AngryGayBlackCanadianman

I just read an interesting story in the newspaper today about a transgender man he is pregnant. Mr. Beattie was born female his birth name is Tracy Lagondino. Mr. Beattie is legally married to his female partner. Since Mr. Beatie’s female partner had a hysterectomy and is unable to have a child he decided to become pregnant. Mr. Beattie still has his female reproductive organs but he also has taken the male hormone testosterone. The baby is due in July this year.

The death of the innocent fifteen year old Jane Creba on Boxing Day December 2005 in downtown Toronto shocked the city . Creba was an innocent bystander walking down Dundas street with her family when she was shot dead by a bullet. Creba’s death was like a electric shock an alarm to white Canadians that anyone can be a victim of violence.

The Jane Creba murder trial also exposes the incendiary racism of the Canadian press exploding like an atomic bomb. Suddenly the poisoned pens dipped in acid, tainted with supremacy was printed in bold black print in newspapers across the nation. The radio talk show hosts shouted at the top of their lungs that gun violence must be stopped. The Jane Creba murder trial is currently taking place in Toronto the typical racist hysteria has emerged once again.

The social constructions of race and gender must be explored and examined. Inside the newsrooms across Canada most of the editors, managing editors, editor in chiefs, are white Canadians. The perspective of the news will be painted from a Eurocentric perspective there will be no equilibrium in relation to how race is framed. The lens is still from a white gaze looking out at the other.

Since Creba was also white there was a heightened sense of urgency by the white Toronto press. Suddenly the attitude shifted that Toronto was gang central and that everyone had to fear for our lives while walking down any Toronto street. People die in Toronto everyday so why was Creba’s death treated as though it was so significant? The reason is because Creba was a white Canadian middle class female and not black. If Jane Creba was a black girl the Toronto media would cover the murder for a brief moment and move on.

Creba’s whiteness galvanized the Canadian press they could kill two birds with one stone. The press manipulated the tragedy and utilized the moment to pathologize Toronto’s black community. Why should I care that Jane Creba died and not about other people that die? I question the real motivation of the Toronto media. I don’t subscribe to just believing everything the news media presents in print, on the radio or on television. I want to scrape beneath the surface. Why should I care that the accused killers are also black?

The Canadian media presents racist and misandrist articles through the radio and television broadcasts that somehow black Canadians we should feel ashamed to be black. Black Canadians we need to rise above this oppression the press presents and look at this case clearly. Obviously it is a tragedy that a young life was lost. However, it also doesn’t give the Toronto media permission to exploit Jane Creba’s death to vent their frustrations and anger and expressing so called racial superiority. The media was once again attempting to demonize black Canadians as a group for the actions of individuals.

Creba’s death was elevated to front page news for weeks because the white Canadian media suddenly realized gun violence has no boundaries in relation to race, gender, or class. Anyone can be a victim of violence and we should be disgusted and angered when any innocent person dies regardless of their race, gender, or social status. When young blacks die there is only apathy. However, since Jane Creba was a white girl the white Canadians viewed Creba’s death differently they felt she could of been their daughter, their next door neighbor, their child’s best friend.

Creba’s whiteness and the pusillanimous nature of the Canadian racism was in full force. Why is there this dissemblance to the hypocrisy of the Toronto media? When people of colour are innocent victims of murder there needs to be the same urgency, the same heightened sense of social importance. It is clear and obvious in Canada the blood of a white Canadian person has more social value then the blood of Canadians of colour.

Creba’s death is a tragedy because she was just a kid someone that clearly didn’t even start to live her life yet or reach her potential. Make no mistake though race and gender are also factors in the Toronto press’s fascination with Jane Creba’s appearance. Creba was an attractive, middle class, young, white female with long blonde hair, thin build, clear white skin, and has a photogenic face. Numerous articles focused on Creba’s beauty. If Creba was considered less attractive by the occidental world’s standards would her life have less social value? If Jane Creba was a fat white girl or a white girl not considered attractive would she of gotten as much press? So because Jane Creba was considered pretty means her death is more horrifying and more important then other people deaths?

Another Toronto teen died a few months after Jane Creba her name is Chantal Dunn.On February 7th 2006 nineteen year old Chantal Dunn the York University student was brutally murdered. Dunn’s car was attacked when she picked up her boyfriend from a basketball game in the parking lot of Northwood Community Centre. Dunn was shot and killed. Dunn was also a black girl and in Toronto black Canadians are viewed as the ultimate other.

The Canadian media consistently presents this perfidious racist lie to the rest of the world that Canada is a utopia paradise and that multiculturalism brings the races together. The fact remains the repugnant stench of Canadian racism thrives like a cancer. Canadians are too pretentious to deal with the truth. The Toronto media briefly reported Dunn’s murder but her death was ignored rather swiftly. After all Chantal Dunn was black and since young blacks die in the city of Toronto her death was just an afterthought.

Black teens dying is considered “trivial” to the Canadian press and “normal”but since Jane Creba was white her death was viewed as a national tragedy and extraordinary. Dunn was a promising scholar the girl had a bright future and clearly was an innocent bystander just like Jane Creba. Why is there this insistence, this reticence, this denial, of Canada’s racism against people of colour? Why was Chantal Dunn’s death not splashed across the Toronto media and treated with the exact same respect as Jane Creba? Dunn’s murderer is still on the loose.

Over a decade ago on November 14th 1997 another Canadian teenager fourteen year old Reena Virk was brutally murdered by white students near Craigflower Bridge in the city of Victoria. Since the main culprits in the murder were white females the press focused only on the fact Virk was savagely murdered by other girls. One boy Walter Glowatski was also one of Virk’s killers.

Suddenly there was a plethora of articles about the rampant dangers of female aggression. The journalists, criminologists, psychologists, and sociologists only focused on the issue of gender. Of course the real issues of the Reena Virk murder relates to racism and xenophobia. The Canadian media seemed more stunned that white females can also be violent, sadistic, murderers. The issue of Canadian racism against South Asians was not an issue at all the press ignored race completely.

There also wasn’t a “racial link” to white supremacy and the refusal of the Canadian press to discuss the rampant racism that still occurs in Canadian high schools against teens of colour. Teens of colour are often bullied by white students across Canadian high schools it is a common occurrence.

Since Virk was South Asian she was viewed as “the other” dismissed by the apathetic and racist Canadian society as being from “a different culture” and ultimately as inferior. The quandary is the Reena Virk murder case is a perfect example of the intersection of Canadian racism and sexism against women of colour. The Canadian press marginalized Virk’s murder to only the issue of gender because this was considered more sensationalistic.

The more controversial and explosive issue of Canadian racism was not explored most likely due to politics, avarice, but also indifference. If a racial reverse occurred and Virk was white and the killers were people of colour the attitude, venom, blood thirsty prejudices of the Canadian press would explode like a grenade.

Whiteness in Canada is viewed as superior and the Canadian media have no interest in turning the mirror and forcing white Canadian society to look at cracked reflection of their own racial prejudices. What would be the point of the Canadian press to make whites examine the truth? Virk’s murder was also framed through the lens of gender because the press deemed it as an anomaly a way to excuse the killers because they are a part of white Canadian society. Reena Virk’s killers could of been one of their neighbors, or children’s friends. The focus on gender was a tactic to create a distance a parallel dimension and refusal to explore the issue of white supremacy and Canadian racism.

There is also the factor of the classic white female victimhood that permeated in this sad tragedy. The press painted the white girl Kelly Ellard as a victim. Of course, white females can’t be violent killers. The Canadian press was attempting to rationalize the murder by creating another explanation for the heinous crime. It is not surprising this pernicious racist perspective was consistently presented by the mainstream Canadian media.

The insistence and refusal to acknowledge Reena Virk wasn’t just killed because she was an outsider or a loner but also because she was South Asian is rooted in white cultural domination. People of colour in Canada don’t own the top newspapers but people of colour can utilize critical media literacy and be cognizant of the fact the press has their own biases and views. The issue of racism between white Canadians against the South Asian community in British Columbia was buried beneath the surface.

Since the murderers were under age the pathetic Young Offenders Act was under increasing scrutiny and rightfully so. Between April and May 1998 six girls pleaded guilty and were convicted of assault. The Reena Virk murder case was a painful ordeal for Virk’s parents. It has taken many years but there was finally justice for Reena Virk. Kelly Ellard was found guilty of second degree murder. First Kelly Ellard claimed self defense she went through two trials but finally in the third murder trial she was given an automatic life sentence. Walter Glowatski the only male involved in the murder was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. However, in July 2006 after nine years in prison Glowatski was granted temporary passes by the National Parole Board.

Monday afternoon my friend suggested I borrow his DVD copy of the film “My Beautiful Laundrette”. I was hesitant at first because I thought the film was going to be another classic white savior movie. I notice a theme in a lot of interracial films that the person of colour always needs empowerment from the white person. Some interracial films present the false notion that interracial relationships are fighting racism. However, some interracial relationships are based on racism because of the racist assumptions once race has about another.

Whiteness is depicted as better in many interracial movies and as superior to communities of colour. The subversive vein of racism is in order for people of colour to have better lives we need white partners.

The person of colour’s family life is often framed as originating from an oppressive culture and the European culture is presented as the only solution. White culture is depicted as open minded and perfect. “My Beautiful Laundrette” challenges this racist notion that communities of colour are always oppressive. It is so wonderful to actually see the reverse in “My Beautiful Laundrette”.

In “My Beautiful Laundrette” the South Asian families are actually just as prejudiced as the white British people. The main Pakistani family in the film view lower class white people as inferior and lazy unwilling to work hard to move up the social ladder. I am happy to announce that “My Beautiful Laundrette” is definitely a forward thinking kind of movie.

The film is about a young Pakistani man Omar he lives with his father on welfare in 1980s London. The movie is set in Margaret Thatcher’s England where the racial tensions between the white British community and South Asians are intense. Omar dreams of a better life his father is an alcoholic and his mother is deceased. Omar’s uncle Nasser introduces Omar to a new life and his ambition grows he wants the capitalist dream of material wealth. Omar believes money will give him happiness.

Omar first starts out washing cars but persuades his Uncle Nasser to let him run his own laundrette. One evening Omar meets up with an old friend Johnny a young white British man. Johnny is unemployed, unhappy, and homeless. Johnny hangs out with a bunch of street punks that get involved in crimes, use drugs and are disillusioned about life in London. The young white men are upset that their lives aren’t better and make South Asians the targets and scapegoats for their own unhappiness.

The South Asian community in London are working hard to rise in British society. The young street punks feel left behind and have a sense of entitlement due to the fact they are British.

Omar needs another Uncle Salim he is the villain in the film he gets Omar involved in dirty deeds and is emotionally abusive to Omar. Omar persuades Johnny to help him fix up the Laundrette and gives Johnny a job. Johnny’s self esteem grows he now has a purpose in life and he is conflicted about hanging out with his punk friends that are miserable, racist, and anti social. Omar and Johnny’s feelings for each other grow and they fall in love.

The aspect of the movie I loved the most is  the gay romance is not viewed as a social problem. It is still so rare to see a movie about a South Asian gay man that is the star of the film and being gay is not a source of conflict. “My Beautiful Laundrette” just presents male homosexuality as a part of life. Omar just happens to be gay he doesn’t make a big deal about it and neither should the audience. Gordon Warnecke gives a confident and strong performance as the protagonist Omar. Daniel Day Lewis shines as Omar’s lover Johnny.

The gay romance is tame by twenty first century standards there are a few romantic kisses to illustrate Omar and Johnny are lovers. I love the fact that Omar and Johnny have intimacy to their relationship. Far too often gay movies either conceal the gay romance or are too explicit that it destroys a film. “My Beautiful Laundrette” has a balance that is so charming and cute. Omar and Johnny have a sweet tenderness to their relationship you can tell they are in love just by the way they gently hug or look intensely at each other.

I believe “My Beautiful Laundrette” is indeed superior to other so called big budget gay films that have been released in the last few years. My perspective is if “My Beautiful Laundrette” was made in North America the whole movie would of been worse to treat homosexuality as a social issue. It is simply incredible that “My Beautiful Laundrette” was released in 1985 because the movie is so current and so real.

The main themes about the movie deal with cultural clashes between the South Asian immigrants and white Anglo Saxon population, identity politics, and also class. Class is a main theme in the movie. Omar begins to rise in the class system and starts to become a bit arrogant as well.

Meanwhile Uncle Nasser is having an affair with a white woman Rachel and his daughter Tania and his wife know about this. Tania is depressed she doesn’t want to live in a patriarchal family and she wishes she had more to do with her life.My only criticism of the film is I think the Tania character should of had more screen time the issue of sexism and misogyny was explored to a certain extent. I wanted to know more why Tania was so unhappy and I wished her character was more developed. I feel Tania is just a plot device in the film but maybe this was in the intention of the screenwriter.

Tania confronts Rachel at the opening of the Laundrette and Rachel dumps uncle Nasser. I think Tania is a catalyst for change in the film. Johnny’s friends attack him in the third act of the movie because they feel he is betraying them by trying to become a productive citizen. Uncle Salim is also attacked by the street punks. Tania leaves her family and moves on with her life she wants Johnny to go with her. Johnny refuses Tania’s advances and says he loves Omar and he will not leave him.

Uncle Nasser confronts his fears that his ephemeral relationship with Rachel was doomed because he is so unhappy with his marriage. Omar’s father wants Omar to attend college. Omar and Johnny make it out in the end and remain a couple. I absolutely love this fact that neither Omar or Johnny died.

I cringe every single time a gay movie is released and one of the protagonists has to die. Of course in real life relationships don’t always work and this has to be explored on film. However, in cinema there is a predilection that gay romances are doomed because the subliminal message is gay romance is inferior to heterosexual love. I recommend “My Beautiful Laundrette” to anyone willing to give a movie a chance that deals with gay love in a funny, clever, intelligent, and serious manner.

I was watching Spike Lee’s movie “She Hate Me” the other day and one scene I really found interesting was the sex scene between Kerry Washington and Dania Ramirez. I was intrigued, as a gay man I rarely ever see women of colour in mainstream films have an erotic lesbian scene together. Even in gay culture lesbians are invisible and black lesbians are displaced due to race, gender, and sexuality.

Spike Lee’s film “She Hate Me” didn’t really explore the relationship between Washington and Ramirez’s characters though. My perspective is both women were used as a plot device for Anthony Mackie’s lead character. I won’t spoil the ending of the movie but it was completely unrealistic. I think a mainstream movie should be made that explores a romantic relationship between two black women. I wonder if this will ever happen?

Sure, I’ve seen straight porn movies that have lesbian scenes but those films are just not realistic or authentic. I already know how lesbians have sex but I think in “She Hate Me” was the first time I saw a romantic and erotic sex scene between women of colour. I found it interesting. Does this make me sexist? I wonder?

I have looked at lesbian erotic magazines before though out of curiosity. However, I think this was the first time I had ever seen an intense sex scene between two women of colour. The lesbian sex scene is rare because it is a lesbian sex scene between two women of colour.

I also was on You Tube the other day and it showed two gorgeous black women making out. I have read comments on various websites that some lesbians were offended by Spike Lee’s movie in the depictions of lesbians being sexually attracted to men. I understand the concerns. However, Kerry Washington’s character in “She Hate Me” clearly was bisexual and not a lesbian and she is sexually attracted to men.

We rarely get to see black lesbians in mainstream films. The last major movie with a black lesbian was Queen Latifah’s character Cleo in the hit indie film “Set It Off”. “Set It Off” I believe jump started Queen’s career. Although rumours still exist about Queen Latifah’s true sexual orientation I thought her performance as the butch aggressive lesbian Cleo was excellent. I think it was brave on Queen Latifah’s part to take on this role.

I would like to see more movies and television shows with black lesbian characters where black lesbians are the lead. I know that Tasha a black lesbian woman is a secondary character on the Showtime Lesbian television show the L Word. However, why did it take the producers until the fourth season to include a black lesbian? We already had a black gay series Noah’s Arc on television.

I think it is time for black lesbians to shine on the silver screen or on television with their own series. According to media reports Meagan Good is going to star in a film “Sundays In Fort Greene” this year and her character is a lesbian. I am so pleased that Meagan is willing to take on this role.I think it really shows the Meagan is willing to stretch her acting skills and diversity her roles.

You Tube isn’t porn or anything but I thought the kissing scene between the two women was sensual. I have to admit I don’t know much about lesbian sex. I do remember seeing two female friends have sex in front of me during high school though at a Halloween party. I have noticed in the lesbian community some lesbians are really upset if men say we find lesbian sex erotic or interesting. So my question is it exploiting lesbian sexuality for men to be curious about lesbians in pop culture?

Former American Idol winners Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks have been dropped from J records. Studdard and Hicks both won American Idol despite not having the Hollywood looks and toned bodies. Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks are strong male singers. Despite Hicks and Studdard’s singing talent it simply wasn’t enough for J Records. I am wondering if there is a misandrist element to American Idol? It is important to point out Ruben and Taylor are male because I have always felt American Idol wasn’t the right format for talented male singers. The people that call in to vote on American Idol are mostly young females.

Taylor Hicks and Ruben Studdard both lost American Idol even though they won. Inferior talents such as Clay Aiken and Chris Daughtry actually achieved more success and media attention then Hicks and Studdard. In terms of singing talent Hicks and Studdard are superior they have more range and more powerful voices. Clay Aiken didn’t win American Idol but his debut CD was more successful then Ruben Studdard’s album. Chris Daughty also didn’t win American Idol but he has the looks that mainstream North America considers sexually attractive. Daughtry also has sold more CDs then Taylor Hicks. The reason is Daughtry and Aiken appeal to women. The marketing machine in the music industry is cognizant of the fact young women find Aiken and Daughtry sexually attractive. Aiken and Daughtry are also younger then Studdard and Hicks. Women imagine they can have sex with Daughtry and Aiken. Ruben and Taylor were not able to maintain the momentum of their success on American Idol.

Ruben and Taylor obviously were not trained for Hollywood 101. One way stars maintain the public’s interest is by acquiring as much media attention as possible. In Hollywood image is everything. I am not sure Ruben and Taylor understand the game but appearance is critical to success. It is not fair but Hollywood is never fair. Hollywood is not the real world it is a dream factory. Taylor and Ruben just didn’t have the looks or body image that turn women on. Ruben and Taylor also did not obtain endorsements from companies because they were not considered marketable. It is also interesting to note Ruben and Taylor are both from the same city Birmingham Alabama. Both Ruben and Taylor seem like nice guys that just didn’t gel with Hollywood and the mainstream public.

In the music industry music fans want the young male singers to have sex appeal to draw in the female demographic. The dirty secret of the record labels is they also want the young male singers to draw in a gay male demographic as well. Yet the record labels never discuss the gay market because they don’t want the public to know this fact. For example, Ricky Martin and Enrique Iglesias are rare in the music industry they acknowledge their gay male audience.

Martin and Iglesias know that gay men show up to their concerts to support them because they think both men are sexually attractive and they also like their music. Martin and Iglesias have openly talked about the fact they have gay male fans. The marketing teams for Martin and Iglesias are cognizant by acknowledging the gay male demographic is just good business. Most young male singers try to act macho and ignore the gay male audience. Martin and Iglesias know they can make more money by selling more CDs, DVDs, concert tickets, more publicity by acknowledging gay men.

I am not suggesting that Taylor Hicks and Ruben Studdard should of reached out to the gay male audience to sell CDs. All I am suggesting is that marketing is very critical to success. A singer cannot simply be a singer these days. A singer is a part of a brand and a brand has to be able to appeal and sell to more then just one demographic in order to be successful.

Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks simply did not attract any demographic and this is one of the reason they were dropped from J records. The music business is in a tough position these days due to digital downloading and the apathetic attitude of the general public. Also, heterosexual women and gay men were not interested in either singer.

The record labels do not publically acknowledge the gay male demographic in the media but in marketing meetings they definitely are target the gay community. At gay bars and clubs across North America for example when a major young male singer has a released there are often contests at gay bars for fans to win a free CD. Also, record companies pay advertising space in the gay media to let the gay audience know when young male singers have a CD released.

The feminists like to say society puts pressure on females to be sexy and to be thin. Yet the hypocritical feminists always ignore the fact men we are also pressured to look sexy too. The pressure was extremely intense on Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks to lose weight, get in shape, get the hard abs, and be sexy. Ruben did lose some weight but clearly this was not enough to interest the female audience. Ruben and Taylor were perhaps a bit too old for American Idol?

Another reason Taylor and Ruben were not successful is both guys didn’t really have a background story or interesting personalites. Ruben and Taylor’s management teams obviously didn’t put the time and effort into creating their image. You cannot simply be a good singer in this superficial pop culture you need a gimmick. In Hollywood everyone has a gimmick, the star has to have something about him or her that that can pull in an audience. The public needs to have a hook to identify and relate to the star.

The reason Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia, and Carrie Underwood are very successful is all three young women have the “it” factor. According to Soundscan Carrie Underwood is the most successful American Idol winner in the United States. Underwood’s second CD is proving she has maintained her audience.

Carrie Underwood is an attractive young woman she also can sing she has the blonde hair and the Eurocentric appearance Hollywood and North America finds appealing. Fantasia has the background story she was living in poverty, was in an abusive relationship, had her daughter at the tender age of seventeen. However, Fantasia overcame the odds and this is why the public loves Fantasia. Fantasia has continued her success with the hugely successful Lifetime movie which was the second highest ratings winner on that network. Fantasia also had a successful autobiography as well. In addition, Fantasia has proven she can act she is the star on Broadway in the play the Color Purple. The Color Purple is a huge success due to Fantasia and the critics have praised Fantasia for her incredible acting and singing performances.

Kelly Clarkson won because she was ordinary all American girl. Although Kelly Clarkson and Fantasia are not considered attractive by American standards heterosexual women and even lesbians can relate to them. Clarkson also had a very large under twenty five female demographic on her side. Unfortunately, for Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks not enough women found them to be sexually attractive to buy their albums.

The pressure is now on for younger male singers they have to be sexy and fit. Justin Timberlake, Usher, Omarion, Bow Wow, 50 CENT, Kanye West, and Chris Brown all know they have to spend hours in the gym developing the rock hard abs so that women can drool over them at concerts. Women like to look a good looking and attractive men that can sing. Taylor and Ruben can sing but they simply were not considered hot. Ruben and Taylor both need to fire their management teams they need an image overhaul.

Women have to be able to fantasize about male singers, imagine that the male singer are singing only to them and love them. Women need to be able to masturbate and get wet and have the sexual fantasy while listening to their CDs. It is the reason N’SYNC, Backstreet Boys were so successful in the late 1990s and early part of this decade women wanted to have sex with them. I doubt very few women are masturbating and getting wet in their bedrooms over Taylor Hicks and Ruben Studdard.

Unfortunately, I think this could be the reason Hicks and Studdard have not been successful they actually look like real ordinary looking men. There is no fantasy to Ruben and Taylor. Women don’t care about their background story because there is none. Also, Hicks and Studdard are the oldest American Idol winners. Hicks and Studdard failed to reach an adult demographic. The adults don’t care about Ruben and Taylor because they see American Idol as a tacky teen show. Taylor and Ruben’s music wasn’t their own music it was a part of the American Idol machine. Simon Cowell the creator of American Idol wasn’t very helpful when he was so public in criticizing Taylor Hicks in the media. Cowell just didn’t like Hicks. The reason Cowell didn’t like Hicks is because Cowell didn’t think Hicks was marketable because he is an average looking guy that wasn’t fit and trim.

American Idol is clearly a program meant for younger singers under the age of twenty five. Studdard is twenty nine years old and Hicks he is thirty one. Another point to consider is Studdard and Hicks are the only men to have ever won American Idol.

Studdard’s first CD “Soulful” was successful selling over 2 million copies. However, Ruben’s recent CD “The Return” was a commercial failure selling only 236,000 copies. Taylor Hicks had even worst sales his debut CD sold only 699,000 copies he didn’t even go platinum. The question has to be asked is American Idol the proper format for male singers?

Everytime I watch American Idol I just don’t think it is fair to male singers. I have a feeling a lot of men also don’t find American Idol very appealing. The dilemma for male singers is they cannot count on the male demographic to support them. American Idol is considered unworthy of male support.

My perspective is American Idol is all about a girl’s dream that she can become a singer. American Idol is obviously a program geared towards a female audience. Women like it the show is so corny. American Idol is all about a girl’s dream that she can sing her heart out and make her dreams come true. I think this is the reason American Idol is so appealing to the female demographic. All the female winners of American Idol have been very successful. Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia, and Carrie Underwood are still in the spotlight. The recent winner Jordan Sparks her CD hasn’t sold a lot but maybe the sales will go up?

However, a very sexually attractive male singer has never won American Idol. I think it goes back to days of Elvis. American Idol has a fear of male sexuality. It seems the public is comfortable with average looking guys like Taylor Hicks and Ruben Studdard winning because they also have a very safe heterosexuality. Ruben and Taylor are non threatening heterosexual men.

Some men will never admit this but all men look at other men’s bodies. Heterosexual men like Kanye West, 50 CENT, Eminem. Notice that 50 CENT, Kanye West, and Eminem are also attractive and physically fit as well. Regardless of whether a male is heterosexual or homosexual men have to imagine we can “be” the singer. 50 CENT, Kanye West, and Eminem are always showing off their bodies. Men do pay attention to the physique of male singers even though some men will lie and say we don’t.

Men don’t like Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks because men don’t find either singer to be very masculine and physically appealing either. Listen to the rap and rock CDs of male singers they always boast about their sexual prowess. Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks don’t sing about sex in their music they come across as asexual. Young men cannot relate to Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks because males don’t find them appealing either. Young men like their male singers and rappers to have a bit of machismo to be brash, arrogant, to be outspoken. Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks are nice ordinary guys they don’t frighten parents but they also don’t turn on their daughters either.

I think the lack of success Ruben Studdard and Taylor Hicks have proves male sexuality and body image is very important. The media also don’t care about Ruben or Taylor there is nothing controversial about them. Many men view American Idol as a corny female program because the show changes genres every single week. A lot of men look down on American Idol we just don’t take the show seriously as real music.

The American Idol brand also ignores rap music for a reason. The reason is rap music is considered to be very controversial and has an intense testosterone and male sexuality. Rap music provokes thought and American Idol isn’t about thinking it is just about singing crappy songs. American Idol blocks out rap music because the show is supposed to be “family entertainment”. Men want to hear music with more substance and the show has turned off the male demographic. American Idol is a female show the marketing team behind American Idol play it safe because it sells. Unfortunately for male singers unless you can turn on the female audience and be sexually attractive they are going to fail.

Link: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/07/arts/People-Taylor-Hicks.php

Oprah is a feminist icon a black woman that was born in poverty, became an Academy Award nominee, a billionaire talk show host, and a heroine for all women across the globe. Oprah is a woman that doesn’t just talk she takes action. Oprah must be commended for starting the all girls school in South Africa. Some people have been critical saying Oprah should of made the school in the United States. I find some of the criticism unwarranted because Oprah is using her money for good. Every single African girl at Oprah’s leadership academy comes from a poor background but are intelligent, hardworking, and desire a better future. Oprah is providing these young South African girls an opportunity of a lifetime.

However, recent news reports indicate that there are allegations of child abuse at Oprah’s Leadership Academy. In the past ten days Oprah has already visited South Africa twice to deal with the growing controversy. A female employee at the school has been accused of choking a child and there have been allegations that children were fondled by adult employees at the school. Also another child ran away from the Academy.

Oprah knew opening the school would be a lot of responsibility. Schools always have problems no school is perfect and Oprah’s is no different then any other school except its more high profile.

The South African media have been paying close attention to Oprah’s school. One of the complaints is the girls have few opportunities to talk or have visits from their parents. Another complaint is that Oprah is too strict with the girls. The girls have limited access to e-mail, use of cellphones, and have to eat nutritious meals all the time. Oprah has stated that if parents think her school is too strict then they are free to take their children out of school. I think there is nothing wrong with the nutritious meals aspect that just makes sense. Kids that eat right have more energy, can concentrate on their studies, and have better health.

Oprah’s message is her school is about obtaining an education it is not a “badge of honor” it is not a place to “hang out” it is serious business. Education is a very serious issue especially in South Africa where black women are often at the bottom of the social ladder. Education is very important and is a tool people from lower class backgrounds have utilized for centuries to advance upwards in society.

I have visited some internet message boards and the negativity is not only disgusting it borderlines on sheer jealousy. I think some of the anger directed at Oprah is due to the fact the most powerful woman in the world is a black female. Oprah has more influence then the Queen of England, Condoleezza Rice, and Angela Merkel the chancellor of Germany combined.

Even though South Africa is the richest country on the African continent there are still disparities in the incomes between whites and blacks. Although apartheid ended thirteen years ago people shouldn’t be ignorant that all of the social and economic problems in South Africa have ended over night. South African women and girls are still devalued in South Africa in the public and private spheres. South African girls are still vulnerable to sexual, psychological, and physical violence from white and black men. South African girls also do not have the same employment and educational opportunities as white South African women.

I believe Oprah has good intentions but I don’t believe for a minute that she’s entirely altruistic. Oprah is a business woman and Oprah’s school is a part of her “business” and “brand”. Some people have wondered why Oprah would chose to create a school in South Africa?

The first reason is obvious its Oprah’s choice she has a right to do whatever she wants with her money. The second reason is also a bit more subversive. Why would Oprah open a school in the United States? How much media exposure would Oprah actually receive from that? Schools open and close in America every single day it wouldn’t be worldwide news.

Oprah is an egomaniac just like any other celebrity Oprah wants as much media exposure and attention as possible. Although Oprah complains about the press she also utilizes the press to advance her own agenda. It is obvious Oprah’ s mission is to increase the exposure for her brand and product. Unfortunately, the South African girls are not viewed as people but as a form of real life product placements for Oprah. Oprah is basically using the South African girls to make money that’s her ultimate goal.

Oprah’s image is of the universal mammy figure she is now the savior of these young African girls. Oprah is cognizant of the fact opening a school in South Africa will guarantee her maximum international press and exposure not just for the school but also for her “brand”. Oprah also benefits from the “positive” publicity and gains more press and of course more revenue for her “brand”. People in the Western world can say “oh look at Oprah she’s doing so much good helping those poor unfortunate Africans.” The school only cements Oprah’s image as a “universal mother figure” but also it cultivates Oprah’s “ego”. Oprah is kind of like the female Booker T Washington creating her own “institute” for poor blacks. The school also is a symbol of Oprah’s wealth but it also is a way to “cement” Oprah’s status as a great philanthropist.

In the Occidental world South Africa is still framed as the “other” as the “third world” even though compared to many countries in the world South Africa’s economy is actually not “third world”. Oprah’s school is still promoting the “noble savage” stereotype. Oprah is viewed as the rich western woman “civilizing” the poor South Africa girls and being the “perfect” den mother.

Oprah unfortunately does have a Western paternalistic attitude towards the South African girls. The message Oprah is sending is that she is the “rich great black hope” from the “West” and she can “liberate” and “save” the young South African girls. And only Oprah’s “way” is the “only” way to improve these young girls lives. Oprah doesn’t even take into account the cultural differences and values of South Africa. For instance, family is very important in South Africa.

Couldn’t Oprah relax the rules a bit? Why can’t the girls see and talk to their parents a little bit more what harm can that really do? I think the girls should be allowed to see their parents more often if they are homesick. It doesn’t mean that Oprah’s heart isn’t in the right place but Oprah is also all about maintaining control.

However, I question how can Oprah run her multi-million dollar talk show, the O magazine, and also run the all girls school? Shouldn’t the all girls school be a higher priority for Oprah? After all Oprah is the one that personally selected the staff to look after the girls. I also have enough common sense to know no matter how well you screen employees something horrible can still happen. No school is perfect and all schools have problems.

The Western media has not questioned Oprah’s “imperialistic” attitude that is also taking place. Yes Oprah is providing a school for disadvantaged South African girls. Oprah needs to understand that “money” doesn’t solve everything. The all girls school clearly requires more of her attention. One of the reasons people criticize Oprah is because they are cynical of Oprah’s image. Oprah has crafted and created an image now that she is some kind of deity. Oprah definitely has a healthy ego but she is not Jesus Christ she cannot save the world. In some people’s eyes though Oprah is the closest human being to “being” God. People are influenced by Oprah and in some ways that’s a good thing because she encourages people to help others. However, I think its also damaging when Oprah promotes this “Jesus Christ” like atmosphere around herself.

The one hundred and fifty young girls at Oprah’s school are young lives hanging in the balance. Why was it necessary for Oprah to have all the Western media present when she opened the school? Why does the West ignore the problems Africans have with obtaining education in general? Why just focus on Oprah’s school isn’t that ignoring a larger problem? Why was Oprah on the cover of People’s magazine right after the school opened? Oprah does indeed have a God complex.

The question remains how much of a role does Oprah actually have at the school? Oprah appears to me to just be trying to sell the school as a product. And what about the real social quandaries still taking place in South Africa? It is also very unfortunate the media ignores the serious issues of poverty, racism, sexism, that exists in South Africa. The South African government appears pathetic they have the resources to assist young black girls and women yet simply aren’t doing enough to help young black girls. Why isn’t the South African government helping black girls and women? Why does it take a foreigner to actually realize that due to patriarchy and male domination the key to African women emancipation is through education? It is simply ludicrous and abhorrent that the South African government isn’t doing enough to help black women. I believe this is disgraceful and totally unacceptable.

Why doesn’t the world press question the role of the South African government? South Africa is not a poor country. South Africa is an extremely wealthy nation with an abundance of natural resources such as gold, diamonds, and a thriving tourist industry.The South African government should be doing more to help young South African women. Isn’t the South African government a bit embarrassed that a foreign celebrity has “created” a school for South African girls when it should be the government’s job to do this? The South African government should be distributing the wealth more to improve the standard of living of African girls and African women.

Oprah has indeed taken the first major step she’s not just talking she’s taking action. The question is the all girls school just for Oprah to make herself “feel” better and promoting her business or brand? Or does Oprah really care to be a bit more realistic and flexible with the girls? Kids of course need structure but they also should not be bored and miserable. I hope Oprah cares enough about the girls to treat them as “equals” and not just part of “products placements” for the “brand” of Oprah.

Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2716668.ece

I just read the Toronto Star and I was shocked and disgusted with the treatment a young black man Evon Reid received after applying for a job. Reid applied for a job as a media analyst with the Ontario government. Reid receives a racist e-mail from an Asian woman Aileen Siu she also happens to be a part time worker for the Ontario government. Siu wrote in an e-mail forward to Reid “this ghetto dude I spoke to earlier.” Siu should be fired on the spot. Does the Ontario government condone racism against black people?

It sure seems like it with the apathetic attitude of Premier Dalton McGuinty. Sure, McGuinty apologized only because he basically had to it was standard politics. Remember there is an election coming up this year and the Liberals got to look as politically correct as possible. Aileen Siu should be fired ASAP. Siu of course apologized but that’s not good enough.
If Siu isn’t fired it just proves once again there are double standards in Canada in relation to racism against everyone else and black people. I personally believe there is a large amount of covert racism against black people in Canada and this is a perfect example of it. Yet of course as we all know covert racism against blacks has always been tolereated in the city of Toronto.

Could you imagine if someone made a negative comment about someone that was a Jew? I am sure the person would of been fired immediately. Does anyone remember a few months ago when a black speaker was denied entry into Canada by the government all because the Jews had a problem with the speaker? I believe there are indeed different standards for certain groups in relation to how immediately the government deals with racial discrimination.

The Ontario government is very quick to respond quickly whenever the Jews are discriminated against. However, if someone black encounters racism its simply ignored by the Ontario government and this is a perfect example of it. All Premier Dalton McGunity is using is words and words sometimes mean nothing. Actions speak louder then words and Aileen Siu should be fired or she quit the job.

However, since the racist remark was made against a young black man the issue will be swept under the rug and it will be just a “misunderstanding.” The incident with Reid is a perfect crystal clear example of the entrenched racism against young black Canadian men. Siu may be an Asian woman but in the Canadian social hierachy the white majority has always treated Asians better then blacks and Aboriginals.

Young black men we are the “out” group in Canadian society we are the “outsiders.” Now Reid is an intelligent and educated man he is a honors student at the University of Toronto. I think Reid should take this to the Ontario Humans Rights Commission because this is a perfect example of employment discrimination. Reid was just applying for a job and there is nothing “ghetto” about that.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.thestar.com/article/238572

If you want to voice your concerns to Premier Dalton McGuinty here is his info:

Dalton McGuinty Main Legislative Building, Room 281,
Queen’s Park, Toronto, ON, M7A 1A1
416-325-1941
Fax: 416- 325-3745

Constituency Office
1795 Kilborn Ave.
Ottawa, ON, K1H 6N1
613-736-9573
Fax: 613-736-7374

Email:
dmcguinty.mpp.co@
liberal.ola.org