There’s a really good chance I’m going to have to go to the States for something important and unskippable. I am truly hoping arrangements for said important thing are made on this side of the border, but chances are slim and I am very nervous…

It is, though noting the term sexism itself hasn’t been replaced with another that captures the distinction between biological sex and gender, at least one I know of. Gendered prejudice could be one, I guess.

We should be fighting it in a couple directions: “Women can do that too” “Men can do that too” “Women don’t necessarily need to do that” “Men don’t necessarily need to do that” “People who do not consider themselves men or women can do that too, and/or not do that.”

Great question, and one that’s pretty fraught at the moment. I don’t have an answer beyond a tautology - a man is someone who identifies as a man - and the knowledge that some cultures assign adherence to certain behavioural norms to that (ex. A man acts as breadwinner, is competitive, has a certain type of physicality distinct from women, etc.), most of which crumble with any hard look at it.

To be frank, I don’t really care about what a man or woman is. If identifying as a man if female, or a woman if male, makes it so someone doesn’t want to blow their brains out, then that’s a cool and good thing. But note the distinction - man != male and woman !=female in my statement.

Language reflects the culture in which it is used. In these times, there’s more acceptance (though not universal) of the premises that a) sex and gender identity are separate concepts, and b) a person can have a gender identity that does not map up to ‘male/man-female/woman’ matrix.

Given this, singular they/them makes sense - on discovering the identity of individual who, while almost certainly male or female (though intersex exceptions exist), does not neatly fit into the category of man or woman, they can remain a ‘they’ where someone who is distinctly a man or woman doesn’t. This assumes they do not use other pronouns (some do, but neopronouns get a lot of flack).

I’ll be candid and say I don’t get why this throws people off, and I’ve had to fight prescriptivist English profs about it before. It only makes sense to me if we discard the premises noted at the beginning, and that doesn’t make sense to me. To my fellow men - how many times have you been told you are/are not a man on the basis of factors beyond having an Y chromosome, a dick and male secondary sexual characteristics? And you’re still certain that gender identity is inherent on the basis of biological sex alone, rather than related but distinct social constructions?

Finally, I feel seen.

Go to bed early on April 19th. Wake up at 4:20 AM. Have a lil’ wake and bake. Get kitted up and go for a nice wander, listening to some sweet tunes, maybe hit a trail for a bit, etc. Meander your way to the brunch place, preferably an all-you-can-eat affair, around opening time. Have one more bowl/joint. If AYCE, make the owner regret their business model. Spend the rest of the day in a food coma watching stupid movies.

This is the way.

Primarily the audience. The artist can approach a project with a certain set of ideas, precepts, and motivations, and attempt to communicate something, but the interpretations of the audience supercede that IMO.

That said, there’s different levels of engagement that inform different interpretations. Not the best example, but there’s some folks who watched Starship Troopers, for instance, who didn’t get that it was intended as satire until they listened to the director’s commentary. This does have an impact on interpretive activity when engaging with that knowledge - all of a sudden, certain things lend themselves to closer consideration. I do think there’s such a thing as informed and uninformed interpretation, though ideally a work stands on its own without reference to paratext/the creator’s claims.

My two cents: Imagine you’re writing a polite (or not) note to your neighbour about something they or one of their family members is doing that is causing harm to your neighbourhood.

State what you don’t like, why you don’t like it and implications, preferred paths forward, and outcome you’d like to see. If you know what your ‘neighbour’ campaigned on/the rhetoric they used, particularly if you voted for them, you can reference that (for example, “The Elbows Up movement united Canadians at a time of great uncertainty. It is incredibly discouraging to watch our representatives drop their guard against US interests with no regard for, and active hostility to, the interests of Canadians.” or whatever).

If you want, you can close with the suggestion that should you feel they are not adequately advancing your interests as a constituent, they will not have your support in the next election. Taking from the neighbour analogy, think “If you don’t shape up, we’ll take this to the HoA <your fellow constituents> and kick your ass out.”

How much good does this all ultimately do? Depends on who you ask, really. But as a Canadian you have the right to express your opinions and concerns to those who represent you in government - so say what you want heard. No matter the impact, it’s better than silence.

🎵One of these days they’re gonna put me away 'cause I’m Dr. Rockso Freud, do a lot of cocaine🎵

Seconded - no one is going to bother you at MacOrdum unless you’re being disruptive. If you’re just chilling and quietly reading/writing you’ll be fine.

There’s some rooms you can only book as a student, but those are pretty obvious.