Can We Move On Already?!

Today's journalists really need some Dr. Phil advice on the value of letting go and moving on.

See, since the late 80s - early 90s, people have been saying that feminism is dead, no longer necessary and that today's womyn and girls are apathetic, spoiled and completely unaware of how they got to where they are today. And well, they've made it! This was repeated this weekend with the Globe and Mail (usually a bastion of lefty ideas) headline: FEMINISM IS OUT OF STYLE.

The author talks about how her niece and daughter didn't know who Gloria Steinem was, which she therefore concludes that they are completely out of touch with womyn's issues. She "elaborates" this point by stating statistic after statistic about how womyn are still oppressed in society. All true stats, by the way.

Now, I will agree with her that feminism is out of style. But "feminism" in the protesting, Gloria Steinem kinda way hasn't been in style since the heyday of the 60s. Does that mean that all womyn born and living since then are anti-womyn asshats? Nooooooo. They just don't look, sound or talk like Gloria Steinem and that era. Which would make sense, because that was 40 some yrs ago!

What I'm trying to say is that I agree that feminism is out of style and that indeed does suck. Feminism is pretty stellar and the feminazi - manhating stereotypes are old and really annoying. But people have been touting the "FEMINISM IS DEAD" for almost 20 years now and yet, feminist activism, prose and work in general still exists, still lives and still kicks ass.

So every time I hear the "Feminism is dead", I just roll my eyes and think Ugh... Can we move on already? Those that are saying that are just looking in the wrong places and just because there isn't one giant movement with one unified leader (a la Gloria Steinem) doesn't mean we're not kicking ass and taking names.

Hey, Globe and Mail - Monday was the 20th anniversary of the Morgenteller decision. Yeah, abortions have been decriminalized for 20 yrs now. Which would mean.. 1988, which if you do the math, means well after the 1960s and yet, HOLY SHIT - IT STILL HAPPENED!

Also, Gloria Steinem was a big deal, I get that. But you're Canadian and writing for a Canadian paper, so maybe you should get educated on Canadian feminism and rely on the greats of Judy Rebick or Laura Sabia, hell even Heather Mallick!

Oh and I'm also really, really annoyed with Von Hahn and others for seeing the movie Juno as proof that anti-choicers are winning the fight for reproductive rights. Hum.. NEWSFLASH! Pro-CHOICE means the choice to keep your baby if that's what you want to do. Juno's 16 yrs old, confident, intelligent and makes a decision completely on her own. THAT is a feminist victory.


P.S Gloria Steinem - Don't get me wrong. I really do love you.

Save the Gingers!

I've been alerted to the alarming news that redheads are said to become extinct. That's right. Experts estimate that gingers, carrot tops, the Ron Weasley's of the world, who make up only 2% of the world population, will become extinct within 100 years.

See gingers are incredibly rare as they are a result of a recessive gene. So not just anybody can go and have themselves a redheaded offspring.

I love redheads and so was naturally disturbed by the news that *gulp* they might soon be gone! But then I discovered this little gem and was quickly relieved. Redhedd.com is a single's website for redheads only. Think Facebook, but uber VIP. Because naturally, if gingers mate with gingers, then more carrot tops will exist which will mean... well... that more carrot tops exist. Which is important stuff. Otherwise, redheads will vanish like dinosaurs, dodo birds and cheap gas.

So my new mission? Hump a ginger.

I'm just doing my part for humanity. What can I say? I like to give.

I give it a week before they're on Springer...

There's this story creating a real buzz around the world right now. In fact, I'm sure most of you have heard of it already.

A British couple is now filing an annulment of marriage after they discovered that they were twin siblings who were separated at birth.Yes that's right. They met each other, fell in love, got married, thought everything was peachy keen and then discovered that they were not only related, but twins.

The twins were adopted by separate parents and due to adoption laws, their genealogical and biological history was not disclosed to them. Therefore, they weren't knowingly incestuous. And due to the amount of coverage of this story and the overall EWW factor of the whole thing, they have demanded strict confidentiality and complete anonymity in their court case. (But I'm sure if Jerry Springer comes knocking with a 6 figure paycheck, things might change).

Now of course this story is ringing around the world. People think it's hilarious! I can hear the Late Night Talk Show Hosts already, making terrible jokes and puns about "the rules of attraction" and how these two are obviously egomaniacs - they fell in love with reflections of themselves! Hardy har har. And I mean, this is pretty messed up and something you'd either see on Maury Povich or written in Hollywood.

But these are real people who were in love and probably *gulp* consummated their marriage. And naturally, they are peeved that they were denied access to knowledge about their biological history, the knowledge of any siblings, etc. So it is in the courts right now, as it is raising serious issues about the disclosure of information during adoption and how perhaps (as is being debated now) a child's rights to personal information should trump a birth parent's wishes for anonymity. This is especially true in places such as Britain where a parent does not legally need to inform their children that they were born through the use of donated sperm, which is another huge issue.

So although this particular case is about marriage annulment (and years of therapy for these two people and their families), it's also about the bigger picture of the rights of offspring. These people opened up a big o'le can of worms.

I guess this really gives new meaning to the old adage that after a while, couples start to look the same...

Where's Judge Judy when you need her?

I love me some Canada, but sometimes, I don’t understand this place one bit. I now direct your attention to...

Exhibit A:
A Saskatchewan womyn successfully sued her ex-drug dealer for negligence. In 2004, when she was 19, she bought illegal drugs off of him which she overdosed on and had a heart attack. It is estimated she will win over 50,000$.

How is this possible?!

I understand that I am straightedge and I understand that Canada most certainly is not and has very lax rules with regards to drugs, marijuana in particular. Keep in mind my anger about this issue is not related to my being straightedge. I disagree with drug use but am 100% in support of legalizing marijuana. But we’re not talking about marijuana here. We’re talking about Crystal Meth.

If you buy Crystal Meth off a street dealer and overdose, how is that the court’s problem? It’s Crystal Meth! Which is illegal to buy, produce and consume in Canada. Why? Because it can kill you or I dunno, give you a heart attack? Delusions, psychosis, malnutrition, stroke, seizures and just plain o’l bad skin are common effects of Crystal Meth hence why it’s illegal.

So what? This guy gets nailed because he neglected to inform her of this? Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think this guy is innocent. He’s a Meth dealer, he’s obviously not a stand-up guy. But shouldn’t he be arrested and charged on the basis of that? And this womyn obviously consumed Crystal meth and bought it off this guy, so how is she standing on moral high ground?

Moral of the story? Don't do crack!

The Fast and the Friggin' Old

So there's this new "anti-racing" law in Ontario. It has nothing to do with racism ya'll, it relates to actual street racing. If you're caught doing 30km or more above the speed limit, you get a hefty fine, demerit points and your car is towed right on the spot, losing it for at least a week. I agree with this law to a certain extent, because street racing is incredibly dangerous and on the rise. You can thank Hollywood for that, in my opinion. But that's a digression.

The reason I bring this up is because Ontario police have caught their oldest badguy under this new law.

An 85 year old man was caught this week doing 161km on the 407 in Toronto. That's 61 km over the speed limit. Where was he going in such a rush? Shopping. Hey, those Boxing Day sales don't last forever you know.

Good on him! I realize that speeding is deadly, but I mean... we always accuse the elderly of being slower than the second coming of Christ, so I applaud this guy.

E for Effort my man!

The Good, The Bad and the Vajayjay

With the announcement of HAPPY NEW YEAR comes the recalling of past highs (and lows) of the previous year. So here are my highlights and lowlights (or is it lowlifes?) of 2007.

The Goods

- Protests at various places around the world saw the halting of demolition in New Orleans, the removal of sexist clothing at Wal-Mart and Canadian youth protested bullying with the creation of the Pink Campaign.

- The Spice Girls kicked off their reunion tour (and Feminist Catalyst scored herself some tickets. Shazam!)

- The Americans got their first Female Speaker of the House

- Canadians finally gave up the polite adage that we speak not of politics or religion by opening up discussion of Islam and the role of the religion within a multicultural, democratic state. Things are getting heated (see below) but the first step is dialogue.

- Canucks saw a 1% reduction in GST. Hey, it’s better than nothing!

- Media mogul and overall goon Conrad Black heads to the slammer for basically embezzling a shitpile of moola. The classyness that is Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Keifer Sutherland and Michelle Rodriguez also go to jail for DWI – Driving While Intoxicated, which demonstrates that *gasp* drinking and driving kills, even when you’re a celebrity.

- Maher Arar reaches settlement with Canadian government

The Bad Stuff
- The word “Vajayjay” is featured on an entire segment of The View and an entire episode of The Tyra Banks Show. Not exactly the Colbert Report, but still! Come on people. It’s called a VAGINA. Embrace it.

- Speaking of which, we saw way, way too much celebrity crotch shots. People – Please wear panties, Paparazzo – Please stop caring.

- We had a National debate over whether Muslim womyn should be allowed to wear the veil when reporting to vote. Forgetting of course, to actually talk to Muslim womyn. Oops!

- Speaking of womyn and Islam, we saw Canadians and feminists around the world debate bitterly over whether the hijab was oppressive or empowering. In Canada, this all came to a head with the brutal killing of a 16 year old Mississauga womyn by her father who objected to her wearing “Western” clothing.

- The US saw a womyn get the boot from an airline because her clothing was “inappropriate”. She then posed for Playboy. Ouch.

- It was the year of re-calls. First it was pet food then it seemed to be (and still is) everything and anything coming from China. Mmmm….. lead.

We mourned the loss of Benazir Butto, Oscar Peterson, Luciano Pavarotti, writer, activist and overall badass June Callwood and The Body Shop founder Anita Roddick. And of course, Mr. Harry Potter. *tear*

Here's to a 2008 filled with more dialogue, less fighting and no more crotch shots! (It's really not that much to ask, is it?)