Alluring Advertisements

Despite my complaints about the gender/class sledgehammer that Carolyn Strange weilds in "Toronto's Girl Problem," I AM enjoying much of it. And since today is an "eat Ched-a-Corn and watch Catherine Tate" sort of day I've had some time to read a little bit further.

Midway through the book she presents a reproduction of a 1912 flyer from the "Toronto Vigilance Committee." Besides the usual hysteria about white slavery and indecent literature, the TVC lists "alluring advertisements" as a source of concern:

Recently a number of persons have been advertising for lady stenographers, waitresses, etc., and when the applicants called, they would be rudely treated by being asked such questions as: 'Do you wish to have a good time, and make big money?' 'Do you smoke, play cards, dance, stand on your head?' 'Do you desire to go to wine suppers?' 'What are your measurements from your hips down?' One villain of a man induced one of the young girls to go to an establishment he operated on Bathurst Street, and there accomplished, possibly, the ruin of the girl. OUR SISTERS AND DAUGHTERS MUST NOT BE SUBJECTED TO THESE GROSS AFFRONTS!

I have to agree. I HATE it when guys in bars ask me if I stand on my head.

Atari 2600, And Now...

My "Atari Flashback 2" came in the mail last week and I'm happy to say I'm not tired of it yet. I'd forgotten how smooth and fast the games can be and it's nice to play a game with a joystick again.

(Speaking of the joysticks, unfortunately these ones are not chewable...they look and feel exactly like the old Atari joysticks but their "barrels" are made of plastic instead of rubber).

Of all the games, so far I've found "Missile Command" and "Adventure" to be the most fun, the former because it's so frantic and the latter because it's so methodical, duck-like dragons notwithstanding. The problem with arcade games, however, is that they tend to progress in levels that get steadily more difficult, and you eventually reach a level that you can never get past.

As for weird games, I'm a bit confused by "Aquaventure," a prototype that was never released. You're a treasure-seeking scuba diver who blasts the hell out of seahorses with a speargun. Why do I want to kill seahorses? Why do I need a speargun to do so? It's a mystery.

Jesus Camp

I'm halfway through Jesus Camp and I need to make a few comments before I can stomach the rest.

There's a wonderful scene where the camp organizers wander around the camp before it opens, blessing things. They bless the pews and the general space, but then they start to bless the wiring, and the computers, saying that they know how the devil likes to sabotage their works. They're basically exorcising electrical equipment...equipment that crashes for EVERYBODY. Even Al Gore.

This, and the extreme conviction of the people in the film, clued me in to something that hadn't ocurred to me before: evangelical belief systems are so attractive because they exist outside of doubt, they provide certainty, they make sense of the world. When computers crash, it's because the devil is trying to sabotage the people who use them, which makes whatever they're doing seem so much more important...it's so important that the devil wants to stop it! When one of their children die, these people can explain it as God's will...it isn't cruel or random or in any way meaningless, it happens because it's part of a plan.

I think it's important and natural for people to search for explanations for things, because the world is a scary and confusing place sometimes. So in a sense I admire their conviction, though I strongly believe that they don't realize how PROUD they are in their convictions. These people aren't humble at all.

Anyway, this should be benevolent except for four things. First their belief system is contrary to fact...these people should be SEARCHING for the truth, not just sitting in a manufactured "truth bubble" that permits no further seeking or revision. There's nothing scary or empty about searching for facts, but these people don't seem to believe that.

Secondly it's based strongly around the ideas of guilt and suffering. Humbleness and delayed-gratification are, I believe, parts of a positive belief foundation...but guilt and suffering are NOT positive. They get you nowhere unless they're intermediate stages to further growth or understanding. To watch these Jesus Camp kids crying and rolling on the floor because the teacher suspects some of them are harboring sin...holy cow, that's cruel and twisted, you ugly camp counsellor f*ck. I see her doing that and all her good works are wiped away. If there's a devil it's people like her.

The third problem I see is the need to convert others to their cause. Again there is something noble and benevolent at the ROOT of conversion -- if you believe that somebody needs your help, you should probably consider helping them -- but *I* don't need help from these people, and I sure as hell don't want them writing the laws that I live under. We have a right to refuse help, especially when we see basic flaws in the help being offered. If I have a cut on my leg and some quack doctor decides I need an amputation, that doctor is NOT doing a good thing.

The fourth problem is their emphasis on fear as a control mechanism. As usual there is a grain of goodness to this because kids need to be taught to fear dangerous things. But when the dangerous thing is an imaginary devil that sabotages powerpoint presentations you start sounding like the mother from Sibyl.

So I see good and bad elements to all this. It must take extraordinary time and patience to homeschool a child, and I get the sense that these parents really DO want what's best for their children. I'm sure they LOVE their children. But when they convince their children that their basic human desires and curiosities are sins that they'll BURN IN HELL FOR, I'm sorry: you're bad and twisted.

The Big Pore Solution!

You may recall that my new Cover FX foundation emphasizes the gigantic pores on my nose, and this has been causing me stress. I'm proud to tell you that there is a solution...and it's a solution that actually WORKS!

According to a secret cosmetic source, the root of my nose problem is oil, and I have a REALLY oily nose. Oil results in shine and also undermine my foundation, which reveals my pores and produces that "rotting nose" look that I've grown so fond of lately.

"Base Miracle" by Lise Watier fixes this problem. It's a matte, transparent, silicon-like gel that you apply to oily areas BEFORE putting on your foundation. It not only fills in your pores, but it also somehow keeps the oil from washing the foundation away. I tried it last night and it worked perfectly, and it has yet to cause any sort of post-application leprosy.

To further guard against foundation-slippage, be sure to only PAT your foundation on to oil-prone areas, instead of BRUSHING it on. This goes for base AND powder. For this I'm using the CoverFX Matte compact.

Henning Fixed My Blogger!

Thanks to his unparalleled expertise with cascading style sheets, Henning NOT ONLY repaired my blogger template...but he even explained what was wrong with it!

I must also credit Henning with first introducing me to Dana International, and also credit him with patience when I used to hide in the bathroom after customers yelled at me. Thanks, Henning!

This Ain't Yer Grandma's Elmer Gantry

Last week I posted a review of the novel "Elmer Gantry" by Sinclair Lewis. I think I pretty much summed up the principle theme: Christian priests cannot live up to the high standards expected of them, so the only priests who thrive in such an environment are sneaky, ambitious, destructive, hypocritical jerks like Elmer Gantry.

Having just finished watching the 1960 movie adaptation of the novel I present a top-secret, exclusive transcript of the first planning meeting between writer/director Richard Brooks and producer Bernard Smith:

BERNARD: Hey Rich! How're you doing? I LOVED what you did with "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof."

RICHARD: Thanks!

BERNARD: And that Elizabeth Tailor...MEOW!

RICHARD: (explosively) HA HA HA!

BERNARD: Say, do you remember that Charles Dickens book called "Oliver Gantry?"

RICHARD: You mean "Elmer Gantry?"

BERNARD: Yeah, whatever.

RICHARD: Written in the '20s, wasn't it? I think I read it, or maybe I read a review of it. Something about a preacher named...ummm...

BERNARD: I think his name was Elmer Gantry. Yeah, and there was another preacher named Sharon Falconer, and some girl called Lulu, and I seem to remember a Jim Lefferts somewhere in there. And a big fire at the end.

RICHARD: For the life of me I don't recall the details.

BERNARD: That's okay, nobody else does either! We want you to write and direct a movie adaptation.

RICHARD: Golly, I'd better read the book then.

BERNARD: Don't bother! What we want is a slam-bang Hollywood flick with lovable characters.

RICHARD: But Bernard...were ANY of the characters in the novel lovable? I seem to remember that Elmer Gantry was a womanizing, hard-drinking, greedy, stupid bastard, and Sharon Falconer was a con artist who believed she was the reincarnation of Joan of Arc.

BERNARD: Oh, we can't have that. It's too depressing! Make them both sincere people who just want to help others, but they occasionally get carried away in their zeal.

RICHARD: So...turn ALL of their character traits from the BOOK into easily-surmountable, sidelined tragic flaws?

BERNARD: Folks'll LOVE it! And that Lulu Bains, make her a hooker with a heart of gold.

RICHARD: There were no hookers in the book, Bernie old boy.

BERNARD: And don't forget the fire!

RICHARD: So...considering the book was bascially an extended treatise on human corruption and greed, what should the moral of the MOVIE be?

BERNARD: I dunno. Don't include one, I guess. Just a love story will be fine.

RICHARD: A love story, even though Elmer only loved Sharon because she was unattainable, and she only tolerated him because he was a useful ally in her quest for money and power?

BERNARD: Just a love story, Bernard. And a big fire. And hey, make Sharon ACTUALLY HEAL somebody at the end!

RICHARD: Why? How can I reconcile that with anything?

BERNARD: Don't forget the fire.

RICHARD: I'm on it!

BERNARD: And since we've got Burt Lancaster lined up as the leading man, why not make him laugh in that weird, forced, explosive way you did at the beginning of our dialog.

RICHARD: HA HA HA!

BERNARD: Like that! And we must include a prostitute-slapping scene that is somehow inadvertantly hilarious. You know, "slap! slap! slap! slap! slap!"

RICHARD: HA HA HA! Leave it to me. I'll write a screenplay that is EXACTLY like the book, except that it has nothing to do with the book whatsoever.

BERNARD: That's what we want! But keep the names the same.

And the rest is history. The movie is a weird, inside-out version of the book, where the bad people are characterized as good and the one good person is characterized as bad (with a heart of gold). It's an audacious switcharoo akin to Disney's most twisted reinterpretations. Shame on you, Richard "Hack" Brooks! Shame!

The Main Drag - Cancelled

Due to our beautiful but nightmarish weather, the University of Guelph is closed today...so "The Main Drag" event has been cancelled.

But don't cry, they're hoping to reschedule for this coming Friday!

On a personal note there is something childishly fun about stomping to work through a crust of frozen snow. And there's nothing like awful weather to bring people together; yesterday afternoon I helped my Unit A neighbour (Lindsay) and her boyfriend (Brad) shovel out the parking lot. I bugged out early (hey, I don't even HAVE a car!) but we did get a chance to thaw a bit of that weird barrier between us, though she still talks to me like one or both of us is crazy.

A New Yorker Catch-All

Certain subjects keep popping up in 1927's New Yorker magazines. Rather than write about them all, here's the general gist:

1. The Synder-Gray murder case, and the new trend of having literary stars report on the proceedings.
2. Bobbed hair, waved hair, bobbed and waved hair.
3. Pearlescent fingernail polish.
4. The Stickley Ridgeless Guest Davenport ("No ridge down the center! -- it must be a Stickley")
5. Innumerable puns involving "wets" and "drys".
6. New movie theaters that are huge and ostentatious.
7. The French debt after the conclusion of WWI (and jokes therein).
8. The convenience of living in an "apartment hotel" or "residential hotel" (as opposed to in your own apartment or -- get this -- at the club.)
9. The joys of slumming at Coney Island.
10. Radio sucks and is hard to hear.
11. Only wear stockings which make your ankles appear slim. And in the spring, wear special "stocking guards" to protect you from splashing taxi cabs.

"Toronto's Girl Problem" -- Plus Gender Study's Idealogue Problem

I'm becoming increasingly interested in Canadian culture at the turn of the century. There's lots to read about urbanization and industrialization in America, but I rarely stumble across an equivalent Canadian book.

But here's "Toronto's Girl Problem," by Carolyn Strange. It's a study of female labourers in Toronto between 1880 and 1930, which is surely a subject with a lot of potential. And Strange does a good job of communicating the dilemmas that women faced when they found "domestic service" positions intolerable: many preferred the freedom and pride that came from living alone, not to mention having fewer restrictions on how they spent their leisure time.

But being a "working girl" at the time was very difficult. Not only were they shamelessly exploited at their jobs -- ridiculously low pay, shunned by unions, little legal recognition -- but they were also viewed with suspicion as women prone to wildness: drinkers, pleasure-seekers, unfit for motherhood. And since few of them could afford to live independently on their meagre wages, many relied on the generosity of boyfriends...who rarely gave away money or gifts for free. So in some ways the women were forced to become what the Moralists feared they were in the first place.

All of this is interesting, especially Strange's occasional descriptions of what women at the time did in their spare time and with what little money they had.

But as I read the book I'm biting my tongue. Since the historical accounts of working women are rarely written by the women themselves -- they're usually culled from extremely patronizing court records and newspaper reports -- Strange takes liberties when it comes to interpreting the motives of the men and women she writes about. And a pattern has emerged, one I so often find in gender studies.

Based on flimsy reports (or likeminded secondary sources), Strange conveniently ascribes motivations depending on a simple rule that she all but spells out:

Working women are always BRAVE. They bravely testify in court, they bravely speak out, they bravely take their grievances to police. They are always exploited by everybody else...UNLESS Strange wants to portray a particular woman (usually a prostitute) as strong, in which case she's simply worldly and independent and -- yes -- brave.

Men tend to be (literally) described as cowardly and patronizing. If there's a motive to be ascribed on the basis of ambiguous evidence, the man is ALWAYS portrayed in a negative light. Middle-class women are also exploiters and patronizers.

Here's an example of Strange struggling to find a way to NOT present men or authority figures as sympathetic, charitable, or reasonable. She mentions that when women were arrested for infanticide they were almost always acquitted. She says that historians are "puzzled" by this, and she concedes that some view this as "an expression of 'compassion' and sympathy towards women who were clearly in dire straits." But then she concludes -- with no evidence or clear explanation -- that it's MUCH more likely that judges were ensuring the "proper continuation of male blood lines," and that city fathers approved of infanticide because it reduced the number of destitute children, or that judges wanted to save the children's FATHERS from scandal, or that this leniency was due to the lives of poor undernourished infants being "cheap." Lord forbid a judge EVER understand a woman's motivation or circumstances!

She uses the same reasoning when revealing that police rarely arrested prostitutes. It couldn't be because the police didn't see prostitutes as people that deserved arresting...no, it was because the police were protecting prostitutes so that their male bretheren could use them someday. Naturally.

Add to this her obsession with eugenics -- which as of page 73 she's been unable to connect with her subject, though she's tried plenty hard -- and I'm finding the book increasingly unpleasant to read. I mean, OF COURSE these women were exploited, they were not treated fairly by the courts or the city government...all that is a compelling enough story. But Carolyn Strange is painting a picture of Victorian-era Toronto where all the working women are sweet people being victimized by all the men. And it's somehow tied in with a middle-class obsession with white purity, or something.

And let me make it clear that this sweeping portrayal of actualy exploitation was surely true, I don't object to that. What I DO object to is Strange's injection of this characterization into personal accounts, with no evidence.

Here's a final example, the one that really drove me crazy, just in case you think I'm being overly touchy. A woman starts to hang around with an older married man at a boarding house. The woman denies that anything is going on. When she becomes pregnant she claims she was raped by a stranger. Shortly after this she dies of a botched abortion, and it comes to light that the two of them had been trying to find a way for her to get an abortion, and when their efforts failed, the man tried to do it himself. He failed and she died.

These are the details of the case. How does Carolyn Strange sum it up? It's "a classic tale of a young maiden's desertion, betrayal, and eventual death at the hands of her cowardly suitor." It's possible that she's putting this in the terms that the newspaper reports used -- sometimes it's difficult to know what she's referring to, or what the meaning is behind her frequent scare quotes -- but it's pretty much in line with the rest of the book.

Messy Blog Template

I'm aware that the new-fangled templates in Blogger are causing my posts to look a little weird. Specifically, the leading between the lines changes after the first ordered list or block quote, which cannot be accounted for in any HTML code that I can control.

I could either fix this by putting a fake block quote at the beginning of every post, or I could just ignore it the way I'm supposedly ignoring my pores.