hate it? Leave a comment!

Bolotwa, South Africa by Randy OHC

On Sunday February 07, we had our second Human Rights Cafe Dialogue at Three Bananas. We had a fairly good turn out and an even better discussion. The cafe was really supposed to be a discussion of the book Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo but alas, only 2 people really got more than 2/3rds of the book so the discussion was more on aid/development politics. However, the book did start the party and it was a good party!

For the most part, I think most of the participants agreed that Dambisa Moyo’s premise–that bilateral/multilateral developmental aid (aid that is provided to governments, usually through the World Bank or the IMF) is harmful. This system of developmental aid, basically enables corrupt governments to pocket most of the aid with less than something like 25% of it reaching its citizens.

We also had a really great discussion along the lines of holistic country-building, taking into the need for human dignity when working with communities on the ground yet looking beyond the immediate needs and small geographical areas towards building the entire nation, which requires a degree of sacrifice on the grassroots level (without forgetting that the poorest of the poor exist still). We also had a long discussion about meeting the Social, Cultural and Political pillars, not just the Economic one, as necessities in building a country. We also had a good discussion on various initiatives that have been tried (the value of micro-lending, for example) and whether or not most aid development programs are actually helpful or just charity in disguise (charity, which gives “hand outs instead of a hand up”, as one participant so eloquently put it).

I think the group agreed that charity is not the way to go since it does very little to foster sustainable community development. There is also an inherent harm to good intentions such as the clothing you donate to Value Village. This clothing, if it does not sell in Canada or wherever it originates, gets shipped to various African countries and are essentially resold to merchants who then sell it to the public for a cost. This has a negative impact on the community because these donated clothes now takes away the livelihoods of clothiers and tailors.

We also discussed extensively the need for foreign investment and foreign capital in African markets to jump-start the economy and to foster competitive innovation. There was also an idea floating around that African countries should have their own trading blocs (similar to ASEAN or NAFTA or even the EU in its original form).

Unfortunately, the discussion revolving around development in Africa takes a lot longer than 2 hours (and really, a lifetime) but Dead Aid was a good conversation starter. When I’m done reading the book, I’ll be doing a review of it and adding a few thoughts to it as well.
Next Human Rights Cafe: March 7th, same place, same time. Check out the Events page for more details.