By: Suzy Flader

On Sept. 20, 2014, actress and UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson gave a speech at the New York UN headquarters discussing the new HeForShe campaign. HeForShe is a “solidarity movement for gender equality that brings together one half of humanity in support of the other of humanity, for the entirety of humanity.” In her speech Watson argued that in order for women’s rights to be taken seriously, society needs to start tackling male issues that seem to be underlying causes. In her words, “it is time that we all start to perceive gender on a spectrum, instead of as sets of opposing ideals.”

Despite the initial positive responses and its big splash on social media, critics have found flaws with Watson’s argument. Mainly, it is argued that the type of feminism she is supporting is too “watered-down” and “mainstream” to have an actual effect. While it may not have been a perfect speech, it did bring up an interesting point: how do our prescribed gender roles affect us and others in ways we do not necessarily think about?

Globally, we see examples of how gender norms and values are negatively affecting our health. In various parts of the world women are unable able to get to clinics because they are not allowed to travel alone. Teenage boys die in accidents because they are expected to be “bold” risk-takers. Women contract HIV because societal standards encourage a husband’s promiscuity, while preventing women from insisting on condom use. Generally, a country’s lung cancer mortality rate is much higher for men, because smoking is considered an attractive marker for masculinity while it is frowned upon for women.

Evident in these examples is that the gender issues in healthcare are not restricted to developing countries. As Watson reminded us in her speech, there is not one country in the world that can currently claim women and men are given equal rights. It can be easy for us as Canadians to forget about this, as it seems strange for a developed country to lack something as basic as equality for all citizens. Also evident from these examples is that gender norms do not exclusively affect women; societal expectations of men can also negatively impact their health.

The WHO Gender and Health Department’s goal is to “increase health care professionals’ awareness of the role of gender norms, values, and inequality in perpetuating disease, disability, and death, and to promote societal change with a view to eliminating gender as a barrier to good health.” While it is great that a global organization is attempting to solve these problems, it is up to us to start making actual change. Emma Watson’s address may have its flaws, but there were certainly aspects of it that should make us reflect on how we perceive both others and ourselves. Are there certain expectations that we have that may not be conducive to promoting gender equality?

Love it or hate it, Watson’s speech should make us think about how we might want to change our gender norms – not only because it’s the equitable thing to do, but also because it’s the healthier choice.

Facebook scrolling proved fruitful last Saturday night. While perusing down my newsfeed, I came across a quote deserving of full recognition.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

“Often the enemy of change is not some powerful oppressive regime, but our own enjoyment of inertia.” Justin Morris, a graduate student in the McMaster Department of Philosophy, reportedly made this comment in a discussion about change.

There are many relevant applications of this quote, but it happened to remind me of the confrontation I experienced earlier in the day, regarding gender inclusive diction. Things like saying humankind, instead of mankind, appear to be small accommodations. Yet, they seem to stir up quite the ruckus upon request. While I recognize and appreciate the seemingly overwhelming effort that many people put towards using gender neutral terms, there is still great resistance to change ways.

Do we blame an overarching system of patriarchy? Or simply, a general unwillingness to change? I would largely argue the latter. In my experience, those who raise a stink over my requests to switch terms typically have one of three reasons for doing so. One, they don’t see why it’s a big deal to begin with. Two, they insist that traditional usage has been the norm for centuries, and so we should keep it. And three, they regard it as a distraction from the real issues at hand. There are better things to worry about, if you will. Ultimately, it is considered an unnecessary and undesired inconvenience to accommodate whiny progressives.

As far as I’m concerned, if it isn’t a big deal to keep it, it also isn’t a big deal to change it. More importantly, the fact that some people are indifferent towards an issue does not account for or cancel out the importance it holds for others.

Furthermore, I’d like to point out that traditional usage does not grant linguistic immunity. Languages are constantly evolving; I see no reason to grant exclusive diction any sort of exception to this reality. Finally, while I gawk at the notion of gender inclusion being some how inferior on the hierarchy of issues, I’d point out that issues cease to function as a “distraction” if they are managed, as opposed to neglected. In other words, by addressing the issue and adapting inclusive language, it ceases to provide a “distraction” from other tasks at hand.

Quite honestly, adding two letters to the word mankind is hardly a significant exertion of effort. While we may have grown accustomed to past usage, we need not let that get in the way of change and progress.

A recent post on the Spotted At Mac Facebook page stated the need for a women-only gym because a participant at the Pulse felt that she was being reduced to eye-candy. This concern is warranted, certainly, for it details an issue of discomfort. If a person does not feel the environment is conducive to working out, then something must change. Does this imply the gym itself requires restructuring? Perhaps. Does this mean all should work out in isolation, though? Absolutely not.

Don’t let the gains confuse you. A gym is not a place of objectification, though objectification may very well occur within its walls. Instead it is a place where gender equality comes to thrive.

Some argue otherwise. They say that the Pulse is the problem. This is certainly hard to quantify off of one anecdotal account, harder yet by the inaccuracy of the claim. The Pulse, while minimal, has women's hours from 7:00-8:30 Mondays and Wednesdays, Tuesdays and Thursdays 4:30-6:00. In such a limited space, that is something, and maybe even more than that (particularly given that there are women-only intramural leagues such as basketball and women-only fitness centres in Westdale like Allure).

Others say that the system in question is not the gym itself but the larger societal construct of oppression and marginalization. The gym is just one instance where a woman’s body becomes a trophy worthy of eye-gawking. It is not the problem, only part of it.

This may be true, and if there is to be a change, then, it must not be restricted to the gym. Patriarchy must be sussed out everywhere.

Part of me believes a gym attempts to solve - or at least muddle - this in some way, though. The gym is an area where one’s physical capability can be demonstrated and built upon. The goal applies equally. As a result, men become eye-candy just as much as woman may be, a consideration that is especially true with a variety of sexual orientations. Men can look at men. Women can look at women. And so on.

It may be that the patriarchy demeans all as objects, yet this is in tension with a gym being based on the community that can result from physical activities together. Take the football team working out with its players. Or members of a spin class that develop a friendship after Circuit City. Or a group of people from the mind and meditation session that go for beers after reaching some inner peace. There is a sense of belonging shared, and restricting these possibilities through arbitrary concessions is to deny what brings us to the gym in the first place: to grow, to celebrate, and to become better together.

Of course, what must also be remembered is that gender is fluid. Not all will identify as strictly female or strictly male. What of the trans-gendered? What of those biologically androgynous? And those who identify as nothing at all? Where would these multitudes of people go in this women-only gym?

Some may say trying to answer these questions is just an infinite amount of pandering to an infinite number of categories. This is not the case, however. It is not us, those who are steadfast in their identification, to decide if one’s gender compartmentalization is relevant. We do not face their struggles nor do we understand their successes all the same.

Even if it is just seems like liberal nonsense to some, then it is nonsense that allows for a simple solution: the inability to separate strictly on gender. If there is no such thing, then there is nothing to separate on. This, too, leads to further questions about trans-gendered changerooms, an outcome some may be even less comfortable with.

So, what's left? Exactly what was begun with: we must open the gym to all for all. Such an idea is what we’re striving for in the first place: gender equality. And in a gym, this is where the idea can be built upon one weight at a time. Doing else wise is creating a burden too few can lift.

Kyle Park
The Silhouette

On Nov. 15, McMaster Health Sciences, in conjunction with contributions from Canadian women’s health advocate May Cohen, organized a double research lecture featuring the research of Marina Morrow and Don McCreary. Held at McMaster Innovation Park, the two lectures revolved on the relationship between gender and mental health, which addressed issues ranging from the historical discourses on female mental health to the current trends of male body image.

The conference began with Marina Morrow, an associate professor of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University, who presented a lecture entitled “Women’s Mental Health: Beyond Gender Matter” which discussed mental health as a gendered construct.

As the crux of her argument, Morrow discussed the notion of “intersectionality,” a theoretical lens that acknowledges the systemic processes by which mental health is constituted through gender, sexuality, race, class and ability. Morrow proposed that the intersectional approach effectively enables feminist thought to expose inequities within the health system, acknowledge the diverse contexts of women’s lives, and deconstruct the relations of power with regulatory bodies such as policymaking.

Intersectionality is “an emerging research and policy paradigm which seeks to reveal the complex interactions among multiple social categories,” said Morrow.

In exemplifying mental health as "gendered", Morrow provided case study examples on suicide and diagnostic practices. One such story she spoke on was Amanda Todd, the fifteen-year-old high school student from British Columbia who was bullied to the point of depression and later suicide. Morrow articulated how Todd’s death reflects larger social structures at play in her therapy, that is, how health inequity is part of a “whole social gestalt.”

With diagnostic practices, Morrow argued how the women are main targets of the pharmaceutical industry for anti-anxiety and sleeping pills and bridges this trend to historical notions of women as “irrational and potentially hysteric” in contrast to men. In addressing the importance of her research, Morrow stated her intention in having this conversation is to “illuminate social and structural factors that influence the mental health and well-being of women and men.”

Morrow concluded her talk in calling for a social justice framework, a “gender and sex based analysis” on mental health and thinking about new ways to address policy change.

Don McCreary, adjunct professor of Psychology at Brock University spoke on the current research on male body image.

His presentation “Current Research in Boys’ and Men’s Body Image” commented on the erroneous presumption that men and boys are more satisfied with their bodies than females. His findings from numerous research studies suggested the complex many men possess to achieve a “muscular ideal” which he made clear as a culturally constructed ideal. McCreary terms the psychological disposition “muscular dysmorphia,” referring to one’s belief that they are smaller and skinnier than they actually are.

In contrast to the typical female psyche dealing with being ‘over’ weight, McCreary discussed how males are conditioned with a drive for physical bulk or muscularity. He went on to propose a correlative parallel between muscularity and masculinity whereby men who are ‘bigger’ view themselves as more ‘manly.’

Another study conducted by McCreary and his colleague Stanley Sadava brought to light the idea that underweight women and overweight men view themselves as healthier than if they were overweight or underweight respectively.

The conference concluded with an acknowledgement of the culturally constructed ideals defining gender. Although muscular dysmorphia is not acknowledged by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. McCreary stated he believes the condition to have significant ties obsessive-compulsive disorder.

In the concluding part of the lecture, McCreary emphasized how masculine muscularity, albeit a “cultural ideal,” possesses the potential for very real psychological effects on the male psyche.

Morrow and McCreary are still continuing their research in unpacking ideas of mental health and gender.

 

Sarah O'Connor
Staff Reporter

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is one of Shakespeare’s most well-known and loved comedies. It is cheaper viagra filled with fairies and magic, chaos and lovers who fall for the wrong person. When I found out it would be the Fall Major this year – suffice to say that I was very excited.

But there’s a twist. The familiar comedy will be performed with a cross-cast of characters, in some instances men playing women’s roles and women playing men’s roles. This production will seek to inspire the audience to reevaluate their views on gender, sexuality, and power.

“We hope to unsettle normative gender dichotomies,” director Dr. Peter Cockett explained about his production choices. “We’re trying to move people beyond the simple division of humanity into the male and the female, masculine and feminine, because those words are insufficient to describe the complexity of human identities and sexualities.”

Last week Dr. Cockett and his production team put on A Mid-Fall Night’s Workshop in Bridge’s Café, a cozy event where members of the McMaster community were invited to discuss and critique three scenes that were performed in a few different ways.

During the workshop, Dr. Cockett went through a detailed slide show about his production choice – what he hopes to achieve with the production, as well as a historical context of the play. Sexual undertones were always present in the play but were not openly recognized in Shakespeare’s time. “I think the approach we are taking is timely and pertinent to our society and I think it’s going to be a really exciting production,” Dr. Cockett explains. “The play is full of references to gender, power, and sexuality so it’s ripe for re-interpretation. Our production simply brings new perspectives to the text, exploring sexual identities that aren’t explicitly referenced in the play, but were still present in Shakespeare’s world as they are in our own.”

As I watched the preview scenes at the workshop, I was impressed and inspired by the actors’ maturity and deep understanding of their characters – they powerfully resisted gender and sexual dichotomies just as Dr. Cockett intended.

“At our auditions,” Cockett said, “we had a series of monologues for male and female characters and people could pick whichever they wanted. The roles they auditioned for weren’t determined by their sex...we were trying to keep as open a mind as possible throughout the audition process.”

The scenes at the outreach workshop were acted out twice, each time the actors portrayed their characters differently, and then asked the audience for feedback. The actors would perform one scene with either a heightened stereotype of masculinity or femininity while in another scene make it overly sexualized while the second would not. I enjoyed the discussion and hearing everyone’s opinions of what they liked and disliked about the scenes, how they related to each scene, and how the audience analyzed the scene on a deeper level.

Dr. Cockett believes McMaster students will enjoy the show for its comedy and for thinking outside the box: “I think it’s going to be very funny...I believe students are interested in relationships and sexuality and I think they’ll have a fun time and be provoked to think about themselves and their own relationships in new ways.”

Keep an eye out next week for an A Midsummer Night’s Dream-inspired photo booth where students can dress-up and have their photos posted in the lobby of Robinson Memorial Theatre during show-dates. Students will also be asked to complete the following card: “what sexy is…” The Outreach Team will be in the Student Centre on Oct. 28th and 30th from 10 a.m. – 2 p.m.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream will be on stage from Nov. 7th to Nov. 16th and tickets can be purchased at Compass or through SOTA 905-525-9140 ext. 24246.

Ana Qarri
Staff Reporter

Feminism is here to destroy the patriarchy, not men.

There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding feminism – one of them being the idea that feminists hate men. Sure, there may be some women feminists who happen to hate men, but being a “man-hater” isn’t a requirement or value of feminism.

Feminism doesn’t aim to bring men down; it aims to viagra for women online bring women up. In fact, while advocating for women’s rights and dispelling negative gender stereotypes, feminism has also benefited men.

The idea that women are less than or inferior has, for centuries, given the “feminine” qualities that some women (and men!) possess a negative reputation. Things like caring, being sensitive and emotional, liking to dress up, wear make-up, and so on have been seen as characteristics solely and exclusively reserved for women.

By changing the way feminine qualities are perceived, less pressure is put on men not to act likes “girls,” which apparently, in our society, is the worst thing a man can be. The pressure to act the way men are supposed to act - whatever that may be - can be overwhelming.

Cases of verbal and physical violence directed at boys who weren’t perceived to fit the societal ideal of masculine have been endless, and raising little boys to become men who can’t recognize the harmful impact of this isn’t fair to anyone.

This emphasis on masculinity has created a culture of silence amongst men.

Men aren’t supposed to talk about feelings or show that they have feelings – that’s weak. Men aren’t supposed to cry in public – that’s only for girls.

With documented cases of male mental health problems rising, this has become much more obvious. The most convincing evidence of what’s being called the “silent crisis” by health professionals can be found in male suicide rates. In 2007, four of five people who had committed suicide in Canada were male. The code of silence that surrounds men’s behaviour has become a barrier that stops men from seeking the help they need, and acknowledging any mental health issues they’re experiencing.

Normalizing the discourse of well-being and self-care for men and alleviating the pressure of acting anything but feminine is just one of the many ways that feminism is creating a better society for men, too.

In addition to redefining gender and the societal expectations of what it should be, feminism also indirectly advocates for men’s rights where the patriarchy has backfired on them and created unfair situations.

One of the most well known examples is child custody. The majority of child custody cases prior to 1970 were won by women. This was mostly a result of the idealization of the mother and child bond and the shift in family structure that took place during the Industrial Revolution. In fact, before the Industrial Revolution, children were seen as property of their fathers, since women couldn’t legally own anything.

The empowerment of women through feminism has had a significant role in the continuous redefinition of parental roles (ex. making it socially acceptable to be a stay-at-home dad), which has made custody cases a determination of what’s in the child’s best interest rather than a gender-biased debate.

Problems with child custody that arise due to gender still continue today, but the push of feminism towards gender equity has definitely helped make procedures fairer than they were.

So if feminism really means “gender equity” and if it’s also important for men, then why does it have to be called feminism?

Because feminism is about empowering women, and in doing so, creates a better society for everyone.

 

This summer, my parents put a pool in the backyard. Now that it’s here, and despite the cost of putting it in, the secondary spending phase of wanting to purchase every accessory imaginable has kicked in: floating basketball net, fountain-cum-disco-light-show, blow-up air mattresses… you get the picture. And yet, it was the purchase of a standard pair of goggles amidst the excessive pool toy glory, that made me more quietly angry towards a piece of plastic than I’ve felt in a long time.

I’ve never thought of goggles as in any way political. They’re utilitarian devices that seem pretty innocuous in the scheme of things. But when the three different types stocked for purchase are “children’s,” “women’s” and “adults’”, something political is being said – and I don’t appreciate it.

In case you didn’t catch that, by making a distinction between goggles made for women and goggles made for adults – not “men,” “adults” – the company in question is implying that women are not adults, that women somehow have different goggle needs than adults, and that selling the exact same model of eyewear except in baby blue and pink rather than the adult black and grey, is somehow indicative of a person’s gender.

It’s not hard to dispute any of those claims. Women are legally adults past the age of 18 – as are men, women’s skulls aren’t much different than men’s, and pastels versus shades have nothing to do with anatomy. So the question remains, why did that company differentiate their product lines?

When I called to find out, they explained that the ladies ones come in different colours and are slightly smaller to fit a woman’s face. Generalizations on face shape aside, that doesn’t explain why women are placed in a category distinct from adults. For how is one over-the-phone customer service representative supposed to explain to me the history of patriarchy and how its strange and far reaching effects came to influence the minds of passively sexist men – and probably women – who designed the product packaging, who approved it for sale, and thought nothing of what those two little labels mean.

A few months ago, a video of Ellen DeGeneres ripping into Bic pens on her talk show went viral. Her scathing attack on Bic’s new line of women’s-only pens “For Her” was humourous, poignant, and sad in that such a product would actually exist to necessitate that segment of her show. “We’ve come a long way, baby,” she quipped. I echoed her frustration in the swim section at Walmart.

To a point, they’re just goggles. And I recognize that. But it’s little things like this that worm their way into our collective subconscious and have a big impact on how we see the world. It is because of our repeated exposure to images and products and situations that quietly, subtly, put down women that we don’t notice – and don’t care – when obvious attacks on women’s rights stare us straight in the face. That’s why half of all women in Canada have experienced physical or sexual violence, and why many women still make 77 cents for every man’s dollar, and the abandonment of female newborns for preferred male offspring is still a major problem around the world.

Next month will see the (re)introduction of a feminist-focused column into The Silhouette’s opinions section. I encourage you to write for it on any variety of topics under the umbrella of feminism, i.e. the struggle for equality of all people no matter their gender, colour, or sexual preference. Share your stories, your frustrations, your involvement in good things that are making a difference. Write about who’s creating change, and who’s not but should be. Write if you’re male, female, trans*, queer. Write from a respectful and informed place.

And in the mean time, don’t let the goggles get you down.

Nichole Fanara / Silhouette Staff

The other day I was minding my own business and staring blindly at the TV when an ad came on that angered me. The Ferrero Company, who makes Kinder Surprises, created a new product, and it is in the form of a Kinder Egg.

I was offended at what I saw. The pictures of a happy little girl and her mom sharing a Kinder Surprise made entirely for girls. What was inside didn’t surprise me at all.

Little toy trinkets of toy shoes and toy dolls.

I got mad. Real mad. What do they think of girls like myself when all they offer us is gendered capital for wealth? Pink wrappers and dolls inside only reinforce stereotypes. And for what?

I wonder how often people question gender norms when they are exposed to products such as this. I was embarrassed for the company who thought this was a good marketing ploy. Not all girls are defined by the colour pink or by shopping or dolls or little toy trinkets. But these ideas are the norms in which we teach our girls in the Western world, and what’s worse is that it cannot be escaped.

Biological arguments aside, what if we stopped acknowledging girls as girls and boys as boys?

This idea has in fact long been discussed and even implemented in some cultures. For example, there is a pre-school in Sweden that does not acknowledge cultural gender norms between boys and girls. Here, they carefully choose books that do not incorporate gender norms but instead focus on themes of love, respect and moral lessons. Disney stories like Cinderella would not be found anywhere near this school because of the gendered language that works to define the woman and the male’s role in society.

So what if we gave a child the opportunity to decide their role in life, not by telling them what they can or cannot be, but instead giving them the opportunity to decide for themselves based on what feels inherently right?

In the elementary school that I volunteer at, my teacher uses the phrase “friends” instead of boys and girls to talk to her students. Although our government does not monitor cultural gender norms, teachers and other educators are aware of gender reinforcement such as language through their schooling. What benefits could society have if we stopped using such biased language? What kind of opportunities could open up to students if there was less emphasis on gender roles and more on the student’s capabilities?

For people entrenched in the Western way of thinking, it is hard to imagine such a possibility. Targeting education as a site for gender neutrality would cause an uprising. Should TV ads like the “girls” Kinder Surprise be taken lightly?

With women’s groups and advocacy working to create equality for all, it is important to remember how far we have come from the subjected female roles in the home. Lives are often based on the rules of the culture, but with the stereotyping of girls in the form of a formerly neutral gendered candy, I can’t help but wonder how far our thinking has really come.

Last week, the Sil posted an online editorial [“Editorial: Our MSU pres has other qualities, too” – Sept. 7] about a CBC Hamilton interview with the McMaster Students Union’s president, Siobhan Stewart. The editorial argued that the interviewer focused too heavily on the fact that Stewart was a black woman in power, neglecting other aspects of her leadership. Among the feedback the Sil received was a response from Sarah Ali, which appears below.

In an ideal world, everyone would be equal – our prisons would not consist primarily of one racial group, one gender would not be regularly assaulted, and we would all attain status and prosperity through our “merit.” This concept of merit would not have been created and defined by one particular group – it would be something to which everyone could aspire. And in this magical, ideal utopia, this editorial would have been spectacular. It would call out a person who dared to upset the special harmony we all lived in by insinuating that race and gender had any real consequences for any person, particularly one in power.

Unfortunately for Sam Colbert, we do not live in this utopia. We live in a world where socially constructed myths about race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability play an enormous role in our lives. These myths are institutionally and culturally coded – when a North American child is born a non-white female, her earning potential is immediately capped. She’ll likely not make more than 53 cents for every dollar earned by a white man (white women earn, on average, 78 cents on the dollar). Her risk of falling into poverty is two times higher than that of a white woman. Her risk of being sexually assaulted, particularly if she in Indigenous, is two to five times higher than white women (one in four white women will be assaulted throughout their lifetime). This little girl will regularly see herself portrayed negatively in popular media, and she will find that normative conceptions of beauty do not include dark skin, or bodies that do not fit within a narrow range. It is a certainty that she will be exposed to hundreds of thousands of images that imply (or downright tell her) that her worth is measured by her fairness, her waistline, her breast size or her ability to be sexually attractive (but not too sexually attractive, then she might give the wrong message).

This girl will have been born in a country where People of Colour make up majority of the prison population and cash poor, are regularly the victims of discriminatory hiring and firing practices and are regularly reminded that they are, for all intents and purposes, second-class citizens. When she is born, she is interpellated into a world where women are regularly the victims of violent crime, often at the hands of their partners, and where those who assault women are only convicted 35 per cent of the time, and 78 per cent of those convicted are given sentences under two years.

She’ll likely watch her male peers (some of which she may have trained) consistently move up employment ranks, while her position stays static. She'll likely be blamed for being too "feminine", or perhaps not "feminine" enough to be a competitive choice. If she does make it into a position of political power (be it the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, Senior Partner in a law firm or President of a highly competitive and ambitious Student Union), as so many inspiring Women do, she will be consistently scrutinized, and under extraordinary pressure to perform. As my mother used to tell me, "If you ever want to succeed, you have to be twice as good as everyone else: once because you’re a girl, and once because you’re Brown.”

Now particularly in a University with a history of conservative values, and in a Students Union that has not prioritized social issues, being a female President is an extraordinary feat. Last year, along with many strong Women of the MSU, current President Siobhan Stewart drew attention to the gender disparity in Student Politics during the Leadership Summit for Women. Of course our Women presidents have had other qualities – Mary Koziol is an ardent environmentalist, Siobhan Stewart has striking dedication, but they are still Women. Inspiring, extraordinary Women who had to fight gender bias, a culture of sexism and patriarchy, and a concept of "merit" defined by white men in order to get where they did. And Being a Person of Colour makes that achievement even more significant. Indeed, Siobhan Stewart shatters the glass ceiling that Women of Colour in the McMaster community know so well. To acknowledge that is not “condescending,” it is crucial. These Women are leaders and role models to the young Women and People of Colour in the McMaster community, acting as trailblazers and torchbearers for a new generation of McMaster students.

But when we tell a Person or a Woman of Colour that we “see past race”, we tell them that, to us, race and gender mean nothing. This sounds like a good idea – not seeing colour appears to eliminate the problem, but truly it exacerbates it. As Dr. Monica Williams writes, “most underrepresented minorities will explain that race does matter, as it affects opportunities, perceptions, income, and so much more.” Dr. Williams calls this phenomenon a culture of colorblindness. She writes, “[w]hen race-related problems arise, colorblindness tends to individualize conflicts and shortcomings, rather than examining the larger picture with cultural differences, stereotypes and values placed into context. Instead of resulting from an enlightened (albeit well-meaning) position, colorblindness comes from a lack of awareness of racial privilege conferred by Whiteness.

When we tell a Woman of Colour that she “got where she did on merit… independently of her skin colour,” we tell her that her experiences of racism and sexism are illegitimate, and that we are going to show her that by pretending they do not exist. Colourblindness perpetuates racism, while simultaneously denying its very existence.

Truly, it is understandable why Sam Colbert does not acknowledge the significance of Siobhan Stewart’s race and gender. For him, like for many others, this is not a groundbreaking achievement. For him, this is not a testament to the tenacity and strength of the McMaster community, and the Women of Colour who inhabit it. For him, this is just another MSU Pres. And that is really not his fault. He did not grow up knowing that his identity is transgressive, that he would be more likely to die from racialized sexual assault than to finish University. For him, race and gender have never really meant anything. I suppose when you are on the privileged end, you never have to be bothered with that sort of triviality.