Being the Change Since 2007

Feminist Blogosphere

2011-10-31T12:32:00.001-07:00

Read this if you still fail to understand the power of feminist blogging.

Oh and, this if you're one of those assholes who believes the brouhaha about 'slutty' Halloween costumes.

My Activism: Part II 'Finding Myself'

2011-10-26T10:55:00.001-07:00

I wrote this piece months and months ago but it's funny to me, in light of a new Jezebel article asking 'Why Would Anyone Become a Nun?'

-------

My journey to becoming an activist all started with my desire to become a nun.

Let me explain.

Growing up, I went to Catholic school. In my house, we were definitely of the C&E Catholic variety. For the uninitiated, this is the type of Catholic family that will write down “Catholic” on their census but really only attend mass for Christmas and Easters. Oh and weddings and funerals, of course. (Catholics love the concept of ‘forever’).

My Catholic upbringing was rather non-existent except for some bizarro inclusions like the whole “No sex before you get married” thing which was mostly my mother’s quiet way of saying “Please don’t get knocked up and ruin your chances at a life”.

Because you see, my folks were also hella progressive in so many ways. I got the “It’s okay to be gay” talk at like… 4. And I routinely was told that I was smart first and pretty second and that I never, EVER needed a man to be happy.

I include all this because I really want to emphasize that Bible-thumping-Jesus-Praising just wasn’t a part of my reality. And yet, I really loved nuns.

See, I didn’t love Catholicism as a whole. I found the actual class boring as fuck. All the memorizing of prayers and scripture just seemed hella pointless. The occasional time that I was dragged into Sunday school, I hated the patronizing tone of the clearly-unhappy-at-home Sunday School Teachers.

The only things I loved about being Catholic was the stories and the rituals. I LOVED some of those stories. (Oh, I suppose I shouldn’t call them ‘stories’ since they are really just passages of the Bible but I can’t help but treat the Bible like Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes so yeah, they’re stories to me).

Obviously as a budding feminist, I loved the way Jesus was all down with Mary Magdalene’s sinful ways and I remember thinking “GET OFF YOUR KNEES WOMYN AND SAVE YOUR DIGNITY” when she went to wash the guy’s feet. I knew she was better than that.

I also loved this one story about a guy named Zack or something? He heard that Jesus was coming into town and he was so in awe of the guy, that he didn’t feel worthy of being in his presence. So for the fancy procession into town, little Zack went and climbed up a tree and just admired from a far. When the big JC rode into town on his ass, er, I mean donkey, he saw Zack and was all “Hey dude, come and walk with me. You’re obviously cool enough to join my posse”. (I’m paraphrasing).

I thought it was cool that Jesus was down with anyone and everyone. That he forgave folks, chilled with the disabled and homeless. He did to leprosy what Princess Diana did for HIV/AIDS.

Real talk.

And anyone who knows me at all, knows that I’m a fan of ritual. Or as my mother would say – TRADITION! (Only you have to say it in a loud booming voice while raising your hands, à la Fiddler on the Roof).

I refuse to let my parents buy a fake Christmas tree because it’s TRADITION! Tradition dictates that we go to my uncle’s, get a real tree and decorate it as a group. Then either my brother or I (we alternate years) put up the really hideous tacky star, the same star that my dad has wanted to change for years but I refused to let him because it was TRADITION!

Even as a lefty progressive person, I really value tradition and in particular, refuse to do something that is ‘traditional’ unless I know what the meaning of the tradition is. Since tradition is important to me, if I’m going to be passing it on, I wanna know what it is I’m replicating.

ANYWAY…

My love of nuns stems from this. Nuns are not only ALL ABOUT traditions but they are also hella devoted. And if there’s anything I love more than stories and rituals, is devotion. And so from afar, I would admire me some nuns. I never got to see them in real life until high school (more on that later) but the very existence of nuns intrigued me.

For one, they were the only ‘womyn’ I ever really associated with the Church. They also wore really interesting outfits and had wedding bands because they were MARRIED to God. If that’s not hardcore, what is? They also lived in some secretive convent where I first imagined giggling girl talk and later, some serious queer action.

The coolest part about nuns though is that they had been ‘called’. THIS is what I was all about. Womyn who had been handpicked by the big G-O-D to do his work. At the time, I didn’t see it as an oppressive relationship but more of a “God thinks you’re hella special? Then you’re special to me”.

As a youngster, I felt a ‘calling’. I wasn’t really sure what the calling was to do but I felt a strong feeling that I was meant to do something. Since I had no role models of other people who had a strong calling for their work, I figured this is it, I’m meant to be a nun.

Unfortunately, when I started high school where I was taught by REAL. LIVE. NUNS I realized that they actually sucked. Unlike “Sister Act”, they weren’t badass dancers in a penguin suit. They were actually homophobic, self-hating, hypocritical and BORING.

So then I thought “Fuck… now what?” If I feel a strong calling to do something and to work with people but I hate Christianity, don’t identify with nuns and quite frankly, don’t want to spend my life as a celibate, what the fuck am I supposed to do?

Thankfully for me, my parents wanted me to have what they didn’t and paid for me to move to Ottawa and get a post-secondary education. There I met tons and tons of people whose vocation was basically doing all the truly benevolent things that I wanted to do, without the colonialism and Jesus-lovin’.

My relationship with nuns has simply become this ironic fetish that involves nun action figures and Gothic Christian imagery. Got a picture of a holy virgin with some nice flashing lights and a crown of thorns? SIGN ME UP. But as for that whole “Life of celibacy and rubbing one out to pictures of a light-skinned Jesus?” No fucking way.

My Activism: Part I 'Being Whole'

2011-10-25T11:53:00.000-07:00

Lately, I've been doing lots of internal dialoguing and other fancy smancy shit that privileged activists like myself have time to do.

Here is part I that I wrote a little while ago:

--------

Anyone who knows me well knows that I am an intense person, yes, but I laugh at funerals, use sarcasm when I probably shouldn't and really do believe in a silver lining.

If you know me well you also know that there is no room in my life for religion or even much of spirituality, either. I call myself agnostic, but really I'm apathetic and really over all discussions of the sort. It just doesn't interest me in the slightest.

I say all this because the following might seem incredibly out of character but it's something I've been thinking a lot about lately.

I am deeply concerned about activism in my community lately and rather than complain about it, I want to make a call for a better environment and see who is interested.

I've been doing activism in an official capacity for about 8 years. Like most people, I've done things that would constitute activism for much of my life, but it's only been since I've lived in Ottawa that I've made a concerted effort to do activism and to identify it as such. The overwhelming majority of my work has centered around womyn's lives and in particular, violence against womyn, access to abortion and equity in education.

I've previously written at length about my feminism and how I came to do the work that I do now, so I won't get into that.

My issue is that the environment in which I do my activism has become ugly and I have really struggled with how to deal with it.

I know that I am a product of my environment but I am also part of my environment.

As activists, we are not car mechanics or meteorologists whose work is limited by the tools and physical structures available to us. We are the tools and structures. The only limits are our imagination.

So it is frustrating to see how people buy into the idea that we are tangible, objective entities rather than the subjects of our own doing. The rules that govern what we do or how we think are subjective and arbitrary.

There is absolutely no reason why we must treat each other the way we do.

Everyone I've ever known to have left the activist community, the feminist movement, social work, etc. did so because of the environment and their colleagues and not because of the actual work. Let me repeat this.

People whose jobs it is to listen to horrific stories, to support people who feel hopeless and to advocate for a better world in a political environment that is pessimistic and discouraging, end up leaving the work not because of their clients or because of their 'enemy' but because of their so-called allies.

This is often treated as fact; an inevitability.

By setting ourselves up in this way, we are doomed to fail again and again. And every time we do, the enemy wins. And I'm not okay with that.

There is no reason why we must treat each other this way.

I came into this world 'whole' and I intend to leave it the same way.

My mother is Native and an incredibly spiritual person. I deeply admire her for this. (The spirituality part, not the Native part. 'Cause no offense, ma but you had no say in the other part!)

She believes that when someone is deeply hurt in their life, either as a child or an adult, they lose a part of their soul, a part of their 'being' and then spend the rest of their life looking for it.

I believe this.

I believe that most of the issues within activist communities stem from people who've experienced (or who currently experience) deep, deep pain. Whether that pain was because of the work they're doing, or is part of the reason they started this work in the first place, they carry that pain with them. Because we've set activist communities up as 'warrior spaces' where nobody gives up, everybody does 110% and nobody admits defeat, people bury that pain. They bury that pain and bury that pain until they can't anymore but when they lash out, it is to the nearest person; regardless of whether or not that person has caused them any pain.

As people who've spent years and years listening to horror stories of violence against womyn, we do not lash out at rapists, anti-choicers, politicians, or judges. We do not lash out at racist education systems, sexist media or ableist institutions.

We lash out at our comrades.

And this needs to stop.

I am not the least bit delusional about the fact that many activists are damaging to us. Many people who claim to be activists, myself included, have done things (or do things) that are racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. We all need to challenge each other in ways that are productive and about improving the situations and not simply about lashing out.

We need to remember that the enemy is not in the room.

I firmly believe in my heart of hearts that anyone who dedicates their life to ending violence, fighting for equitable education, fighting for access to clean water, etc. is an ally and someone who should be worked with, not against.

And so as things get uglier and uglier (and then better and then ugly again, as it goes), I question why I'm here, why I do what I do and whether it's worth it.

I believe it is.

I do not believe that the revolution will cease without me or that it will fall apart. I believe that there will always be good people in this world who want to fight for a better one and who will step up and replace us all if/when we leave.

But this work is in my blood, it is a fabric of my being and I want to find a way to continue.

So this is what I'm proposing:

I want to build a movement based on the premise that anyone who joins does so in good conscience.

I want to build a movement that is a safe space for everyone, including those who have much to learn.

I want to build a movement that refuses all buzzwords, all lip service and all cliches. No more alienating people with academic language, no more preaching self-care but refusing to partake in it or demonizing those who do.

I want to build a movement that recognizes that just as survivors of violence and womyn who've had abortions deal with their lives in ways that are unique to them, so do activists. There is no 'one way' of doing activism. If you sign every petition and letter that comes across your inbox, hooray! If you march at every protest and raise your fist high, good on you! If you stuff envelopes and write letters behind the scenes, thank you! If you call out your co-workers at the water cooler and take on your racist grandpa at Christmas, you rock!

I want to build a movement that understands that sometimes, your organization is a business unlike any other. You just happen to be in the business of kicking ass and taking names. But you still need to spend time making sure you've crossed your Ts and dotted your Is. You need to be accountable to your stakeholders, you need to respect different forms of leadership and you need to know your role. A movement that understands that sometimes, you just gotta get the work done and not bog it down with checking up on every one's feelings and pussy footing around things that are 'touchy'.

I want to build a movement that is optimistic, realistic and practical.

I want to build a movement that truly recognizes that womyn are equal, that we are strong and that we need not break down into tears to be heard. We are valuable because we exist and that is enough.

I want to build a movement that rejects martyrdom, embraces creativity and remembers ALL of Andrea Smith's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Smith_%28academic%29). In particular, the parts where she calls out activists for creating a movement that is depressing, reactive and not focused on being proactive and engaged.

I want to build a movement that allows people to enter 'whole' and to exit with all their pieces intact.

You with me?

Why we need to care about DSK's charges being dropped

2011-08-26T11:38:00.000-07:00

TRIGGER WARNING: This post discusses sexual assault in concrete and theoretical ways.

I recognize that I've been an incredibly lazy blogger as of late. I apologize about that. I've been extremely busy.

And then beloved Jack Layton died and I've been reeling.

But one thing that's gotten be riled up as of late is the entire case of DSK.

Unless you have the pleasure of living under a rock, you've heard about Dominique Straus-Kahn. Even my last blog post was about the joy of being famous, referring in part to DSK's treatment even though he face(d) serious charges of sexual assault.

Since that last post, the victim in this whole story as come forward. We now know her Nafissatou Diallo, an immigrant womyn of colour who is also a single mother and chambermaid in a New York hotel. She came forward and told her story.

She says that she walked in to clean DSK's room and found him partially undressed/exposing himself. She apologized, he told her she didn't have to and then sexually assaulted her.

DSK has since done what most men do in those situations do: Claimed it was consensual.

It was recently announced that all charges against DSK in the United States have been dropped because of inconsistencies on the part of Ms. Diallo. He will however go on to face similar charges in France for a sexual assault that he committed against a journalist there. Or rather, is "alleged" to have committed.

And that's where I start feeling a little.... stabby.

As an outspoken advocate against sexual violence and as someone who works as a front-line, support worker, Ms. Diallo's story is all to damn common.

On the one hand, you have a poor, single mother who also happens to be an immigrant of colour. On the other, you have a rich, powerful and 'important' man. In many circumstances, people like DSK would deny having any 'sexual relations with that womyn' (Sound familiar?) But in this case, like in Clinton's case, once you get to the point where all evidence leads to some sexual contact, then they play the 'Cried rape' card.

"It was entirely consensual!" they say "It makes total sense that a womyn who makes barely over minimum wage in a precarious job would risk it all to bone me, even though it was not until she saw my face on TV that she knew I was famous. And even though I'm a married rich powerful man, it makes total sense that she would just walk into my room and say 'I WANT TO SUCK YOUR COCK' and then go home. Yup that makes perfect sense".

Let's not kid ourselves folks. That is exactly what DSK is saying. I'm just doing you the favour of sparing you the BS elements of it.

Meanwhile, DSK's wife diligently stands by his side, even though at best, he had oral sex with a complete stranger in a hotel room and at worst, he sexually assaulted her.

"But! But! He should still be in the running for France's President and we should definitely be supporting him, because 'bitches be lyin'."

This narrative happens over and over and over. And then we wonder why 8 womyn a day are sexually assaulted in Ottawa and only 1 reports it to the police. (Source: OCTEVAW)

Because it doesn't matter if you're white, of colour, rich, poor, able bodied, disAbled, queer, straight, etc. It doesn't even really matter if he is either. (Although that's not always the case, particularly around men of colour, queer men and men with disAbilities or mental illnesses, but that's a whole other story).

It doesn't matter what the circumstances are because 'bitches by lying' and 'men getting framed'. ALL THE TIME.

And so in this case, you have a womyn saying she was sexually assaulted by a complete stranger. She got a high powered lawyer, had a publicity machine and she STILL wasn't believed. So do you think that someone who was assaulted by their partner/coach/professor/parent is going to be believed? What if that person was intoxicated? Good luck with that.

Nobody knows for sure what happened except for Ms. Diallo and DSK. Let me clear about that. I cannot prove that she was sexually assaulted just like I can't prove that he didn't. What I can say is that the way in which we talk about this case says a great deal about the culture we live in and the way we treat survivors.

Language is important. I wish I was half as eloquent as fabulous anti-violence advocate Jackson Katz but since I am not, I will let him say it for me "Every time we call [Ms. Diallo] an accuser, we undermine her credibility and bolster [DSK's]". AMEN.

I know that personally, I use the term 'survivor' but I know that's not legally appropriate or universal. I use the term 'survivor' for very political reasons, but also because it's what people who've been sexually assaulted have asked me to refer to them as. So I listen. But I know that we can't all use that term and that's fine.

But in this case, I'll take victim 100x before 'accuser'. Using the term 'accuser' in the case of DSK is the equivalent of the time the New York Post called her a 'hooker', even though they had absolutely no proof she was a sex worker. (Newsflash: She isn't).

Why is that we insist that DSK is innocent until proven guilty but Ms. Diallo? "Oh clearly she's a lying, money grubbing prostitute who is accusing him of a crime he didn't commit!"

The double standard is so blatantly obvious that it's shocking how rarely it is mentioned.

Yes, in strictly legal terms, he is accused of a crime by Ms. Diallo and that makes Ms. Diallo the accuser. I understand this. But let's not pretend that legally, socially or otherwise, we treat sexual assault as we do other crimes. We just don't. When people say they've been robbed and have 'proof' that their items are stolen, do we say 'The supposed victim of a robbery'? No, we don't. Even though people make up that their items were stolen, their houses were burnt down, their cars were jacked, etc. So if we treat the accused of sexual assault with kid gloves, why don't we do the same for the 'victims' of sexual assault?

All in all, the DSK case leaves me feeling sad.

There are no winners here. Well, except for the patriarchy, of course. In this case, the patriarchy keeps on marchin' on.

Ahh, to be famous...

2011-05-17T10:33:00.001-07:00

**Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault, rape and victim blaming**

What do the President of the IMF, the former Governor of California, an information 'freedom fighter' and a Hollywood Director have in common? Why, sexual assault of course!

I know what you're thinking. "No, no Ms. FC, you mean sexual assault accusations." Ahh yes, pardon me! Rape accusations thrown at famous men because womyn are opportunistic whores. Ahh yes, my bad.

So the President of the IMF, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) has been arrested on charges of at least 1 sexual assault of a hotel room cleaning staff. He's also been accused of sexually assaulting at least 1 journalist a few years ago. In fact, Mr. DSK was known as being quite the 'charmer'.

Then you've got the Governator himself who is not only filing for divorce from his Democratic wife Maria Shriver over allegations of cheating (and fathering a 'love child'), he also has a well documented history of being well... grabby.

Julian Assange was accused of sexually assaulting two womyn, but we all know that didn't happen because he's a lefty who wants to take down the greedy government, so it's clearly all just a big old conspiracy to take him down.

And Roman Polanski? Look dude might have anally raped a young girl that he had plied with drugs, but her mom shouldn't have let her come over anyway and it was such a long time ago. Plus, have you seen Chinatown? Cinematic gold!

FYI - This list fails to include athletes, although we could easily talk about Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, and Check-Out-Photos-Of-My-Dick Brett Favre.

See, when it comes to sexual assault, you're pretty much off the hook to begin with, but if you happen to be famous? You're in the clear, my dear!

Every time these 'scandals' come out, we hear the same victim-blaming bullshit, we have other 'celebrities' coming out to 'support them' and we have this whole conspiracy theory machine that states that they're being unfairly scrutinized because they're rich and famous.

To which I say - so what?

Why are we appalled that Paris Hilton only spent a few days in jail for drinking and driving but we're downright infuriated that DSK's case is being investigated at all?

Sexual assault, unlike most crimes, is rife with stereotypes. There are stereotypes around who commits sexual assault, who is actually sexually assaulted, who 'cries rape', etc.

According to the myths, who commits sexual assaults? Well, old men with mental illnesses, of course! They are always strangers to the victim in question, have some sort of sick sexual fetish and in many cases are a person of colour/Queer/disAbled, etc.

Does that mean that never fits the profile? Absolutely not. But the % of people who sexually assault who fit this very narrow and specific profile is slim.

And because we continue to perpetuate this same sadistic bullshit, we are equally appalled by the profile of the rapist as we are by the crimes themselves.

Need I remind you of Colonel Russell Williams? People were SHOCKED that a decorated Colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces committed such heinous crimes and yet, it makes perfect sense. Here is a man with ample amounts of power who leads a secretive life where people who know him fully understand that they don't really know him. Not to mention how he was trained to do just that.

And because we continue to perpetuate the stereotype of who is a rapist we continue to victim blame those who are assaulted by someone who doesn't 'fit the profile', because we just don't believe someone like them could do something like that.

Newsflash, skeptics: Rapists come in every size and flavour. They are decorated military colonels, actors, directors, governors, weight lifters, city councillors, janitors, fathers, sons, cousins, colleagues and people of every background, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, ability and sexual orientation.

Maybe we don't want to believe this because it's too scary to think about. Maybe we want to believe that rapists are easy to spot so that we can sleep better at night, knowing that our radar is on the right people. But this isn't helping anybody.

This mentality is blaming womyn unnecessarily, it's framing men of colour/queer men/ disAbled men/ poor men as sexual predators and it's allowing rich, entitled, privileged piece of shit dudes walk away, consequence free.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world in which we let people get away with sexual assault just because they wear a nice suit and have cushy bank accounts. I gotta believe that we are better than this.

** I'm willfully interchanging the words sexual assault and rape here just for the sake of being concise **

Why I SlutWalk(ed)

2011-05-16T10:14:00.000-07:00

Alright so I'm a terribly absentee blogger, but the election results kept me depressed for a while.

But all the media kerfuffle and critiques of SlutWalk have got me galvanized to write again. Now, I'm not going to link to any of these critiques because they are just way too many and many are shit and I don't want to increase their page views. But just Google "SlutWalk" and you'll get more responses than you'll ever have time to read.

This blog post assumes that you know what SlutWalk is and what prompted it. If you don't know, Google that shit then come back and join me. It's been said all over the world over and over again, so I won't bother to repeat it.

So Ottawa had its own SlutWalk and you better believe I was there. In fact, in the interest of full disclosure, I was asked to speak at it, too. But that's where it ends, for the record. I've never organized a SlutWalk, have no part in organizing future ones and quite frankly, spent 5 minutes at the Ottawa one talking about systemic violence against womyn.

I must admit that I was initially a little apprehensive about the whole thing. I'd heard about it in its planning stages and felt that it might have been a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to highlight an issue.

But I was wrong. I was so, so wrong.

It seems that people want to talk about sluts, sluttyness, slut-shaming, slut-positivity and all things slutty. People love sluts, other people love to hate sluts and some people hate that they love sluts.

And that's the fucking point.

See, the organizers knew that if they organized another "Take Back the Night" or "Anti-Sexual Assault" or even a "Stop Victim Blaming" march, you'd get the same little handful of diehards, maybe a blip or two in the media but not much else. The unfortunate reality is that the average person and media outlet doesn't give a flying fuck about violence against womyn and sexual assault. Because only sluts get raped, and womyn falsely accuse men all the time and feminists are whiny and don't know how good they have it and on, and on and on.

A name like SlutWalk catches people's attention, provokes a reaction and is just downright impossible to ignore. The sight of stiff journalists on the nightly news saying "And now, let's go to Marcie who is over at SlutWalk" can't help but solicit raised eyebrows.

And once again, that's the fucking point.

Whether you want to reclaim the word 'slut' or not, you can't help but perk up your ears when you hear the word being used in mainstream, every day conversation by your average folk. And the organizers knew that. They knew that the only way to ensure this cop's comments didn't go unnoticed was to shock people into reacting.

They hoped maybe a couple hundred people would show up, they'd find some solidarity and be able to sleep better at time. Instead, thousands of people showed up, an international media machine was started and there are Satellite SlutWalks around the world. Not bad for a handful of novice organizers in Toronto.

But what about this reclaiming business?

That part is tricky and complicated.

Many womyn of colour have commented that it's not easy for them to do, considering how slut-shaming and labeling is so tied into racism, colonialism, etc. Makes sense.

Others (including myself) think it's also classist and rather 'in-crowd' to assume that everyone can safely embrace the label. Tell that to poor, 16 year old rural girls who are just trying to survive gym class.

But that's okay. See, SlutWalk isn't really about everyone embracing the label Slut because like most things in life, if everyone is one, then nobody is.

But you can embrace the name on a political level while still recognizing how problematic it is at the individual level.

Example: We can embrace Ottawa's annual "Dyke March" while recognizing that a 16 year old high school girl has no desire to embrace the 'dyke' label that is thrown on her daily.

Ideally, everyone who identifies as 'dyke' could choose to do so and others who don't could escape the labeling. But we're not there yet, although we're working towards it.

SlutWalk is not an end, but a means to an end. It's a way to rip open the universal covers on sexual assault and to expose the deeply entrenched stereotypes that enable it to continue at epidemic levels. It's meant to prompt discussion, to test your knee-jerk reaction.

You don't want to call yourself a slut? - Why?
You don't think it can be reclaimed? - Why?

Regardless of what your answer is, it got you thinking and that's the point.

As someone who has been doing anti-sexual violence work in Ottawa for close to 8 years, I've been to every conference, march, demonstration, letter-writing campaign kick-off, red tape cutting, award ceremony, you can imagine. I've been there, I've spoken at them, I've shaked my head at them and I've marched in them. And none of them had the turn-out that SlutWalk did.

Ottawa is an extremely conservative city with a small, (too) tight-knit feminist community and here I was, standing amongst a thousand other people, many of which I had never seen before. The crowd was diverse in age, background, gender identity, ethnicity, etc. And despite what you might have read or seen about the celebratory nature of SlutWalk, it was a rather sombre event. People were angry, not laughing. As they should be - sexual assault isn't funny.

So you've got a conservative community out on a Sunday afternoon, talking about womyn's sexuality and sexual assault in a constructive and meaningful way. Regardless of how you feel about reclaiming language, you have to be impressed by the power it had that day in Ottawa.

(Say it with me) and that's the fucking point.

I have no desire to call myself a slut. None. My reasons for this are many but include the fact that I don't want to define myself by my association with other people (ie: how many people I sleep with, who I sleep with, etc). It's also difficult to call yourself something when a definition doesn't exist. We know that a slut has something to do with sexuality but ask ten people and you'll get ten different answers.

I was called a slut for holding a pro-choice sign at an anti-choice rally.

I was called a slut for attending a new school in grade 10 with no friends or history in that city. A rumour was started that I was chased out of another town for having slept with someone's boyfriend. The truth? I was a virgin who'd had to move for her dad's new job.

Hell, I was called a slut for defending SlutWalk. (The irony.. it hurts...)

But even though I do not long for the label doesn't mean I fail to see its importance. As Jaclyn Friedman so amazingly said, we must all stand under the banner of 'Slut' and recognize that when it is used against one womyn, it is used against all womyn. Because we can all be called a slut by someone at some point and in many cases, the sting of that word not only offends us, but decides whether or not our rape is convicted properly, whether we get access to housing, a job, a promotion, a reference, or even someone's Facebook friend request.

So even if you don't want to call yourself a slut, learn to respect those who do.

And finally, to Gail Dines and every other 'prominent' feminist out there who is using the media as the soapbox from which to criticize SlutWalk, shame on you. I'm particularly upset by Gail because she has some truly excellent things to say and has contributed quite a lot, but her methods for critiquing SlutWalk are downright patronizing. Ironically, she's accusing SlutWalk organizers of shifting the attention away from victim-blaming and yet she's the one doing just that on every major media outlet.

The media longs to create tension and division between womyn and thankfully for them, Gail Dines is ready to do just that. *sigh* Get a clue, lady.

Re-thinking 'Misandry'

2011-04-13T09:57:00.000-07:00

I just finished writing two posts in which I talk about the important role of men in feminism. But I'm not Jezebel, so I know that very few people read it. But nonetheless, it seems I'm going there again, this time in relation to a book by Concordia Professor Dr. Synnott called "Re-Thinking Men".

FULL DICLOSURE: I have not read the book. And I hate it when people tear down shit they didn't read/attend/listen to, etc. So I completely understand if you turn this car around. Totally. The biggest criticism with the Professor's book is that it's an unfair critique of feminism.

Although he has said that he doesn't consider the book a critique of feminism but a critique of misandric feminism. And this is where I take issue. I believe in feminisms, plural. So yes, there is certainly feminists who do not like men, who hate them, resent them, etc. As I've said, if I respect Sarah Palin's right to call herself a feminism, then I gotta respect the right of man-haters to do their thang, too.

My issue is with misandry in general. Mostly, because I don't really think it even exists. Yes, I think hatred of men exists but I don't think misandry does because hatred of men is not systemic. Now I realize I could be arguing semantics in the eyes of many and I accept that but misgony is called misogyny and not just chauvinism because it's a systemic hatred of womyn and rejection of anything feminine. Although I see individual cases of man-hating and full blown perpetual man-hating in certain contexts (that I will get to soon), I don't believe for a second that 'men' are systemically oppressed, hated or disadvantaged.

Disclaimer: I am referring to the gender, here. I am willfully ignoring intersections and fully recognize that trans-men, men of colour, queer men, disAbled men, etc. are not living the high life of acceptance and praise. I'm just referring to the idea of 'men' as a gender, as the Professor does.

Where I see the hatred of men is in popular culture: a realm in which feminists have little to no say. (Think of what pop culture would look like under a critical feminist lens for a second, if you're skeptical). The fact that most men in sitcoms are complete neanderthals, that you can't see a cleaning product commercial without seeing a dude who can't change a roll of toilet paper, that every time I turn around, men are depicted as slaves to their sex drive and completely 'frat boy' like, rather than complex individuals with a wide range of emotions and characteristics. But this is not a result of feminism.

And so I take objection to the idea that feminism or specifically, 'misandric feminism' has a role to play in perpetuating shitty sketches of masculinity and men. Another reason I object to this book? The fact that the Professor describes the purpose of the book, which is "to praise men – to recognize their massive and heroic contributions to social life and to civilization.” Yes, to offer men praise because apparently years of sexist, racist, cisgendered, ableist, etc, etc, etc history books and stories have forgotten to mention how privileged dudes did nothing to bring us to where we are today. Because every time I look around , womyn, people of colour and indigenous folks are being thanked for bringing the world 'modernity', classic literature, paved roads, philosophy, etc. Oh wait...

If you need me to deconstruct how problematic that is, then I have no idea why you're reading this blog.

I'm a feminist, but...

2011-04-10T14:06:00.000-07:00

This is a manifesto of sorts that I wrote a few months ago but I'm posting it here now because I seem to be having this conversation a lot lately.

------------

I’m a feminist. (duh...)

But when I say ‘feminism’, I’m not talking about theorists or jargon (I’ll get back to those in a second…)

See, I never came to feminism through academia, readings or even activism. Although I only began to identify as such after being in University, feminism was part of how I was raised.

My family is made up of tough, working class people. I don’t remember hearing much about ‘feminism’ growing up but all the tenets were there.

As a womyn, I was told that I had to work twice as hard to make it anywhere because people were going to try and take me down. I was told that I never needed a man to be happy or complete and that I was always intelligent first and pretty second. I was told that people are going to tell you that being gay or being a boy who identifies as a girl is BAD, but that it’s not. People should be free to love whoever they want. I was also scolded harshly for being racist and learned through my Oma that people with disabilities are as competent as anyone else in the world. I was told that money doesn’t equal happiness or intelligence and that formal education was a ticket to a better life – that it’s a privilege.

I was taught that nobody gets anywhere in life without hard work but that everyone is doing the very best they can.

And I’m doing the best I can.

For me, that means attacking an issue through different methods. I don’t really identify as a radical and I’m okay with that. As I stated here around the G8/G20 stuff, my politics are about accessibility.

My first introduction to ‘volunteering’ or ‘activism’ was in my early 20s, when I realized that my life was centered around ME: I worked, went to school and hung out with my friends. I had copious amounts of privilege but wasn’t giving back.

Not being connected to any kind of community, I became a Big Sister. And I loved it. I loved (And still do!) the two amazing girls I worked with and saw the brilliance and power of girls.

But then I started working with more and more groups and as exciting, energizing and exhausting as it all is, I've realized what I am not.

I am not an anarchist. I don’t think that makes me delusional or ignorant.

I don’t believe in elitist feminism. So yes, that means I don’t identify with academic feminism. But it also means I don’t identify with many activist circles.

I don’t think the world is going to be a better place by dropping Judith Butler bombs or by claiming “I’m oppressed”, “No, I’M oppressed” or differing to theory rather than having anything concrete to say.

I am a feminist that lives in the real world.

I do not interact only with other feminists every day. I live in a world where the vast majority of people have no fucking clue what ‘marginalization’ means, but they can tell you what it feels like. They think ‘rape culture’ is a scary generalization and would never claim to live in one. Until, of course, you explain it to them and then womyn slowly start raising their hands.

My feminism means that accessibility isn’t just building a ramp and oppressive languages isn’t just saying “That’s so gay”.

I live in a world where the vast majority of people who assault are men and the vast majority of the people I see in that world are men.

I cannot isolate myself from men nor can I allow myself to be co-opted by them.

My feminism includes men. No. Scratch that. My feminism must include men.

The role of men in feminism is situational and must always come from the direction of womyn.

You are not my ally if you challenge the sentence “Womyn are sexually assaulted” with “Men are raped, too!”

My feminism is trans-inclusive. I do not feel threatened by your definition of gender and how you self-identify.

I also firmly believe in the need for womyn-identified-womyn ONLY spaces. I think anyone who disagrees fails to understand the systemic nature of sexism and has yet to observe the dynamics of 12 year old girls.

I do not believe in collectives as a structure or a political strategy. I have come to this conclusion through personal experience and chats with those who’ve been there – including the beloved ‘Jane Doe’.

My feminism respects the herstory of the movement and the history of humanity as a whole. I firmly believe that if we don’t learn from history, it will simply repeat itself. This means recognizing colonialism, systemic discrimination against categories of ‘disabled’, and the sacrifices of those who go to war.

I recognize November 11th as an important day to pause and reflect on the sacrifices of those who died on muddy beaches for my right to demonstrate.

I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I recognize that Agnes Macphail, Katharine Mackinnon and Peter Singer are important AND terrible.

My feminism believes that sex is marvelous, dangerous and political all the time.

My feminism is not dogmatic. It strives on diversity and therefore inherently recognizes the right of bell hooks, Andrea Dworkin, Sarah Palin and Ginger Spice to call themselves feminist. Even if it makes me uncomfortable.

Oh yeah and my feminism spells women with a ‘y’ not because it hates men or even thinks that the spelling of a word will revolutionize the world. It’s spelled with a ‘y’ because it pisses you off. And your anger speaks volumes.

*My feminism also reserves the right to change any and all of this without notice. All sales are final.

Dudes and Chicks: What Men Can Gain from Joining Feminism

2011-04-07T06:36:00.001-07:00

As of late, it seems that other people’s blog posts spur me into writing. Like the rape culture post, I’d been contemplating the role of men and feminism in my head for a while now and then read a really interesting post by Andrea Doucet this morning and thought, I gotta do this. Men have much to gain from feminism and why they haven’t figure that out yet is a problem.

The role of men in feminism and the very obvious ways in which men benefit from it has always been apparent to me. Not because I grew up in a progressive, hippie household or that I went to some alternative school. Quite the opposite, in fact. I came to feminism not out of some deep hatred for the male species or a general chip on my shoulder, but by being curious about gender as a whole.

I’ve been challenged on this before but I do think gender is the foundation of society. Regardless of whether or not you’re conscious of your gender or your knee-deep in trans* politics, gender is everywhere, all the time. Most of us take it for granted until we date a trans* person who can’t use public washrooms or we compare our 72 cents on our male partner’s dollar. Most people require a serious dose of reality before we start unravelling how gender plays into our daily lives. Which brings me back to how frustrated I am that ‘good men’ don’t understand how feminism can benefit them.

I say ‘good men’ because I do believe there are some dudes who aren’t ever going to get it. These are the men who are well aware of gender dynamics and like them just the way they are, thank you very much. They like women to stay in their place and pray so deeply to the altar of misogyny that we shouldn’t waste on breathes trying to recruit them to the feminist team. But I think most men fall outside of that shitty box and are either clueless or confused. So if you’re that person, listen up brother because it’s about to get juicy!

Well actually.. not really. Because it’s all rather obvious. The primary function of feminism (or rather, feminisms like mine) is to challenge people about gender assumptions and in turn, to emancipate all genders. That means, as a an educated womyn, I want to make 1$ for every dollar my male partner makes. I want to walk down the street without being hollered at and want every man with a passion for fashion, beauty, nursing, homecare, women’s studies, etc. to be able to work in that field. I want all genders to stop competing against each other while vying for a mate. I want womyn to stop feeling like losing 10 pounds of weight and wearing 10 pounds of makeup will make them worthy and I want men to stop feeling like the only emotion they’re allowed is anger. I want trans* to stop being the butt of every fucking joke, too. I’m being simplistic here but hopefully you catch my drift.

See, you can’t emancipate womyn without emancipating men and trans* people. To say that womyn are equal to men and deserve equitable treatment gets people thinking “Well, why is that? Are womyn not that different from men? And if womyn and men aren’t that different, then trans* people can’t be scary, then can they? And if trans* people are legitimate people and womyn aren’t to be afraid of, then why am I so paranoid and worried about protecting my manliness?” And that’s what it all comes down to.

You can’t combat rape culture, without emancipating men from stiff definitions of masculinity that see men as necessarily aggressive, violent, homophobic and misogynist.

You can’t combat gender discrimination in the workplace without emancipating men from the definitions of masculinity that see men as competitive, unemotional and all-too-happy to give up time with their family over a pay check.

I could go on and on and on. Because as much as stereotypes of womyn see us as overly emotional, irrational, catty, motherly (and of course, white, straight, cis, able bodied, fertile, middle-class and ‘beautiful), stereotypes about masculinity aren’t healthy either.

I’m not a dude, but if I was, I’d want to live in a world where I could drink beer with my friends, watch UFC , work out at the gym AND attend social justice rallies, spend quality time with my grandmother and blog about gender issues. I’d want my desire for a challenging job AND a close-knit family to be accepted. I’d want to have no shame in discussing my plans to start a family. I’d want to drive a car that I like and not have it send a message about the size of my genitalia or feel like I can congratulate a male friend on a job well done without ending it with ‘no homo’.

Unfortunately, in today's world, the only people loudly advocating for TRUE male emancipation are frightening ‘Men’s Rights Activists’ or ‘Pick-up Artists’. Both are deeply, deeply entrenched in misogyny and paranoia about womyn and in turn, will do nothing to create a more equitable world.

So men, be brave and join us feminists who are sick of being raped, beaten and denied equal access AND who know you are, too. There’s no deadline and you’re never too young or too old. Plus, we have some pretty cool swag. Just sayin’.

Rape Culture 101

2011-03-21T11:23:00.000-07:00

[EXTREME TRIGGER WARNING for discussion of sexual assault, rape and violence. Assume a trigger warning for this entire post and all links within it]

I’ve been thinking about writing a post on ‘rape culture’ for a while but after scanning the news today, I feel like I have no other choice.

I did a little search through my Facebook and Twitter feeds and this is what I found in ten minutes:

- Nurse jailed for sexual assault in Iqaluit

- Sex worker found dead in Caledon in an article that speaks more about her occupation than humanity

- Maclean’s runs an ‘amazing’ “Escort vs. Prostitute” ‘joke’ column that includes the ‘fact’ that escorts like horses and prostitutes look like them. (I’d link to it but 1- it’s been pulled down thanks to activism on Twitter and 2- I don’t want to give Maclean’s anymore traffic)

- Youth pastor had sex with queer teens to ‘cure them of their homosexuality’.

And I’m sure it’ll just get worse as the day goes on.

But even in the context of all this BULLSHIT, I still hear tons of rape apologists and flat out haters claiming that the term ‘rape culture’ is dramatic and exaggerated. As someone who routinely complains about rape culture and the war on womyn around the world, I’m used to hearing this kinda stuff. But my goodness, does it ever piss me off.

Part of the insidious nature of rape culture is that it’s taboo to even talk about it. So when I hear the haters and sceptics, I think to myself “Maybe they just don’t know. They don’t get it because they’ve never had it explained to them”.

So let me explain.

Since the internet age has completely killed people’s attention spans, I decided to make a handy little list for y’all:

Rape Culture is the creation and maintenance of an environment where rape is condoned and where those affected by it are systemically silenced.

Rape culture is

- The fact that 1 in 4 Canadian womyn will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime

- Studies have found between 80-100% of womyn have experienced street harassment at least once in their life

- The fact that this street harassment is normalized

- The fact that it’s often referred to as ‘cat calling’, which not only makes no logical sense but reaffirms that womyn are deemed less than human

- That a womyn makes an incredibly racist video attacking ‘Asian students’ and rather than challenge her for her racist views or her absolutely vile comments, the internet trolls make threats of rape

- In expressions like “I just raped that exam” or “Wow, we got raped by that team” when referring to victory or defeat

- The fact that we’d rather discuss the details of someone’s ‘escort’ girlfriend than the actual scandal, which is scandalous contracts for much needed water treatment on reserves

- The fact that a 21^st century university institution chose to blame a survivor of sexual assault for her own assault, legally stating that she ‘failed to take any steps to protect herself’

- The fact that every day in Ottawa, 8 womyn are sexually assaulted and only 1 reports it to the police

- This and this and every other music video, movie or advertising campaign that glorifies stalking

- The fact that Harper’s “Economic Action Plan” built more animal shelters than womyn’s shelters

- Journalists who create torture porn out of news stories

- The fact that Canada sits around 21% womyn in the House of Commons (How does that relate to rape culture, you say? Well rape culture is inextricably linked to sexism and the entire notion of ‘keeping womyn down’ and ‘in their place’. And time and time again, we’ve seen that ‘their place’ ain’t the House of Commons, it ain’t in the public sphere and it ain’t about making noise)

Rape culture is viewing sexual assault as a rite of passage for womyn.

Rape culture is the fact that more people know about "Womyn crying rape" than they do about "Rape culture" or "Trigger Warning".

It is the fact that we only care about the sexual assault of men because society is homophobic; we don’t care about the violation of boys but the fact that they were the subject of a homophobic act.

Rape culture continues to exist because it benefits those in power. It keeps womyn out of politics, out of the media, sports and unions. It keeps police, lawyers, insurance companies and advertisers in business. It allows men to climb ladders on the backs of womyn and call it ‘meritocracy’.

Rape culture is alive and well in the hearts of those who read about it and roll their eyes, rather than their sleeves.

'Balled of the Female Promoter'

2011-03-13T13:14:00.000-07:00

So Jezebel has an article about the situation of womyn who are working to promote their work. Check it out.

This article means a great deal to me because I'm currently in this battle. To be a successful professional, you need to 'sell yourself' and learn to self-promote. But apparently, to be a 'good' feminist, doing that means you're in it for the wrong reasons, egotistical and other evil things.

How do we ensure that our issues get brought to the fore and are discussed in the mainstream when doing so puts us at risk of losing our 'cred' in the feminist bubble?

Do we honestly think that men outside social justice circles go through the same dilemna?

This whole thing feels so gendered to me; it's like womyn have to be meak and downplay themselves or else they're not 'good' womyn. So my initial thoughts are a giant middle finger to the feminist haters for internalizing sexism in that way. But then I can't ignore the way that Jessica Valenti, for example, has been treated. Is she perfect? No way. But the pros of her work far outweight the cons, in my book. And yet, she's been ripped apart by feminists (not to mention the all around misogynist bullshit she's had to deal with). Being shat on by people in your 'circle' is tougher than any anti-womyn BS. So it's not as easy as saying "Ignore the feminist haters" and moving on. There's gotta be some reconciling.

So how do we support feminists and bring their work to the maintsream (which in my opinion, is the only way we'll ever make change) without falling into the traps of questioning everyone's intentions all the time?

Particularly when you add in the extra layer that you may not call yourself a leader, but they'll make a leader out of you. The media, the average Joe-The-Plummer kinda person, wants to see leaders. So even if you insist a hundred times over that you're part of something bigger, you're just one of the pack, etc. they'll paint you as THE person because it makes an easier narrative.

So do you say "I don't want to be part of this at all" and lose the opportunity to have the work be exposed or do you embrace the label and the backlash that comes with it, knowing that at least the work was discussed?

Thoughts?

So you're an activist. Now what?

2011-01-31T19:29:00.001-08:00

Please pardon the absence, folks. It's almost February and it's my first post for 2011. Eek! But it was a much needed hiatus and re-evaluation. So Blogosphere - Fear not (Or fear muchly!) because FC is baaaaaaaack.

And thinking about activism.

As someone who spends 90% of her time doing activism of some kind, I've had plenty of time to ponder the pros and cons of left-wing-so-called-progressive circles. And I keep coming back to the same two gripes: egos and impatience.

Egos

The biggest problem I've seen in these circles is the issue of egos. Many of these circles view 'collectivity' and consensus decision making as the be-all, end-all of anti-oppression organizing. Hierarchy is seen as inherently evil and oppressive and the pursuit of a 'collective' is the marker of a 'legit' organization.

You can probably discover from my tone that I ain't buying it. Haters, hear me out.

I think it's an admirable pursuit - I really, truly, genuinely do. But I think it's BS in practice.

Much like white, Western folks espousing the virtues of communism without clearly reading a history book, I think the idea of 'collective or bust' is idealistic and quite frankly, ridiculous.

I want to believe in collectives, I do! I work in many such environments and when I read the stuff on paper, I get really excited about the possibilities. But then I actually step into them and see that these same collectivity-loving-folk are as hierarchical and power hungry as dudes on Bay Street.

Collectivity will never work until people get over themselves. Not to sound all "Back in the good old days..." but there really was a time when activism was about more than a photo op or having a popular Twitter feed. More and more lately, I've been seeing a shift towards visual markers of 'legit' and 'radical' which make people competitive. It's a dog eat dog game of trying to one-up each other with one person screaming "GOTCHA!" when they feel that they've really nailed the other person to the floor.

People are more interested in appearing legit and in being the "best goddamn ally the world has ever seen" than in actually being legit. And so on one hand, they are criticizing societal power structures and then re-creating them in their own way.

It reminds me of this girl I met once in my undergrad. (Which sounds pompous as fuck, I apologize). She had all the visual markers of 'legit'. She was a white girl with dreads, a nose ring, Blundstone boots, corduroy pants and a vintage cardigan. She was shooting the shit with another classmate when they said "Omg, you went to such-and-such alternative school?!" and she sheepishly replied "Yup." The other classmate was clearly impressed and they chit chatted back and forth until she eventually said "Oh, it was like every other school except that instead of bullying the kids who were goth or queer, we bullied the kids who read Seventeen Magazine and watched MTV".

See what I'm getting at?

This pursuit to be the ultimate 'radical' is actually extremely detrimental to the cause. Which leads me to my second issue.

Impatience

Far too often, people come to a realization, make a discovery, get accepted into the organization/circle/clique and then act as though that knowledge always existed within them. They don't acknowledge that this is new, that they are newbies or that they are even struggling with it. Instead, they adopt the dogma and in turn, lack empathy for those not in the know.

Rather than admitting that they had their own racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic tendencies (either previously or currently, as we all do) they act as though their new found knowledge is old wisdom. And then a newbie comes along or someone from outside the activist circle who asks a genuine question or slips up and says something awful and rather than seeing it as a teaching moment or an opportunity to enlighten someone, it becomes "OMG, just fucking Google it, you jerk with unchecked privilege".
(I'm paraphrasing...)

How is that making the world a better place?

Call me naive, but I thought that was the whole point of this progressive-train we are riding. It sounds simplistic but isn't that our ultimate goal? To make the world less shitty? Well, how are we going to go about doing that when we create dogmatic politics that are inherently about who is good enough and who is not?

From my (albeit limited, I suppose) experience in doing feminist-social-justice activism, too many people live within the circle and ONLY the circle. Sure, it's nice and cozy and (sometimes, if you're lucky) anti-oppressive and safe. For some people, those circles are a means for survival. And that's a-okay. In fact, that's beautiful.

But sometimes, we need to step outside those circles or heck, even broaden them, open the door a bit, let some air in. We need to live in the 'real world' in order to change it. We have to at least straddle both sides. And we need to have a patience with those who ask the newbie questions that we've heard so many times that they've become nails on a chalkboard. But if we don't take the time to answer them, challenge those people in a respectful way and engage them in a dialogue, then we not only missed an opportunity to challenge someone, we perpetuated a stereotype about who we are.

Now I get it. We're exhausted and we're tired of having the same conversations over and over and over. I get it. (Seriously... I get it). But if it's getting to the point where answering a question, offering someone a good article or clarifying a point makes you rip someone's head off, then maybe you should do us all a favour and take a fucking break.

It's easy for the world to ignore us and our demands when we're written off as cliquish, self-interested and egotistical. And at this point, I'm not convinced we're not.

Wikileaks: Democracy on trial?

2010-11-29T08:33:00.000-08:00

The release of a new set of documents on WikiLeaks has prompted the US government to conduct an investigation of how the information got out. Sounds fair.

But the broader question remains: Do we have a right to that information?

Things You Should Know About Canadians

2010-09-21T06:37:00.001-07:00

For those of you who read this blog and are not a Canuck, let me help you understand my people.

1- We come off as awful nice (and we are!) but we crack under pressure and well... cheat.

2- We're allergic to everything.

3- We're really good at satire. So good that we have this epic brain drain where our funny talent heads south. But our neighbours to the south often get this idea that because they've got Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, that they've got satire in their blood. No way, my friend. We do it right.

That is all for today's lesson.

"My Mic Sounds Nice"

2010-09-01T07:52:00.000-07:00

As someone who grew up listening to a whole lotta music and who was always searching for a female artist to relate to, I am lovin' this BET documentary on female MCs in hip hop.

The whole thing is available online and I totally recommend it.

Girl Crush!

2010-08-24T06:34:00.000-07:00

I have such a huge crush on Jill Filipovic. I can't even deal.

Here she is, taking on a right-wing blogger about the building of a "mosque" at "Ground Zero".

*swoon*

Too Many Amazing People for One Day

2010-08-17T06:09:00.000-07:00

Usually when I make a blogroll of articles, it contains a long list of shitty news items that are incredibly depressing. Today, I'm happy to report that I'm compiling a list of must-read blog posts and articles. They're all so good that I couldn't possibly do the subject matters any justice on my own, so I'll leave it to them.

"No, I don't hate men. I distrust them". A classic blogpost from the blog "Shakesville" about this very statement. A must-read.

The epic (and let's face it, totally foxy) Jackston Katz discusses Mel Gibson's tirade against womyn, people of colour, queers, etc and how it speaks volumes about rape culture.

Salon takes on the new Rihanna and Eminem video for the song that I really, really want to hate.

Félicitations!

2010-08-16T08:40:00.000-07:00

As a franco-ontarian and a proud Canadian, I can't love the Bloc Québécois. I just can't.

But I can love Gilles Duceppe and individual MPs from their party. And I do love Duceppe. I really do.

I met him in the context of abortion rights and dude knew his stuff. He admitted to being the first Bloc representative for Status of Women because, by his own admission, the Bloc started off with a crappy record on female representation in the party. He also called on his party to refer to the 'pro-life' movement as 'anti-choicers'. Dude was for real.

He is an also an impeccable dresser. FYI.

So I want to join in on those who are wishing Mr. Duceppe congratulations on 20 years as an MP. As one Globe and Mail comment states, love him or hate him, the other parties would do much better if they had a leader like Duceppe running the show.

Félicitations M. Duceppe!

Fact Over Fiction

2010-08-03T10:12:00.000-07:00

As you know, I'm one of the people who has been going on and on about how killing the mandatory long-form census is a bad, bad idea.

To recap, killing it is so, very, bad because we need quality, tried and true, statistics in order to make good public policy. You can't make sound policy based on wonky facts or worse yet, no statistics at all.

But I knew that the reasoning for smashing the mandatory form had nothing to do with the so-called desire to protect 'civilian privacy'. I knew they had something up their sleeve.

The conspiracy theorist in me thought it was that they could shoot down demands for social justice issues under the guise of "You need research/data to back up that so-called claim of yours, Missy". And since they're hacking away at the census and de-funding social justice research groups, a claim of injustice would be harder to 'prove'.

Now the truth has come out: The Conservatives just don't like facts. Nope, they don't like 'em one bit.

Proof: Treasury Board President Stockwell Day has said that despite crime statistics going down, they are going to increase spending on prisons. His reasoning? "crime statistics are not accurate".

Now, if this was coming out of the mouth of anyone else, I just might believe it. Anyone who works as a front-line worker will tell you that rates of sexual assault, criminal harassment (stalking) and domestic violence are way, way higher than any statistic out there. Crimes such as these are highly under reported.

But a group as misogynist and anti-womyn as the Conservatives saying this? Sounds to me like more hogwash in an attempt to push a 'law and order' agenda. Let's not for one second fool ourselves into thinking they care about putting rapists, wife beaters and stalkers in jail. Do yourself a favour on that one.

Yet again, I don't know why I'm surprised by any of this. Of course Stockwell Day doesn't believe in facts - he's a fucking creationist!

Why the Mandatory Long Form Census Matters

2010-07-26T09:23:00.000-07:00

Reasons why cutting it is really, really stupid:

1- The "Leave-People's-Bedrooms-Out-Of-This" is less Trudeau-Chic as it is just plain bad policy making.

2- The "We Need to Trim The Bureaucratic Fat" argument is just... silly.

3- It screws over First Nations.

4- And well, the decision to cut it clearly didn't involve consulting with those who actually know what they're talking about.

This might seem like a ridiculously petty 'scandal' but it's very telling of the political climate that Canadians are living in.

If we keep cutting funding to organizations that the government doesn't agree with, and cutting important research and cutting important statistical information, then people won't know what they don't know.

And that's a serious problem.

Vatican FAIL... again.

2010-07-16T06:08:00.000-07:00

The Vatican has come out and said that child abuse in the Church is a major no-no. That is awesome.

Not so awesome? Equating the abuse of children in the church with ordaining womyn.

Yeah, apparently it's equally as sinful to ordain a womyn as it is to molest a child.

Oh, Church Logic. Isn't it grand?

No Honour in Misogyny

2010-07-15T16:04:00.000-07:00

Rona Ambrose, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, spoke on Monday about wanting to include 'honour killings' in the Criminal Code.

Me, and lots of other peeps, are opposed to this.

First and foremost, it's not necessary, from a logistical point of view.

"Three law professors said the first-degree murder provisions of the Criminal Code already contain all the tools needed to prosecute and punish those who commit "honour killings" and they knew of no Canadian judge or jury who treated cultural family "honour" as a mitigating factor in sentencing." (National Post)

So it's clear from the outset that this is ideological and in no way a real "Crime and Punishment" agenda. It wouldn't be necessary to get a conviction and it wouldn't change sentencing.

Before I move on though, none of this should matter. When discussing issues around a specific group (and let's be honest, this is targeting a specific group of people), how about discussing that issue with them?

In this case, it would be the Canadian Council on Muslim Women. And they don't agree with adding it to the Criminal Code for reasons that I 100% support.

"We as an organization don't want the term honour killing used in Canada because it's making it exotic, something alien, and foreign, and people are using that as a rationale to understand the murders. Let's not go that route. A murder is a murder. Let's not separate us as new immigrants or ethnic groups from the rest of Canadian women. It doesn't matter which culture, which religion or which ethnic origin we come from, the same laws should apply to us." (National Post)

The Conservative Government wants to appear as though they are tough on crime (which they are) but also that they do care about the lady folk. Everyone (except the Cons) knows that the party has been horrid to womyn in Canada and so they've turned the gaze 'elsewhere' and made it about 'saving the womyn of the world'. And in this case, womyn of the world who come to Canada.

It's total bullshit.

As a Canadian-born feminist, I must also say that it offends me to no end that people are up in arms about 'honour killings' but sensationalize or worse yet, barely discuss the murders of womyn as a whole.

In Canada, we have over 520 missing and murdered aboriginal womyn. Just today we heard about a 61 year old womyn who was sexually assaulted and almost died while visiting a friend's grave. (I would link to the story but it's really awful, so feel free to Google it yourself if you're wanting some salacious details). Eight womyn are sexually assaulted a day in Canada's capital city.

Womyn across the country are assaulted, kidnapped and murdered on a daily basis often because they have 'wronged' a partner, taken children away from abusers, or done something in some way that resists (or attempts to resist) someone's power. More often than not, womyn are murdered because they are womyn. And quite frankly, just existing for many womyn is an assault on some people's honour. But we don't call those honour killings. Hell, we don't even call them hate crimes. It's just - one more murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, battery, etc.

The root of 'honour killings' and the vast majority of violence against womyn is misogyny. Unless they're going to include that in the Criminal Code and start targeting the real roots of misogyny, which include an emphasis on 'crime and punishment' rather than social services, then the label of 'honour killings' does nothing but perpetuate racism and isolation of immigrant communities.

Rona and her pack of Conservative thugs should focus instead of attacking all roots of violence and using existing mechanisms rather than making stuff up that may sound fancy but doesn't mean shit.

Independent Police Review of G8/G20

2010-07-06T08:22:00.000-07:00

Ask (scream, shout and protest) and you shall receive.

Police State?

2010-07-05T07:02:00.001-07:00

CBC's Natasha Fatah has an interesting take.

Lex Luther AGAIN?!

2010-06-30T06:43:00.000-07:00

By the fall, I will officially find out if Ottawa's current Mayor is dimmer than I thought or City of Ottawa residents are dimmer than I thought.

Ottawa's current Mayor has just announced that he will be running for re-election.

Let's just recap the epic fuckups so far:

1- He called Ottawa's homeless "pigeons" and insisted that if we stop giving them money, they will go away. Delightful.

2- His entire campaign was around 0% tax increases and then... increased taxes.

3- Then there was that whole, let's bribe the opposition thing.

4- Oh and hey, can't forget the ridiculously long transit strike that saw people walking miles in the dead of winter.

Then there was the lawsuit over the canceling of a giant contract for the construction of new transit, his recent comments about his competition, Jim Watson, being a 'old lady' and the list goes on.

Considering transit has been defined as the #1 issue concerning Ottawa residents for the upcoming election, here's hoping that people take a clue and realize "Hey, maybe Larry's not the guy I want in charge".

Here's hoping....

Dating Violence on the Rise in Canada

2010-06-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

A new Statistics Canada report finds that rates of reported dating violence are on the rise, for both womyn and men. I say reported because the study is quick to point out that the rates are probably higher across the board because people so rarely report.

Unfortunately, this information is not surprising to me on its own. The fact that teenage girls experience 10x more dating violence than their male counterparts is not news to those of us that are paying attention but it's 'nice' to have solid statistics to back up what advocates are saying on a daily basis.

One aspect that I hope doesn't get lost in all this is that the majority of incidents occurred after the relationship had ended. So when we hear "Why won't she just leave him?" for the upteenth time, you can point to this statistic to demonstrate why womyn don't leave abusive situations.

The relationship might be awful on its own but many womyn choose to stay because they know that leaving will only make it worse.

Here's hoping those with the power to do so, take this report seriously and start enacting some serious work to combat it.

I am an activist

2010-06-28T06:53:00.000-07:00

I am an activist.

I am a proud, active, social justice activist who fights, day in and day out, for a more just society. I am deeply invested in anti-oppressive politics and am passionate about educating as many people as possible.

Because of all this, I have clearly had a very, very busy weekend. The G8/G20 has forced me to once again re-evaluate my politics, my tactics and quite frankly, my allies.

A few things first:

- I chose not to attend the G8/G20 demonstrations. I make this distinction because I believe there is a clear difference between people like myself who chose not to participate in such events and those who want to attend them but cannot.

- I am highly privileged and could afford to get arrested without enduring serious harm to my physical or political self. In fact, in many of the activist circles I run in, getting arrested would actually give me some serious cred.

Like every annoying intellect worth their salt, I have more questions than answers when it comes to Gs activism but at least I'm honest about not knowing it all.

First confession: I used to be unequivocally opposed to violent protesting and thought that anyone who refuses to show their face during a protest was a coward who was unworthy of the activist title.

Then I listened to Harsha Walia speak about the diversity of tactics. You should, too. You should also note, however, that after her amazing talk about the importance of all types of activism for all issues, the camera pulls back and you see that she is wearing Nike shoes. This should also be discussed.

I agree with Harsha and the principle of a diversity of tactics. I firmly, firmly believe that diversifying tactics is the only way that change will occur. I also now understand the politics of the "Black Block" and those who engage in Block like tactics.

Black Block et al, take note: The revolution will not happen from a burning cop car. Nor will it come from the shouts of "Fuck the police" or the shattering of bank windows (more on this later).

Nor will it happen from letter writing or lobbying alone. Not only is bureaucracy light years behind civilization, even decent, well timed laws or policies cannot single handily change the minds of individuals and create great change.

Change will happen when the grassroots meet the Ivory Tower and people below and above are speaking the same language.

The issues must be attacked from all sides at all times so that different people, with different approaches and different perspectives, are all receiving the same message.

Womyn have achieved a certain level of equity in society not because we fought for the right to vote. Nor is it because of conscious raising groups. It took both. It took womyn on the ground, building solidarity, educating our brothers and sisters about the reality of our lives and it took policies and laws that allowed us to be represented and created opportunities for retribution when our personhood was ignored.

And so my use of lobbying techniques for the G8/G20 go hand-in-hand with those who took to the streets over the weekend, said "Whose streets? Our streets!" and held their placards high.

Second confession: I am not a communist nor do I believe in anarchy. But I am not a pacifist. (I'm also not a terrorist).

I think police are a necessary evil, much like taxes and fluoride toothpaste. I think shouting "pigs" and vandalising stores/banks is short sighted and ineffective.

In the case of the police, good old Rex Murphy made the unfortunate comment that the #1 ally of the Black Block is Stephen Harper, and I believe him. The Black Block and the violent protesters over the weekend simply worked to justify the excessive police state at the Gs (and it was excessive. More arrests this weekend than during the entire FLQ crisis!)

When I speak of violence, I do not, in any way, shape or form include those who used violence in self-defense, in an attempt to protect their friends/allies or as a means of survival when being unlawfully attacked. As I said, I am not a pacifist.

But the BB knows full well that they get plenty of media attention, which was reflected in an iconic photograph (that I, of course, can no longer find... But I'm working on it!) where a member of the Black Block is charging a Starbucks window, staring at camera crews who number in the dozens. It has been argued that this is the point - drawing attention to the issues and forcing people to witness what violence against society looks like.

But what about those who protested with their faces shown, who engaged in the 'critical mass' bike ride or who marched with tambourines and placards? The irony, of course, is that many people who support the Black Block tactics also posted to various articles saying "What the media ignored: 25, 000 peaceful protesters". But many of them ignored it themselves.

Whether you are an activist or a member of the media (or the elite!), we must all acknowledge the 25,000+ protesters who came out en masse, in solidarity and chanted for queer rights, womyn's rights, animal rights, civilian liberties, etc.

I monitor the CBC quite heavily, either radio, internet or television, because quite frankly, my taxes pay for that shit. And as much as I love to hate on the media for their ignorance or selective listening, they have been quite excellent at giving voice to the protesters who came out with serious issues and clear messages. This is reflected in their photo galleries, for example, which gave room for images of protesters and their messages. And not simply pictures of them being arrested.

(Of course, I would argue that much of the press around the security state is because so many journalists were unlawfully detained and so like most people, when one of their own is affected, they take notice.)

All of which to say that insisting that violence demonstrations are necessary to get the message out has been proven false.

Why do I think vandalising stores and banks is ineffective?

Just look at BP. BP has created one of the, if not the, worst oil disaster in history. BP is evil, evil, evil. But independent retailers who carry the BP name are being hit really, damn, hard. Of course, their entire livelihood is built upon the exploitation of mother nature and so one could certainly argue that they are a liability in the fight against oil. Sure. But do you think the individual people who work there are concerned about that right now?

Individual workers at gas stations have had their hours cut or are being laid off because people are boycotting BP for its disaster.

I support the boycotting of BP but I also can't ignore those that are suffering from that. (And let's not pretend that people who pump the gas at the station are rolling in dough, either).

The same goes with the Starbucks and other stores in Toronto. First off, not only major corporations were hit. There is plenty of footage of people vandalising things like local antique stores, so there's that issue.

But let's take Starbucks.

Starbucks is indeed a ubiquitous, yuppie extravaganza that charges a fortune for a fancy coffee. Starbucks is a clear target. Yes, nobody was hurt and a window pane has no feelings. Many, many more people are affected by a brutal police force, violence from the state, state-waged war, etc. Abso-fucking-lutely.

But how can you claim to be fighting for the little guy/gal when you're destroying their store front and therefore keeping them away from their job? Do you think 'barristas' make enough money that they can afford time off work without pay? Most barristas I know are students or lower-class people working for tips.

What about those that were not directly affected by the vandalism but whose customers were scared away by the violence and didn't show up?

We can hate on capitalism all we want and there are great arguments for doing so, but that doesn't change right now. Right now, people are relying on 'capialist pig' jobs to pay their rent, to finance their education, to feed their children.

Hell, how many activists do we all know who stick it to the Man while bagging groceries, selling coffee or stocking shelves?

A diversity of tactics is necessary but so is the respect and understanding of those who do not agree with violence as a method of resistance. As activists, we need to understand that many people cannot engage in violent resistance, even if they want to. Deportation, state scooping up of children, lack of employment opportunities, inaccessibility, etc are all realities for many activists. To assume that only those who knowingly risk arrest are 'legitimate' activists is short sighted and detrimental to the movement. People use various tactics for various reasons and respect needs to go in every direction.

Personally? I choose not to participate in events or forms of resistance that could lead to arrest because much of the work I do requires a clean police check. I'm not being boastful when I say that I do excellent work with children and I could not do that work if I have been arrested. I could argue with my activist friends about the merits of a record of civil disobedience but it would automatically close many doors for me in the work that I do.

I may by highly privileged but I am also able to use that privilege and education to move others to action because I do not engage in violent resistance. This is a choice that I choose, without constraint, to make.

I do not expect this to be every one's politics but I suppose my hope is that others take these politics into account in their own work. I recognize direct action and hope that direct action recognizes my seemingly 'pacifist' methods.

Real change, as I said, will come when the top meets the bottom. I recently heard the term 'movable middle' to describe the vast majority of Canadians who are 'sitting on the fence' and can be moved to either side. These are the people that I actively pursue. These are the people that I think hold the key to the future.

I am not one of these people. I am firm in my beliefs, militant even, and I cannot be persuaded to be anti-choice, anti-immigration, etc. But I can work really, damn, hard to reach those that can be persuaded.

And in my experience, I am able to reach those people because I engage in tactics that are accessible, lack intimidation and take into account their experiences and perspectives.

My work alone will not accomplish much. I need bureaucrats and the Black Block on my side, too.

Lastly (I told you I've had to do a lot of thinking), as activists, we need to constantly remind ourselves that the state wins when we fight amongst each other. It's an age old tactic of the privileged to get the oppressed fighting amongst themselves so that they don't fight them.

My one hope is that the debates amongst activist circles right now remain dialogues and that they serve to strengthen us and not divide us.

While we're attacking each other (and windows), the oppressors carry on.

Oh Canada, Our Home On Native Land

2010-06-16T05:28:00.001-07:00

And apparently, the land of the free... or something.

Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the opening of the "Truth and Reconciliation" talks in regards to Indian Residential Schools. (Also, a little reality check on that one as well: We have more First Nations children in care today than we ever did in residential schools. So the idea that it's over and done with, let's-just-do-these-talks-and-then-move-on-from-the-issue is bullshit).

Then we have a father and son who have finally pled guilty to murdering Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old from Mississauga who was rebelling against her family's stronghold. It's been called 'an honour killing'; a term that is contested by both feminists and non-feminists alike.

Just this past week, another young womyn was attacked by her family, this time her mother, for a so-called shaming of the family's honour. Thankfully, the womyn in this case will survive her injuries.

Oh and we're apparently jumping on the bandwagon of hating on people who call out Israel. Apparently calling out violence against Palestine means you're 'anti-semitic'. NDP MP Libby Davies called out the very obvious fact that criticizing Israel is not something that is done by Canada's Parliament and that many people who support Palestine are silenced or threatened. In saying this, what's happened to ole Davies? She's being threatened.

Where the fuck has Canada gone and what the hell is replacing it?

Sexual Assault Awareness Month

2010-05-06T10:59:00.000-07:00

May is sexual assault awareness month. It’s April in the US, which seems odd, but whatever… In any case, it’s the time of the year when we’re supposed to be raising awareness about sexual assault.

What the hell does that even mean?

Does it mean dispelling the myths of all the bullshit ‘prevention tips’?

Does it mean targeting boys and men to not only stop raping people but calling out other dudes who do?

As a sexual assault support worker and an anti-violence activist, my views on the matter are clearly more ‘radical’ than others. Although I speak and work in many different forums that require different techniques and approaches, the truth is that all I really want to do is RAGE. Rage, rage, rage against the statistics, the bullshit policies and the apathy that I see around me every day.

It’s not healthy or wise to spend each moment of everyday telling people “Every 17 minutes in Ontario, a womyn is raped BUT that also means that every 17 minutes, a man is raping someone”. It doesn’t exactly make for great chit chat.

But what I really want to do and the message I want people to absorb is that rape is cancer.

Yes, rape is cancer. (Hear me out...)

People give a shit about cancer. Trust. People will wear a ribbon, join a walk/run/job/stroll, sign a petition, donate their pennies or ride their bike across the country. People will go around in public with signs saying that they are a survivor, or love someone who is. They will come up with clever slogans like “Save the Titties” and put pink on everything when dealing with cancers that deal with genitalia. Companies will jump on board, spread the anti-cancer cheer and rage, laugh and dance to cancer.

People will stand together and publicly raise their hands to say that they or someone they love was affected by cancer. And when they do, they will look around to see the vast majority of people with their hand up.

This is why rape is cancer.

If most people have been affected by cancer and are willing to publicly own it, why are they not doing this for rape and sexual assault?

If 1 in 4 womyn in Canada (with higher rates for First Nations, immigrant and refugee and disabled womyn) will experience sexual assault in their lifetime and that’s just the womyn, and when you consider that womyn make up 51% of the Canadian population, where’s my public witnessing?

“But FC”, I hear you saying, “Sexual assault is private”.

Why? Why do survivors of sexual assault live with a giant scarlet “S” on their chest and yet those with cancer are publicly defended and supported?

Rape happens to someone. Cancer happens to someone. Nobody with cancer deserves it just like nobody who is sexually assaulted deserved it.

People who lived with cancer are survivors. People who are sexually assaulted are survivors.

Rape is a societal cancer that we all live with, whether we know it or not, and it’s about damn time we end the shame. That's my hope for this month.

Can I get a witness?

Reproductive Justice FAIL

2010-04-26T15:25:00.000-07:00

"No Abortion in Canada's Maternal Health Plan" for the G8 (Cbc.ca)

Because apparently in 2010, we still think we can talk about reproductive and maternal health without discussing contraception, which includes abortion. (Yes, abortion is a form of contraception. Many people, including pro-choicers, shy away from saying this but it's true! Contraception is for preventing baby making and that's what abortion, like Plan B, like condoms, does).

Anyway...

Canada is getting an all around "F" in the reproductive health department lately.

Ontario had an amazing new sex-education curriculum ready to roll out but are now back-pedaling and 'doing reviews'. Apparently teaching about sexual orientation in grade 3 and teaching masturbation in grade 6 is scandalous and 'should be the responsibility of the parents to do'.

The Ontario Liberals are getting lambasted for this (thankfully) so I won't dissect it to death, because it's already been done. Read this amazing G&M editorial instead.

When did Canada get some anti-sex and shitty?

FC Shout-Out

2010-03-31T04:25:00.000-07:00

I would like to give a huge shout-out to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her recent comments at the G8 summit where she called out countries like Canada for not including REAL maternal health in their strategy.

"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, and that includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions." (Cbc.ca)

I'm glad somebody gets it.

Too Many Jerks, Not Enough Time

2010-03-24T10:14:00.000-07:00

1- Ann Coulter was warned to watch her language for her talk at the University of Ottawa. Didn't like it and is now 'filing a Human Rights Complaint'. Except we all know that would require Ann knowing what human rights are. (And don't right-wing nutbags always bitch that the HRC is biased towards Conservatives? Pick a side and stick with it, asshats).

2- The Conservative Party wants to push "Maternal Health" at the G8 summit but refuse to consider abortion or birth control in their framework. The Liberals pushed for 'birth control' to be added and then when it went to vote, it got defeated... by fucking Liberals. Jesus H. Christ. I can't even form a sentence to comment on that, it's so bad

3- A bad story turned good: A Calgary Based Condo project promoted their project with some of the most vile and sexist advertising I've seen in a long while. It included gems like "A $20,000 down payment is as easy as a 25-year-old scotch, or a 25-year-old blonde on a 25-year-old scotch. Get on it." Yeah, just amazing. What is amazing though is that the ads were mostly posted in men's washrooms and *surprise surprise* some awesome men were incredibly offended.

And so, major props to Will Knoll from Calgary who took photos of the ads and posted them online to publicly shame the company and get people to boycott them. It worked and the ads were pulled.

Now I'm not usually a fan of raising a stink about advertising because it's usually offensive on purpose and all about giving them publicity, but in this case, the company was specifically targeting men and was not a major campaign and so 'being offensive' and 'cutting edge' was not their goal, necessarily. They honestly thought that dudes taking a leak in clubs would see this, think it's witty and clever and buy a condo. So raising a stink in this case not only had the ads pulled and therefore dudes didn't have to stare at their ignorant crap, but it's also a shot to PR and marketing folks who think that all men are ignorant chauvinists who fall for any BS advertising that talks about ladies and booty.

Thanks to that one particular man and all other men who took a stand not only against sexual assault and womyn (which is what 'getting someone drunk to fuck them' is - it's sexual assault) but also for taking a stand against the BS of hypermasculinity.

Reason #31 I Am Not a Lawyer

2010-03-19T09:55:00.001-07:00

So a computer tech went to this guy's house to fix his internet connection and noticed that the guy had sketchy icons on his computer which included the words "Lolita Porn" and "Lolita XXX". He also noticed that webcam was set up and pointed towards a little girl who was playing in the room.

Dude came back the next day to finish fixing the computer and noticed that the icons were gone and the webcam was moved.

Tech man clearly knew something was up, so reported it to the authorities.

Well the man with the questionable computer content and behaviour has been let off by the Supreme Court of Canada because apparently the police didn't have enough evidence to issue a search warrant. Furthermore, apparently, having clearly sketchy icons on your computer and a camera pointed towards your young child isn't enough evidence because "The court found that the information used to obtain the warrant failed to mention the child was fully clothed and there were no signs of abuse when the technician visited the home." (CBC.ca)

Let's break this down for a second.

Clearly this guy isn't too smart for having left the icons on his computer but he's obviously not STUPID enough to let his child be filmed in the nude while a technician is there. This should be obvious to anyone and therefore, the fact that the child was clothed at that time shouldn't be enough to dismiss the evidence.

And the signs of abuse thing is also questionable because if the child was fully clothed and playing with toys and you're just a computer technician and not a trained criminologist, then you're obviously not going to know all there is to know. The man went on intuition, for Pete's Sake. Intuition that they are hoping to become law in Alberta, where a politician is pushing for legislation forcing anyone who witnesses child pornography, comes across it or suspects that it is being made/used, report it to authorities.

Cases like this aren't exactly encouraging people to report suspicious activity.

However my issue here is how the law misses the obvious in favour of tripping over the small things. The Supreme Court didn't say that the guy wasn't a perv, or wasn't in the wrong, they were saying that no case could go forward because the search warrant was not okay. This is what I don't understand.

Obviously police work should have made sure to cross their Ts and dot their Is to ensure crap like this doesn't happen but it makes me sick to see people not even arguing that they are innocent but simply arguing that "Hey, I know you found sketchy stuff in my house, but you had no right to come into my house, so you can't mention it".

And in this case, we're not talking about 'sketchy stuff' like a home grow-op, we're talking about child pornography.

Jeez Louise!

How To Detect If Your Neighbour is A Feminist

2010-03-11T10:58:00.001-08:00

Being the concerned citizen that I am, I thought it would be wise to put together a short check list for curious city folk, suburbanites and condo dwellers who think there's something rather... interesting about their neighbours but can't quite put their finger on why.

So here it is: If your neighbour fits the following criteria, they're probably a Feminist:

1- Their deck/balcony has a bicycle, bras hanging to air dry and a bajillion little pots of growing herbs and spices

2- "Party Night" consists of gender-queer folks showing up with platters of hummus and board games

3- There's always at least one cat in the window

4- The music emanating from the windows in the summer is loud, raw and contains a female vocalist and at least one banjo

5- Their mode of transportation is a bike, a hybrid or a really, really old car. Either a Volkswagen or a Chevette.

6- Said mode of transportation has at least one bumper sticker that rages about "The Man"

7- Garbage day sees them put out half a bag of garbage and four recycling bins

8- You've heard the words "patriarchy", "chauvinist pig" or "ignorant asshole" shouted at least once

9- Their house/apartment smells strongly of incense, candles, pot and/or a combination of all three.

And finally,

10- They stand at the mailbox and actually read all the junk mail, political pamphlets and spam they receive and then attempt to educate you, said neighbour, on why you should care.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

2010-02-23T10:29:00.000-08:00

The Good: "Africville Apology Coming"

Residents of a black diaspora/suburb in Nova Scotia were kicked out of their neighbourhood in the 60s under the pretense of building a bridge. In reality, it was systemic racism aimed at "cleaning up" Halifax. Congratulations to the former residents of Africville on your victory!

The Bad: "Women Lose Ground in Push for Equality: Report"

Anyone who has been paying any attention didn't need this report to confirm that womyn have been sliding backwards in Canada since the Conservatives got into power. (Although the Liberals have been no better...)

Do yourself a favour: Do not read the comments on that article. In 24 hours online, it has over 500 comments and the vast majority prove what this report is saying: womyn have a long way to go.

The Ugly: "Woman Who Traded Kids for Pet Bird Sentenced"

That's just fucked.

"Vancouver Games Quickly Turn Sour for Quebec"

2010-02-17T06:17:00.000-08:00

Well, that headline SHOULD read “Quickly Turn Sour for French-Canadians” because the argument is that the opening ceremonies and the overall 2010 Olympics are predominantly English.

Fair statement, in my opinion.

Not fair? Constantly equating French Canada with Quebec. These are not synonymous.

And when I say this, I’m not only pointing the finger at the Square Heads of Canada, but at Quebecers, too! In fact, La Belle Province is the absolute worst for this, which doesn’t really help their argument. If in arguing for the visibility of your identity, you must render another identity invisible, then your argument doesn’t really hold much water.

"Sisters of Life" Lay Roots in Toronto

2010-02-16T09:13:00.000-08:00

There is a group of nuns, known as the “Sisters of Life” whose work involves the counselling of womyn who are dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. One can readily assume that they do not support abortion, but they claim to be there to “support”. Originally from the States, they have set up in Toronto and in March, they are to open up an ‘office’ in a poor area of the City.

“For the past two years, the sisters have been laying the groundwork for their mission. They have a list of nearly 1,000 volunteers who are ready to donate money, offer up their homes, move furniture or just pray. They have also gone from parish to parish to drum up support. They eventually hope to have a convent where pregnant women can come live and stay with their babies.” (National Post) (FC's Note: OFFER UP THEIR HOMES?! For what?! And the thought of 1,000 strong anti-choice foot army scares the shit out of me…)

Clearly, when I see ‘nuns’ and ‘unwanted pregnancies’ in the same sentence, I get a little uneasy. In particular, I resent people who abstain from sex and are against birth control, and yet telling me how to run my uterus.

HOWEVER if you’re going to be a self-righteous anti-choicer, these chicks have got it right, in my books.

Two reasons.

One: “They say the purpose of their work in Toronto is not to picket abortion centres, though they do not disapprove of those who do. Nor are they here to preach or apply pressure on women who are leaning towards abortion —indeed, their doors are also open to women “grieving an abortion.”

There is NOTHING worse to me than people who protest abortion clinics. NOTHING. These people don’t care about ‘life’, or ‘fetuses’ or ‘babies’ or anything. They are about shaming womyn, nothing more, nothing less. Protesting abortion clinics does not deter womyn from seeking abortions, nor does ‘sidewalk counseling’, which is a BS anti-choice term for throwing scientifically false anti-choice information in a womyn’s face and then telling them they’re going to rot in hell. Typical Friday afternoon stuff in the City of Ottawa, I might add.

Second reason these nuns are somewhat thinking this whole anti-choice thing through: In Manhattan, their home allows womyn to live there for an additional 9 months after delivery so that they can figure out their new living/life arrangements.

Unlike most anti-choicers who think that giving birth to a baby means that you will automatically develop maternal instincts and your life will turn around, these Nuns at least recognize that kids take work and planning. And that kicking a womyn out onto the street after delivery isn’t exactly conducive to a positive outcome.

Their logic is of course flawed since if they are all about da babiez, they should also be all about supporting them until they are 18. Kids don’t feed themselves, ya know.

Not to mention the fact they might not protest abortion clinics, but they are support those who do.

As saddened as I am to see anti-choicers alive and well in 2010, I am at least comforted in the case of these “Sisters of Life” by the fact that they understand that “choice” or “no choice” is so much more than shouting at clinic windows.

Captain Obvious Strikes Again

2010-02-15T12:52:00.000-08:00

U.K Press Slams Canada's Hosting of Games

Hum… duh? They’re hosting next so do you think they’re going to paint us in a pretty light?

Speaking of Trends...

2010-02-10T08:56:00.000-08:00

I guess from now on, you can rely on me to keep you posted as to What’s Hot and What’s Not in Canada.

What’s Hot? Prorogation! Not only has Harper done it two years in a row, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is in on the fun, too!

Admittedly it’s for far less time and it doesn’t affect the country as a whole, but Ontario is the most populated province, so you could argue it affects enough people for it to matter. I certainly would.

What’s Not? Caring, apparently. I’m calling hypocrisy on the Left-Wingers. Why are we protesting in the streets about Conservatives proroguing but letting it slide when it’s the Liberals? Is it because Harper is a Neo-Con? Is it because he’s done it twice already? Or is it because we just don’t like the guy?

Either way, I call bullshit on both Harper and McGuinty.

How many times do I have to say this: Perogies, not Proroguing!

Latin American Progressive Politics

2010-02-08T05:39:00.000-08:00

Good News: Costa Rica elects its First Female President. Woo!

Bad News: She is, by her own admission, a social conservative who opposes both abortion and gay marriage.

The CBC.ca article about it is particularly sad since it interviews a 24 year old womyn inmate who says she voted for Laura Chinchilla because she said “she would fight for women’s rights”.

I wonder what rights she’s referring to.

In any case, kudos to Costa Rica and other Latin American countries such as Nicaragua, Panama, Chile and Argentina who have recently elected female presidents.

Trend Alert!

2010-02-05T05:31:00.000-08:00

Apparentlty the 1970s-1980s trend of bashing women's studies is back in style. Thanks for kicking it old school, National Post!

And if you're feeling stylish, join Barbara Kay's comments section and join all the cool kids in deploring feminism.

Remember kids: It’s not patriarchy that’s evil; it’s the scary, scary womyn folk who cry for “rights” and “access” to things like “education, equal pay” and (brace yourself), “a life without violence”.

*shudders*

An Open Letter to Online Commentators Everywhere

2010-01-14T08:10:00.000-08:00

Dear Readers of Online News Articles,

Shut the fuck up. No, seriously.

Now in case this takes you by surprise, please, let me explain.

Online commentators used to be a rare breed; oh how I long for those days. Recently, online news portals have decided that they are going to “bring it to the people” and allow any asshole and their neighbour to comment on such things as an earthquake in Haiti, a white collar crime case or the Montreal Massacre.

In theory, this could be a great way to give people a voice. Let’s be honest; whether people comment or not, they typically have some sort of opinion on the matter. So why not share w/ the world, open up discussion and…. That’s where it falls apart.

Dimwits, like yourself Mr. “Canuck-for-a-buck” or “NeoConfromPEI” make ridiculously sexist, racist, xenophobic, classist, etc etc etc remarks under the anonymous guise of the internet identity. You’re not interested in having a discussion. Nope, you’re interested in flaming the shit out of the situation and/or offloading your years of intolerance on the World Wide Web.

Instead of being an intelligent human being who thinks things through, you shoot from the hip, like the Maverick that you are and give us gems like “The Liberals are behind this, AS USUAL” or “I say lock ‘em up and throw away the key” or my favourite “Deport their asses!” Ahh, from the mouths of babes.

Take December 6th, for example. It’s the National Day of Action and Remembrance for Violence against Womyn. Pretty significant day. This past year marked the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre and as usual, right-wing asshole “journalists” laid down editorial after editorial blasting “feminists” for exploiting “one day into a tirade against all men”. Because apparently, Marc Lepine is one insane asshole and every other misogynist is a stand-up guy.

This year, you online commentators took it to another level and brought 21st century Islamaphobia into the picture. How delightful! Now, I obviously blame the journalists in question who fail to put 2 and 2 together and actually understand the gravity of violence against womyn, but that’s another story. Today, my friend, is about you. You and your incessant douchebaggery.

Apparently Marc Lepine was not a product of an environment and culture that condoned violence against womyn. Even though he left a note explaining in detail how he hated feminists and how he was conducting the massacre in order to seek revenge on the womyn who had apparently “stolen his position” at the school, this isn’t good enough for the online commentators of the world. Nope, apparently Marc Lepine did was he did because he was a Muslim.

News to me.

Oh and I would link to your fabulous comments but truthfully, I don’t want to draw more attention to them and hey, you don’t need evidence to make your points so I guess I don’t either.

To conclude, online hate mongers, please consider one of two things. First, enroll in some sort of educational program, whether formal or informal and educate yourselves about the ways of the world. Find out about the history of the conflict in the Middle East, systemic discrimination in Canada (Yes, in Canada), find out how the political system works, read some Canadian history. Hell, just read a fucking book. (Non-fiction, please).

Or two, get off the news sites and get back to World of Warcraft. Your hobbits surely miss you.

Sincerely,

- Feminist Catalyst

Condoning Anti-Choice Violence

2010-01-12T08:54:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, as we all recall, a certain douchebag in the US shot Dr. George Tiller point blank in the face while in Church, as some sort of way to “protect unborn babies”. Dr Tiller was one of the few late-term abortion providers in the US but thankfully, he’s not the only one.

From the beginning, this was a clear case of guilty, guilty, guilty. Everyone in the church pews witnessed it, the guy himself confessed to the media and to the authorities. But now, things have gotten not only murky but incredibly scary.

The judge is allowing the defence to argue “voluntary manslaughter” rather than the Captain Obvious charge of first-degree murder.

“Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.” (CBC.ca)

So the judge is allowing the defense team to say “Well, he honestly believed that by killing Dr. Tiller in the middle of Church, while he peacefully attended mass, he was saving millions of so-called unborn babies.” Thanks to this judge’s decision, a legal defense team can actually make this a legal fucking defense.

CLEARLY this has reproductive freedom fighters losing their bananas because this is setting a very dangerous precedent. Fringe anti-choice groups have actually said this exact thing; that this is setting a precedent that would encourage other anti-choicers to commit acts of violence and get a lesser charge.

Although the judge has only allowed the defense to present this and has not in any way said yay or nay on the actual defense, the damage has already been done. And quite frankly, it’s a slippery slope that affects far more than crimes against abortion providers.

Wife cheats on you? “Well, your honour, I honestly believed that what she did was harming our children because we are a good (insert crap here) family and she was a negative influence. So I shot her”.

Hey, the underwear terrorist that attempted to blow up a US plane probably really believed in what he was doing, too and probably justifies his actions, too. And the list goes on and on.
And when abortion clinics are already hotbeds of violence, and when clinic workers and doctors are systematically targeted by anti-choice activists, us pro-choice folk have reason to be horrified at this latest news.

Why he is even being allowed to mount a defense, I have no idea. But then again, there’s a reason I’m not a lawyer. When it comes to the law, it’s not a matter of right or wrong but how you spin, spin, spin.

Back from the Holidays

2010-01-04T18:19:00.001-08:00

Worry not, faithful readers. I didn't pull a "Harper" and peace out indefinitely nor am I dodging any bullets. I just figured I'd give my mind a rest for a few weeks before I got back in the saddle.

But seriously, Harper? Really? Really dude?! This better not be some sort of sad Christmas tradition of yours.

Captain Obvious Strikes Again

2009-12-13T14:01:00.000-08:00

You can also file these two stories under "It's about fucking time".

First, Canada is now finally proposing new rules for the live-in caretaker program. For those of you who are unaware, the Live-In Caregiver Program is one of the few ways that womyn are able to immigrate to Canada and the system is incredibly exploitative. The rules and demands on the womyn are incredibly high whereas those who are enlisting their services have very little to no monitoring, rules or necessary criteria.

Womyn come to Canada through the Program and have to live in an employer's home for what used to be 2 years and then they can apply for residency. This is obviously putting womyn into precarious situations where if they are subject to abuse, exploitation or neglect by their employers, they often have no means or resources to get out because they need to maintain steady work in order to be eligible for residency. These new proposed regulations would mean that womyn have up to 4 years to complete the 2 years of work. "In addition, they will no longer have to undergo a second medical examination when they apply, and employers wanting to hire a nanny from overseas will have to pick up the travel costs and provide medical coverage until they are eligible for provincial health plans."(CBC.ca)

I generally think that Citizenship and Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney is a Grade-A douche but this is good and long overdue, news.

And in news that is so incredibly surreal, I still haven't quite processed it yet, "P.E.I. will soon have legislation allowing medical professionals to apologize to patients when something goes wrong without worrying it could haunt them in court."(CBC.ca) Currently, it seems, in P.E.I, if a doctor apologizes for something, it's considered an admission of guilt in court and will screw them if they are sued for malpractice.

I'm not naïve to the ways of the legal system, which often runs completely contradictory to common sense but Geez Louise... The fact that politicians are spending time on a Bill like this rather than other important things like, you know, Climate Change, poverty, violence, etc. is mind-boggling. You hear shit like this and no wonder people have completely tuned out of the political world. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that this is finally going to be enacted into legislation but the fact that it even needs to happen is 10 levels of sad.

Apples Meet Oranges

2009-11-26T16:57:00.000-08:00

Transcript from today's Question Period.

_______

Nicole Demers (Laval, QC, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister responsible for Status of Women refused to denounce the unacceptable statements made by a Conservative MP who implied that abortions contribute to the development of breast cancer. Besides being wrong medically, this assertion is meant to make women feel guilty. We would expect that the minister would defend women and the right to abortion with vigour rather than saying things worthy of Sarah Palin. When will the minister stop protecting the dinosaurs in her party to the detriment of women's right?

Hon. Helena Guergis (Minister of State for Status of Women): --Very clearly in the house yesterday, this member is actually fully aware that there are elected members in this house who have said very similar things at different times. Members in this house represent their constituencies and they are free to have any opinion that they choose to. It does not mean it represents the government. But please let me highlight one of our most recent achievements to protect women across the country. Recently we revised our citizenship guide. I would like to recognize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the great work he's done in specifically outlining that barbaric practices like female genital mutilation are not tolerated in Canada.

_________

This is ten levels of wrong.

So Many Stories, So Little Time

2009-11-18T12:25:00.000-08:00

It’s been an incredibly interesting news day, today. So interesting that I could easily write 4-5 different posts. Instead, I’m going to do a round-up for you.

“Calgary Family Negotiates Homework Ban” – Headline pretty much says it best. A two child household was tired of spending hours on what they saw as “busy work” and so they negotiated with the school to only have them be marked on work they do in class. I think occasional homework is fine but only in high schools. Children need to be engaged in life and homelife in particular and so I say, go Calgary family!

“Better family planning could curb climate change: UN”- A new report by the UN Population Fund suggests making condoms and other family planning services more available will help combat global warming by reducing the world's population. Sex education around the world needs some serious, serious love (pun fully intended) and so whatever the reason, I say bring it on.

“Florida snowbirds take risks with HIV: study” - One more time with feeling, we need better sex education. A recent study has found Canadians age 50+ have skyrocketing rates of HIV, in particular those who vacation in Florida for the winter. The reason being that many of them go down to Florida and live the swinging single life, getting it on and being carefree without protection and thus end up with HIV. The rate of condom use for this age group is dismal. But part of the reason is that if you don’t get quality sex education when you’re young, you probably won’t get it all and yes, people over 50+ still get laid.

Add on that most people only use protection to avoid pregnancy and you’ve got menopausal womyn thinking “I don’t need protection now; I’m good to go!” They’re good alright; at getting the HIV.

And finally,

“McGill anti-abortion student group suspended” - Now, let the record state that I fully support an anti-choice organization's right to express their viewpoints. FULLY. However, in the case of McGill and other similar incidents, the anti-choice organizers were willfully spreading medical misinformation and postering campuses with graphic images in places where people had no choice but to see it. In McGill’s case, after many complaints from students, the McGill student association has suspended their official club status until they can reach some sort of resolution with the student council. Squashing freedom of expression? Not in my view.

Mmmmm.... Controversy, Part II

2009-11-18T08:25:00.000-08:00

So back in May, the Governor General created an international raucous when she ate raw seal meat at an Inuit ceremony in the North. Canadians, including myself, applauded her while anti-seal hunt folks were up in arms.

Well, let’s put one more point towards the seal hunt camp because Parliament’s fancy, mucky-muck restaurant has added seal meat to the menu. This new item will join already existing meats like beef, pork and bison.

It’s a seemingly small gesture but it’s very impressive when you consider how controversial the whole issue is.

Once again, Michaël Jean for the win!

Racism is Child's Play

2009-11-14T11:24:00.001-08:00

A new study looks at how aware children are of racism. And their conclusion?

By age 9, children are well aware of the existence of racism. "I think that would be surprising to many people, that by second or third grade a lot of kids get it, they get that there's racism in the world and they understand what it is", says one of the researchers involved.

Probably not surprising to the 9 year old kids who are the target of racism and prejudice...

Female Ski Jumpers vs. The IOC

2009-11-14T07:51:00.000-08:00

So I've already hashed out on here my opinions regarding the Olympics. But I will say again that I want to believe in the Olympics because having been an athlete most of my life and coming from an athletic family, I really do believe that sport has the ability to bring people together.

As a feminist, I've also seen the way girls/womyn getting into sport helps them build self-esteem, often (but not always) improve their self-image and learn life skills like how to be a team player, sharing and the importance of losing as much as winning. Important stuff.

And so even though I have mixed emotions about the Olympics, I've got very strong feelings about the International Olympic Committee shutting out female ski jumpers. Apparently, so does the BC Court who have actually stated that the IOC's decision to not allow female ski jumpers is discrimination however it is not within the jurisdiction of the BC Courts to change the IOC's position.

So Canada will be hosting Olympics that they know full well and have admitted go against its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and yet, the show must go on. Keeping in mind of course that the Olympics are being held on stolen Native land, but that's another story completely (according to the Press).

I call bullshit on the whole thing. The female ski jumpers have shot down all "reasonable arguments" for their exclusion and they're still not allowed to compete. Oh and I also call bullshit on the language being used in so many of the articles on this. Just as I think ski jumper Lindsay Van was out of line for comparing the International Olympic Committee to the "Taliban of the Olympics", I'm also sick and tired of people referring to adult womyn as "girls" and "ladies".

News Roll

2009-11-09T07:54:00.000-08:00

In surprising news, a reserve in British Columbia is hoping to become “delisted” and remove its Indian Status.

In mildly surprising news, talk show host and Media empire Goddess Oprah Winfrey might be switching her show to her own new television station. This means leaving Chicago and no longer being accessible to the general public (since her station is not offered with standard cable).

In not-even-remotely-surprising news, the Catholic Church is not changing its stance on priests and celibacy.

Snot Rags and Stereotypes

2009-10-24T16:25:00.000-07:00

Let's play a little game, shall we? It's called "Guess What's Wrong with This Picture!"

The offender? The Kleenex "Get Mommed" Marketing Campaign (Warning, besides being incredibly offensive, it also takes a long time to load. Dial-up readers, be warned).

A) It's sexist. It perpetuates stereotypes of womyn as mothers and fails to recognize that fathers can "mother" i.e PARENT as well.

B) It's racist. The finger waving black womyn, the affectionate latina mother, the overbearing Eastern European mother. It's all there.

C) It actually fails at marketing the product. What the hell does this have to do with tissue?

D) All of the above.

You be the judge!

Tobacco... again.

2009-10-14T16:57:00.001-07:00

Tobacco companies knew cigarettes were bad for you long before the information was made public.

Shocking? No

Shitty? Absolutely.

All the Single Ladies, Put Your Hands Up

2009-10-13T05:30:00.000-07:00

I'll admit to being one of the first people to cry bullshit about the H1N1 hysteria. I think pandemic fears are largely overblown and I am highly, highly sceptical of the new H1N1 vaccine. I also think that there’s been nothing but mass confusion about all this flu stuff in regards to what causes it, how it’s transmitted, what it will do to you and hell, even what the symptoms are. People are getting conflicting information left, right and centre.

As cynical as I might be, I am intrigued by the latest study that shows that of those admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for H1N1, 67.3% were female. The average age of ICU patients with H1N1 was 32.

This flies in the face of previous ideas that only the very young and very old were dying or being seriously afflicted with the virus.

They haven’t been able to pinpoint why womyn in particular are so affected. Unfortunately, it is no surprise to me that aboriginal womyn have the highest rates of H1N1. This is no shock when you consider the dismal quality of life that aboriginal womyn have in this country when it comes to a whole list of things.

But why females as a whole are so affected by H1N1 remains to be seen.

I’m a pandemic sceptic (and hope that I’m not proven wrong) but I’m very intrigued and disturbed by this latest data.

Update - Quebec is Suing Mad, too

2009-10-05T08:50:00.000-07:00

Looks like Quebec has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

Smoking Out Big Tobacco

2009-09-29T09:16:00.000-07:00

The Province of Ontario is joining British Columbia and New Brunswick in suing the big tobacco companies in order to recover money they've spent on tobacco related illnesses/deaths.

Now before I go on, let me establish a few things.

1- I am incredibly anti-smoking.
2- I have never smoked a day in my life.
3- I know and love people who smoke.
4- I know and love people who have suffered serious side effects (including death) as a result of tobacco.

And yet I'm left scratching my head about this lawsuit.

The Province is suing for 50 billion dollars; an amount they say they've spent on treating tobacco related illnesses since 1955. I actually think that amount is too low. I also think that people have known about the adverse effects of tobacco since 1975... So there's a 20 year window where personal accountability doesn't really come into play because people were just rolling with what the scientific data at the time was saying, which was that it wasn't that bad. Hell, even doctors were advertising the stuff!

So for that 20 or so year window, the tobacco companies knew it was bad but people didn't and so I understand that there's a serious accountability issue there.

But where's the personal accountability after that? What about between the 70s and now?

In our Health Care system, being the public system that is, we don't formally discriminate against illnesses. By that I mean that if you're suffering serious emphysema and you've been a- pack-a day smoker, the Health Care system can't say "Oh well, that was stupid, now deal with it on your own"; they've got to do their best to help you. So I understand that the Health Care system is stuck between Big Tobacco and Consumers. And I also understand that the Health Care System is you and me and everyone else living and paying taxes in Ontario. So it's my money that's being spent on big tobacco's side effects.

BUT it's also the Government, both Federally and Provincially, that monitors and governs the rules around Big Tobacco in this country. And so it seems incredibly short-sighted to be benefiting from the taxes and sales of tobacco, and then at the end of the line, suing them to recuperate the amount you've spent on the side effects in between.

The Government of Canada, in general, has such a backwards way of looking at the tobacco industry, much like alcohol and gambling. They benefit up front and then bitch about the after effects; after effects which were clearly foreseeable.

And suing Big Industry to recuperate what is essentially our money just doesn't seem like the right way to do it. Sure it looks incredibly aggressive and anti-corporate and therefore has a nice Erin Brockovich, David and Goliath vibe to it. But upon closer look, it just comes off as greedy and corporate as Big Tobacco itself.

Kicking the Habit

2009-09-14T11:46:00.000-07:00

So the Vatican is doing an internal review in the United States. Reviewing what?

First thoughts: Child molestation, rampant homophobia, misogyny and racism.

No? No takers?

Nope. The Catholic Church is doing its first ever major review of… nuns?

They are conducting a “large-scale review of women's religious institutions in the United States, the first of its kind in history.”

My next thought turned optimistic, thinking that perhaps the Church was interested in re-examining the role womyn play in Catholicism and as nuns in particular.

They are examining this exact thing, but are hoping to step back, rather than forward, on the issue. Basically, the Church thinks that nuns have “stepped away” from the Church, are not living in communities (i.e.: convents) as often as they should be and are living “secular” lives. The goal is to put together a report that will bring 21st century nuns back to their roots of being in habit, living in convents and living a “stricter” religious life.

Having grown up Catholic and having actually attended a non-private, Catholic school run by nuns (which included a convent within the school), I have an educated opinion on nuns. I do not begrudge anyone’s choice to join the Convent. In the most objective sense, the life of a nun is one of serving. Churches and religions of all kinds have typically stepped up to help the homeless for example and many, many charities are religiously-run. The Salvation Army is religious, after all. Nuns also serve(d) as school teachers and work(ed) in hospitals. Hey, Mother Theresa was a nun, let us not forget.

HOWEVER, they are always serving someone. And they are always below someone else. Nuns serve the Church and the Church is run by men. Therefore, the “vocation” of nunnery is inherently sexist. In Catholicism, womyn hold no position of powers that rival those of men. Not to mention that being a nun means agreeing to the homophobia, racism and sexism of Catholicism. (I am stating this in the assumption that one chooses to be a nun. I am excluding those who are forced into religious life, obviously. That’s a whole other picture to paint).

So on one hand, I think it is unfair for me to pick on one individual nun, but I also don’t think it’s fair to let all nuns off the hook either. If you’re promoting hate, then you’re promoting hate.

BUT! I think it goes without saying that if anyone should be undergoing a review, its priests, cardinals and actual leaders in the Vatican. To say that the Church is in need of a review and to ignore the blindingly obvious issues and choosing instead to focus on the American nuns is shady and so indicative of how out-of-touch the Church really is. In case you needed any more proof that the Church is sexist and misguided and in need of an overhaul, this review is it.

The report, compiled by a Sister, will be submitted to the Vatican in 2011. It is up to the Vatican (read: male leaders) discretion on how to move forward after the report is compiled.

Who knows, maybe the nuns will do a preemptive strike and revolt. One can always dream...

REAL Sexual Assault Prevention Tips

2009-09-11T07:39:00.000-07:00

I shamelessly yoinked this from No, Not You. which I only found out about because of a dear friend. Thanks K!

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.

2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!

3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!

4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.

5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!

6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.

7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.

8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.

9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.

And, ALWAYS REMEMBER: if you didn’t ask permission and then respect the answer the first time, you are commiting a crime- no matter how “into it” others appear to be.

Doesn't this seem like the most logical way to approach the issue?

Update

2009-09-09T10:58:00.000-07:00

So in a twist of painful irony, someone else has been charged with drinking and driving in Quebec.

The womyn, who had 4 small children with her in the car, was charged 2000$. "She is also on probation for a year and has had her driver's licence suspended for the same length of time and her car has been impounded for 30 days." (CBC)

I realize that longer sentences are not necessarily a deterrent but they do send a message and in this country, when it comes to drinking and driving, our current message is "slap on the wrist".

Once again, I call bullshit.

I Call Bullshit

2009-09-09T07:51:00.000-07:00

Man with 19 drinking and driving convictions and 114 prior convictions is not a dangerous offender... apparently.

Kids, Cars and Drive-Thrus

2009-08-19T05:38:00.000-07:00

Back in the summer of '08, when summer was actually hot in June and we weren't contemplating building an Ark, I wrote a post about drive-thrus and how they are slowly murdering Mother Nature. I chalked them up to laziness and couldn't understand how anyone could see them in any other light.

Well, I stand corrected.

There is an excellent Blog post on the Ottawa Citizen website where a womyn (and mother) responds to the story of another mother in the Ottawa area who left her child in the car during 42 degree weather. Yes, 42 degrees. Then she left the car unlocked, which in this case was a positive thing because someone was able to retrieve the baby. The mother then came out and accused the other womyn of having kidnapped her baby. Oy vey! THEN it was released that the womyn was inside getting herself some ice cream.

I know.

So a journalist for the Citizen wrote a really interesting blog post about how she praises drive-thrus for helping mothers get things done while not having to leave their babies in the car or taking forever and a day to take the baby out and then putting the baby back in. This is particularly tricky if you've managed to get the baby to fall asleep and then you have to wake them to pick up a coffee. Even things like paying at the pump of the gas station allow mothers to keep their babies safe and in eye sight, while making the whole process speedy.

An FC kudos to the womyn who used her common sense and saved a baby from a sweltering car.

And thank you to journalist Melanie Coulson for correcting me in thinking that drive-thrus only benefit the lazy.

Because You Can't spell "Blame" Without "Lame"

2009-08-18T11:47:00.000-07:00

Now it's time for my favourite part of the evening: The Blame Game!

First on the list, Carleton University and their epic fuck-up: "Carleton University Accused of Victim-Blaming"

Next up: "9 year old initiated sex acts, child molester claims". He claims that she came on to him and he didn't want her to feel "rejected".

And finally: A cab driver in the city of Ottawa has been charged with sexually assaulting a passenger. The driver claims the womyn, who had 10-12 beers before getting into the cab, "came on to him" and he didn't want her to tell his boss that he had failed to "please her". He was given a whopping 2 months of house arrest. The sentence was so low because the judge "considered" that "the sexual assault Majli was convicted of was not the most serious"' and because she was drunk, they couldn't "prove" that he had not only kissed her, but penetrated her as well.

And the winner is... The City of Ottawa! The Capital of Canada; bastion of all things democratic. Yet in the past 2 months, all of these amazing victim-blaming stories have come out.

Studying at night? To blame
Being a regular 9 year old in the presence of a child molester? To blame
Taking a fucking cab home because you're aware that you're too drunk to drive? To blame.

In the City of Ottawa, that's how we roll.

Knocking the Spoons Out of their Mouths

2009-08-18T09:01:00.000-07:00

Having been involved in activism surrounding public education and in having spent 3 years marking the papers of undergraduate students, I very enthusiastically applaud Ms. Caroline Orchard.

Caroline is an Ottawa high-school teacher who is pushing for a removal of Ontario's current "no-fail" policy. "Accrording to the policy, aimed at improving student success, students who fail to hand in assignments or engage in plagiarizing or cheating are no longer awarded a mark of zero and must be offered one or more chances to recover their endangered credit." (Citizen)

Caroline and others are calling the policy out for how it may not be failing students in school but it sets them up to fail at life. There are no second, third, fourth chances in life. There are certainly no second chances in university or the corporate world. So why would we tell young people who are professionals in training that the world will wait around for them until they're "ready" to hand in their work?

Having been a teacher's assistant in an Ontario university where naturally, most students are Ontario grads, TRUST that this policy has serious, serious effects.

I'm constantly fighting against the stereotype of youth being apathetic and entitled because I'm constantly dealing with engaged and interesting youth. But the reality is that most aren't and quite frankly, can you blame them? They've spent the last 12+ years being told that they call the shots.

So a major FeministCatalyst KUDOS to Caroline Orchard. In being involved in this type of activism, I understand that speaking out from within the system itself is not always welcome and easy. So here's hoping other people jump on board and support her on this.

Although internet petitions are not recognized officially recognized by Government, they are still good at sending a message. So if you think that spoon-feeding Ontario youth has nothing but detrimental effects, sign her petition.

Update on Judge's Comments

2009-08-13T07:54:00.000-07:00

My statement that sexism is alive and well in Canadian politics still stands but here is an interesting development in the story of Ms. McLeod.

So, were Ms McLeod and Jane Taber just looking for an opportunity to plug themselves? Or did they honestly believe that's how it went down?

I don't know but it's interesting nonetheless and ultimately, unfortunate because it feeds into the anti-feminist rhetoric that womyn "play the gender card" when things don't go their way.

For the record though, let it be known that FC still very much believes that sexism is rampant in politics, at every level.

The Old Boys Club, Indeed

2009-08-11T05:40:00.000-07:00

In case you really didn't believe that politics was an Old Boy's Club that was less than keen to ladies, here's more to convince you otherwise.

An Ottawa Conservative MPP had her evidence dismissed in the trial against Ottawa mayor Larry O'Brien because, and I quote, "the defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. … ” “She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa". (source)

To add insult to injury, this dismissal was overlooked in the reading of O'Brien's sentence of not guilty and according to the MPP in question, her supporters were hard to come by. Once the news became public however, Equal Voice and others came out to dismiss and criticize the 69 year old judge's decision.

I'd add comment on this but I think it's rather obvious at this point: The idea that evidence from a female politician is invalid because she was busy being a politician AND a mother when she gave her evidence to police is beyond fucking insulting; it is sexism in the purest form. It is the reason why so few womyn enter politics and it is the reason why Canada is far from the beaming democracy it claims to be.

So if you still need evidence to believe the sexism in Canada's politics, there's no hope for you and you might as well join the commenters of the original Globe and Mail article. They are spewing such "clever" quips as "To all of the male posters here, every had a woman tell the truth in divorce court? Story is settled." (Great use of the word "every" kept from the original posting).

You Win Some, You Lose Some

2009-08-11T05:12:00.000-07:00

Good: Article remembering Eunice Kennedy Shriver, member of the Kennedy dynasty and founder of the Special Olympics, who passed away at the age of 88.

Bad: Same article referring to the intellectually and physically disabled as "mentally retarded", "retarded" or "suffering from mental retardation".

Reuters = Fail

There's Nothing like the Smell of Victim-Blaming in the Morning

2009-08-07T06:43:00.001-07:00

I am one pissed off Carleton University graduate.

Mark My Words

2009-08-06T06:02:00.001-07:00

And the war on womyn continues. This time in Pittsburgh, where a man entered a fitness facility and opened fire. A website, said to be in his name, stated his hatred for womyn and his wanting to target them specifically.

But come December 6 when people across the country mourn the 1989 Montreal Massacre, you wait and see how many op/eds will claim that Marc Lepine was one crazy bastard and in no way an indication of society as a whole.

And now for some made-up news!

2009-07-24T09:13:00.001-07:00

Canadian readers will be familiar with a case in Kingston right now where a father, mother and son murdered three members of their family plus the father's first wife.

Newsworthy? Absolutely.

I'm holding off on commenting more specifically on this case because the details have yet to emerge and I'm sick of the xenophobia around it. Let more credible information come forward and then I will discuss it.

Do you hear that CBC.ca? I know you desperately want to improve the traffic to your site/TV show/radio shows but when you start making stories out of nothing just to keep things flowing, and you're losing credibility.

Headline reads: Canal-death charges stun Montreal neighbours.

Really? You think? This would only be news worth if the neighbours weren't surprised. There would be a story in that case. If they weren't surprised then maybe there would have been signs, more people coming forward and the whole thing could have been prevented.

This story, much like the kidnapping/murder of Victoria Stafford, is being dragged in the media with "journalists" interviewing neighbours and the like for no other reason than to add sensationalism to the story.

If you are the neighbour of someone who was murdered and you are not surprised that said person was murdered or that your neighbour had a part in it, then please come forward to be interviewed. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Journalist David Cullen refers to it as the "Columbine Effect". The massacre at Columbine High School was the first big moment when anybody who knew somebody, who knew somebody else at Columbine was considered a "witness" or someone worthy of talking to. He blames new technologies and the increase in media coverage. Basically, every student that came running out of that school, whether they saw anything or not, were interviewed and instantly broadcast around the world.

The result?

1- Misinformation spreads like wildfire. There were several shooters, there was one shooter, there were hundreds murdered, there were a few, etc. No consistency here because people who were clearly in shock blurted out a few lines and suddenly, it was fact.

2- Increased sensationalism. Victims, witnesses or even random passersby would provide a few lines or a lengthy discussion on the issue and one line of it would be broadcast as this earth shattering revelation of sorts. Often it was never a big deal in the first place or it wasn't even true. Think: the worst game of telephone ever played.

Although this might not seem to directly relate to the coverage of the latest murders in Canada or even the murder of Tori Stafford, I believe it does. I believe they are all part of the same new "journalism" where actual facts may or may not be important and the relevance of something is rarely measured.

The saddest part of all is that people are buying it, literally and figuratively. So it's up to us all to stop wanting to be a part of the show and to stop buying into sensationalist media. Although we live in a society doused in instant gratification, the world doesn't operate that way. Give it time and the truth will eventually come out. But it probably won't come from you.

And now, for some good news!

2009-07-16T07:09:00.000-07:00

Good news is so few and far between in the world lately. Or in general really, when you're the type to be concerned about social justice.

But it appears that David is slowly slaying Goliath in at least one department.

Some Canadian consumers have learned the valuable lesson of each purchase being a vote. Combining that with a new resurgence of environmentalism and smart eco-thinking, consumers have made a big enough push for local products that grocery stores in Southwestern Ontario have de-listed themselves as "Sobey's" chains and joined a co-operative.

Reason being? Sobey's existing policies discourage and outright deny owners the ability to buy local products. Since consumers were asking and the demand was clearly there, they said screw The Man.

They are now seeing success in sales AND helping Mother Nature.

Now doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Muckraking in the Name of Ovaries

2009-06-23T09:01:00.001-07:00

I'm a frequent user of my local fitness club. I like my gym but as anyone who has used a gym before knows, it has very little to do with health and a lot to do with physical appearance. Gyms are all about making money and in order to do that, they bombard you with images of so-and-so after they hired a trainer, or TRY THIS MUSCLE MILK AND YOU'LL BE GIGANTIC, while blasting 46 different televisions playing Cosmopolitan TV and various sports channels. It combines "You Can Do It" with "Because you're a fatty!".

The other day, while attempting to use the washroom, I sat down to face an advertisement. Now ads in washrooms are not unique to gyms, obviously. They are a nuisance in most public washrooms nowadays. But the ones at the gym are almost always related to appearance or "health". This particular ad, which I'm presuming is only in the womyn's washroom, has a giant picture of an empty ice cream container that says "Want to have fewer periods?" followed by the "FIND OUT HOW AT Periodslessoften.ca"

Oh Goddess...

So I went home and checked out Periodslessoften.ca (I encourage you to do the same) and went back to my journalism roots to do some digging.

Turns out *surprise surprise* PeriodsLessOften.ca is hosted by an unnamed "Research Based Pharmaceutical Company" and the way to get less periods is through hormonal birth control. The Pill.

Now anyone who has been on the Pill, which in North America includes most hetereosexual womyn, knows or has heard the Old Tales about how you just take one pack of pills right after the other to skip your period. Nothing all that new here.

But this website is particularly interesting because it uses and re-uses imagery of food (.i.e.: PMS cravings) and makes the focus less on the usual anti-period stuff of crankyness, physical pain, lack of swimming/sex options and turns it into "Have Fewer Periods So You Have Fewer Midnight Triple Chocolate Oreo Cookie Cravings".

Which is something that the website cannot back up because it is false. Although taking hormonal birth control to date your periods and/or taking pack after pack will time and/or delay your period, it will not change your body's desire to jonse for cookies. It has been proven to possibly diminish in some people but it's not an instant cure.

There is a strong school of thought who believe that skipping any period at all is bad for your body. Unfortunately the reality is that as long as you are on the Pill, you will never have a "period" in the truest sense of the word. To be blunt, you can't drop an egg when you're on the Pill so you're having a "Pill Period" as they say and not an actual one. However, that doesn't mean that your body reverts back to being 10. You're still going to have hormone fluctuations because that's what keeps your bones good and strong, thickens your hair, etc.

So the first thing against this whole "TAKE THE PILL AND DROP THE COOKIES" approach is that it's not entirely accurate.

Another thing that is problematic it is that hormonal birth control is being marketed as this pseudo health option and dare I say, weight loss option. The latter of course is a bit of a stretch and kinda hilarious considering that most hormonal birth control pills make people gain weight.

But with the ads juxtaposition of the empty ice cream pale with the Pill, it makes it seem as though one can be cured by the other. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a picture of said ad online, but the website is full of food imagery, including a smiling Gingerbread.

And finally, the website and campaign is also problematic in its so-called attempt to be "neutral" regarding other forms of birth control.

See the website does not mention what pharmaceutical company it works for and so it is attempting to be an "information site" that is neutral and not about marketing a certain product. For this reason, they include this one section "Is the Pill Right For You" which has the legally required information regarding risks of taking the Pill and a sub-section entitled "Non-Hormonal Options". This section's intro:

"Non-hormonal birth control options will not change how often you have your period, meaning that they cannot be used to lengthen the time between your periods. Though most of them have been proven to be less effective than hormonal birth control, non-hormonal options may be right for you. Except for the non-reversible methods and the IUD, these methods must be used every time you have sex. The male condom and female condom can be used with hormonal birth control to help protect against sexual transmitted infections (STIs)." (Source)

Yes, these forms of Birth Control are less effective than hormonal based birth control but most don't cause blood clots, can be used by people over 35 safely and will not put your life at serious risk if you're a smoker. Oh and hey, most will make sure you don't get HIV! Which is, you know, pretty freakin' important, too.

Oh and it's also interesting to note that the tiny words in the disclaimer (for which you need to click onto a seperate site to find) explain that all the "claims" made throughout the website only apply to the United States. Which is pretty interesting considering it's Periodslessoften.CA

But it's obvious that the folks behind "Periodslessoften" are not concerned about sexual health as a whole or a womyn's health in particular. What they are for is the promotion of menstruation as an evil, an evil that will make you want cookies! Which will make you fat! And then, undesirable! And if you're undesirable, then you won't get laid! And then if you don't get laid, you won't need birth control! Ah! The tyranny!

Now I do not wish to diminish the very painful reality of many, many womyn who have excruciating menstrual pain, endure debilitating side effects or who are in dire need of menstruation regulation. However, if you are one of these many womyn, the reality is that Periodslessoften.ca doesn't really care about you anyway. They care about the bottom line and sorry honey, but you ain't it.

Now I'm not knocking takers of the Pill because everyone has their own reasons and the reality is that hormone based birth control is the most effective form of birth control (except for abstinence but who are we kidding?) What I am knocking is pharmaceutical companies who market things inaccurately under the guise of "neutrality".

Let's just call a spade a spade, shall we?

Is Bruno a No-No?

2009-06-18T14:26:00.000-07:00

As a lover of politics and humour, I have a soft spot for satire. I love satire. I love comedy in general, really. But I've found myself in more than one conversation with people about the merits of comedy as a tool of activism.

I've decided that yes, only people of a certain group can mock said group and no, that is not "reverse racism". It's just the reality that in order for something to be reclaimed, it has to take its power from the marginalized group. Otherwise, it's just racism. Now exceptions can be made if you're a well known ally in a certain community; see Kathy Griffin for example. She identifies as straight but is also considered a gay icon and therefore can drop bombs that would be seen as homophobic in another context. The reason being that she's gained the respect of the GLBTQ community, has supported, donated, etc for years and therefore is an ally and not some hillbilly making bad jokes. (Her jokes might be bad, to some, but they're not homophobic).

But what about satire? The big question about satire is:

When is it satire and when is it just stereotyping?

Jon Stewart's The Daily Show = Satire
Stephen Colbert's entire persona = Satire (Sorry Right Wingers; he's on our team)
The Simpsons = Satire

But then it gets tricky. What about Family Guy?

In having these discussions with various people, it seems that the measurement of whether something is satire or whether it's simply stereotyping is to look at both the creator and the audience.

Seth MacFarlane, who created "Family Guy" is also the mastermind behind "American Dad", a clearly satirical cartoon. Which would make one assume that Family Guy is in that category too, but then, I look at the Family Guy audience.

Most Family Guy audience members are not hispters, ex-academics or yuppies. Or even politico junkies. The Family Guy audience is high school dudes. Which is not the pigeonhole all high school aged dudes as being incapable of being down with satire. But "Family Guy"'s following is what troubles the issue for me.

Basically: If it's meant to be satire, but people take it at face value, is it satire anymore?

Ironically enough, this issue has come up in the last few days regarding (in my opinion) brilliant satirist Sasha Baron Cohen. SBC is the genius behind "Da Ali G Show", which consisted of him putting on various characters and then taking them to the streets, so to speak. Ali G was his first big character and since he wasn't exactly that different, nobody really paid any attention. But when SBC gave his one character "Borat" his own movie, then people started paying attention.

"Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" was a huge success in North America. In promoting the movie, SBC stayed in character a la Colbert style. Not only is the guy a brilliant satirist, but he also has amazing timing. North America and the US in particular was really focused on the Middle East upon the release of "Borat" and so SBC attempted (I'll come back to this attempt piece) to highlight how Americans viewed Middle Easterners. The joke was not on people from Kazakhstan but rather on the reactions of real-life people to a Middle Easterner, in the film itself.

BUT! Like "Family Guy", if you don't get satire, then you take the movie at face value and see it as a crazy guy from Kazakhstan who can't speak English and hates Jews. And if that's what you're laughing at, then is it satire anymore?

Sasha Baron Cohen is running into this problem again with his new movie "Bruno" which is based off another "Da Ali G Show" character. This time the character is a flambouyant gay stylist from Austria. Considering Proposition 8 and the opposing Proposition H8 campaign in the US and how it's highlighted GLBTQ folks in the US of A, Sasha's timing is impeccable.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation in the US of A is upset with certain scenes they saw in the pre-screening of "Bruno". These scenes, they say, cross the line of satire and are outright stereotypical; therefore the joke is on them and not the homophobes. But where's that line?

Coming back to the original descriptors of creator and audience, SBC is clearly a satirist and the hope is that the majority of people who see "Bruno" will understand that Sasha Baron Cohen is playing a caricature composed of stereotypes, therefore highlighting the lunacy of these stereotypes rather than promoting them. Like "Borat", the hope is that the viewers will laugh at the homophobic and outlandish responses that "Bruno" gets, rather than siding with said homophobes.

But what if they don't? Does it matter? Do the intentions of the creator matter if the audience takes it in a different direction? It's hard to say.

Although this might seem like a hipster's diatribe, I do think it's important. I think comedy has an important role to play in making social commentary and political commentary in particular. For example, one can't underestimate the role that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert play come election time. Rick Mercer, to a lesser extent, has that effect here in Canada. But their roles have been clearly established; their respective shows are so heavy on politics that they would naturally only attract audiences that are into that, too.

But what about Family Guy? Or hell, The New Yorker?

Federally Funded Journalism at its Best

2009-06-10T11:56:00.000-07:00

Anyone who follows my blog here knows that I'm a pretty die-hard CBC.ca reader; it is typically my biggest source of news. But were it not for my years of dedicated CBC.ca reading, I'd throw in the towel on the whole thing today.

This lovely headline appeared on my sidebar today:

Others in Courtepatte case were suspects in prostitute's death, documents reveal

(Trigger Warning)

As someone who studied journalism, there is so much wrong with this picture.

1- This case is not exactly well known and so simply using a name like this does not conjure up an instant recognition for people.

2- If you're going to use the name of one victim, why not use both? Oh yes, because apparently "prostitutes" are not people; they're just prostitutes.

The entire article is convoluted, confusing and needs a major trigger warning. The article goes on to list all these "unproven in court" details that should leave the reader wondering "Why the hell are they even reporting this then?" The details are gruesome and even if they were proven, are completely unnecessary and inappropriate.

The story itself is telling: A man is accused of murdering a 13 year old girl and in a separate case, another womyn in Winnipeg. The man is described by police as a "serial homicidal sex offender" and also, an idiot. He was in custody for the luring/kidnapping/sexual assault/murder of a 13 year old girl but mixed up the details of that murder with the then-unknown murder of another womyn.

If you're going to write an article about this loser and highlight this case, these are the only details one would need. By including the other horrific and graphic details, CBC.ca is pandering to the Perez Hiltons and "National Inquirers" of the world and I call bullshit.

This story on its own is one more example of the war on womyn in this country and around the world. But the way in which this article is presented further demonstrates the point, too. Which blows.

Stay classy, CBC.

Fight for your Right to Party

2009-06-05T16:04:00.000-07:00

Canadians might be apathetic, but as I've said before, they love their booze.

We don't vote and are generally lazy bastards, but don't take away our booze!

But in all seriousness, I think this doesn't just have to do with booze; I think it's generational, too. Pensioners, especially ex-union members, are tough as nails and don't get pushed around easily. They fight for their rights. Which is commendable these days, even if it's regarding beer.

Update

2009-05-28T08:50:00.000-07:00

So my blog post yesterday still stands and I thank this article for re-affirming what I said.

Yes, Michäelle Jean, you are a whole lotta badass.

Mmmm.... Controversy.

2009-05-27T13:46:00.000-07:00

There are few things that I love more than food and controversy. Today, we get a meal of both!

So I have rather mixed feelings about the position of Governor General but I have very good feelings about this particular GG. I've met her on two different occasions and was really impressed with how knowledgeable she really is in the areas in which she throws herself into. She's incredibly warm and although not 100% genuine (By that I mean that you can tell that she's "on") she's pretty great.

But apparently, by eating a piece of raw seal meat while visiting the North, she's 10 levels of awful.

Seriously? Give me a break.

Never mind the animal rights activists who've been touting the "CLUB SODA, NOT SEALS" crap for years, critics across the Pond are saying that what she did was a political act and that the GG is supposed to do ceremonial acts only.

Let's break that down.

Political Part: It's only been deemed political because mostly overseas critics (I'm looking at you, McCartney) have viewed the seal hunt as political. Hunting animals as a whole is not inherently political. It's been going on forever and if I'm correct, the Queen herself is a big fan. Hence why she's got dogs!

Furthermore, people use the "Ceremonial Symbol Only" balogna all the time but the Monarchy is pretty freakin' political in itself and much more controversial than eating meat, I would argue.

So GG -1, Critics - 0

Controversial Part: Regardless of how it became that way, yes the seal hunt in Canada is controversial. Personally, I'm a huge supporter of the seal hunt but that is not the point here. Attending the Inuit ceremony/event was not deemed controversial but only when she ate some of the meat was it deemed that way. Okay... well what if she hadn't eaten the meat? What if she had been offered and then refused? What kind of controversial message would that send? It would certainly be a giant slap in the face of Inuit people and seal hunters, too.

Once again, GG -2, Critics - 0

As far as I'm concerned, seal hunting is an indigenous way of life and a huge economic boost to people living in the North and on the Canadian Coast. And until anti-hunting asshats can come up with a more environmentally friendly and sustainable means of making money, then they can shut the hell up. And leave Madame Jean out of it, too! If for no other reason than the fact that she has fabulous shoes and used to host one of my favourite shows.

Why I'm Pro-Choice

2009-05-23T15:05:00.000-07:00

It seems a little late for me to be writing this now, seeing as though I’ve been blogging here for a few years now. And reproductive justice should, I believe, be a goal for anyone who calls themselves a feminist. However, in having recently witnessed the large-scale “March for Life” anti-choice protest here in my adopted city, and therefore having been very publicly (and harshly) challenged on my view, I felt it important to spell it out.

I could make it snappy, à la Letterman and make it a top ten list, but I hope it doesn’t take that many reasons to make my point (and convince you).

I am Pro-Choice because…

1- I think bodily autonomy is a human right. I think that the right to control what one does and does not do with their body is a human right that should be accorded to all people. I think that once we take away someone’s bodily autonomy, we are going down a very slippery slope and quite frankly, I don’t want to see where it leads.

2- I think that pro-choice is the most democratic choice of all. As the old feminist adage goes, “If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” I truly cannot understand how a democratic state/nation/territory/etc could have any other stance.

3- I believe that pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I know and love people who got pregnant unexpectedly and thought long and hard about their choices. In the end, they either chose abortion or they chose to keep the child. They weighed the options of adoption and in one particular case, seriously explored that option. But in the end, they chose what was right for them. None of these womyn regret their decisions. And I imagine that even if they did, they would have been grateful for the ability to choose what was right for them, whether they felt the same way about that decision or not.

4- Although I believe in the myriad of choices that the pro-choice stance includes, I am not naïve about adoption. Let me start off by saying that I know many people who are either adopted themselves or have siblings that are. I am a big supporter of adoption and an even bigger supporter of open adoption. I think adoption is one of many great choices for the pregnant womyn and the adoptive family. However, in speaking about adoption, I think it’s important to include a caveat about the realities of pregnant womyn and the adoption system. Anti-choicers are always quick to point to adoption as the ideal situation for an unexpected pregnancy. “You don’t have to raise the child and you are giving a gift to a family that is unable to conceive”. Sounds great, doesn’t it? And I’m sure it is for many, many people. Without getting into the pain and hardship that pregnant womyn must go through when deciding to give up their child to adoption (especially, I would argue, in closed adoption situations), I think the anti-choicers *surprise surprise* forget that choosing adoption is not as simple as giving birth to a happy awaiting adoptive family.

As a white, educated, able bodied womyn with a white, educated, able bodied partner, I am well aware that if I were to get pregnant today, I could have a wonderful, police checked couple (and possibly established family) waiting for me in 9 months to adopt my child. The truth is that people line up and wait years for newborn, white, able bodied children. If I were Aboriginal, disabled, uneducated, a substance abuser, etc, it is quite possible that my child would be in the “System” for quite some time before it possibly settled into a great home. Do I think this is fair? Hell fucking no. But by the same token, I don’t think it’s fair for me, as a privileged individual to make a broad statement like so many anti-choicers do, that adoption is a great choice awarded to all. That is not always the case.

5- One size does not fit all. Similar to the above point that adoption might work for me, but it might be a horrible idea for you. I might want an open adoption and seek to maintain some sort of contact with the child but you might need complete anonymity. I might have gotten pregnant through rape or coercion and you might have gotten pregnant in a loving and happy relationship. And so I’m going into my decision making with a different set of circumstances than you. Why should there be one cookie cutter solution for everyone?

6- It has been proven time and time again that when abortion is criminalized, womyn will continue to seek out abortion. And they’re not exactly getting prime care. Below are the number of people hospitalized for illegal abortions:

Bangladesh: 71,800
Brazil: 288,700
Chile: 31,900
Colombia: 57,700
Dominican Republic: 16,500
Egypt: 216,000
Mexico: 106,500
Nigeria: 142,200
Peru: 54,200
The Philippines: 80,100

7- I think that being anything else would put me in the crazy “pro-life” camp and those people are fucking scary. Need I say more?

Today is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

2009-05-17T12:54:00.001-07:00

And in case you think "It's 2009, do we really need to acknowledge this stuff?", just ask GLBTQ folks in Moscow. Or the parents of two boys, in two separate incidents, who committed suicide because of ongoing homophobic school bullying. In a year that may have seen Justice for Angie,
there is still so much work to do.

Can I get a what - what!

2009-05-11T14:51:00.001-07:00

"More women in senior roles boosts financial performance: study".

"Ironically, the current recession, a time when firms are seeking to find new ways to stay in business, is exactly when companies should be figuring out strategies to put more women into executive chairs, the report said."

Finally, I can write about the recession and tag it in the "Good News" category.

GG: 100 Years of Keeping It Real

2009-04-28T15:38:00.000-07:00

So it seems that this is a mighty big year for girls.

First, we have Barbie's 50th Birthday. (Still looking fresh, might I add).

Now, we've got Girl Guides bringing in a new badge. (Stick with me, here). Badges are a mighty big deal in the world of Brownies, Girl Guides and even Scouts. You earn a badge every time you've demonstrated that you did something or learned something new. You can get badges for a whole whack pile of things, like learning to start a fire outdoors, sewing a button, learning to paint, etc.

Girl Guides have now announced that in a move to stay "relevant" and "progressive", they are releasing a new badge. Sounds less than newsworthy but hear me out.

"Girls aged five to 17 can earn the Love Yourself Challenge badge by completing three tasks that promote self-esteem, healthy eating and a positive body image." The badge features a super skinny stick person, a bigger one, a typical stick person and a heart.

I was never into Brownies, Guides or Pathfinders as a kid because I had to choose between dance class or Guides and the former won every time. It never really struck me as something I would be into, though. But lots of my friends were and they loved it. And the same time that a lot of my friends were getting into Brownies and Guides, my junior high had an entire day dedicated to anorexia and bulimia. A whole day. The reason being that for a small school in a small town, there were a handful of severe cases of anorexia. There were possibly more but living all up in people's business like you do in a small town, everyone knew about 2 in particular.

I mention this story because I never forgot both my classmate's love for Guides and that day of learning about body image. Both of them really stick out in my mind as events of my youth. And so to see that Girl Guides are picking up on this and being relevant to the lives of girls, is great.

I'm left to wonder however: Are body image issues this "new" that talking about them equates "progress"? In the 100 years of Girl Guides, have girls never struggled with their weight? Or is it a matter of it now being kosher to talk about these things in general, and at Guides in particular?

I don't know.

But I do know that this latest move will surely help girls.

So Three Finger Salute and job well done! Unless, of course, this new health kick at the Girl Guides headquarters means that they're canning Girl Guide cookies. If that's the case, there will be a revolt!

Oh and by cookies, I'm not talking about those Mint Patties. Those can go. I want the real shit.

Is there an Echo in the Building?

2009-04-22T06:40:00.000-07:00

And the "C" word strikes again!

Keeping in mind that the source isn’t exactly impartial but, a Toronto lawyer has publicly come out in support of the increasing numbers of womyn who are being laid off while on Maternity Leave.

The excuse given? The economy.

Technically, it’s illegal to lay someone off when they are on Mat Leave. That’s the whole point; that you help society reproduce while we hold down the fort until you come back. BUT! If the company is “doing multiple lay offs” then its okay. And what is happening is that while womyn are away, the new person they hired in the interim is cheaper because they’ve just started and so the company would rather keep someone with less seniority than pay the rates of the womyn who left.

Wow.

I guess the only solution is for babies to make and raise themselves. Well, we could socialize people to be equal partners in the child raising department and create child friendly work environments but the first solution is probably more likely.

Because You Don't Win Friends With Salad

2009-04-21T09:29:00.000-07:00

A new study has found that when eating out and presented with a variety of side options (Fries, baked potato, salad) people opted for the fries more often than the salad.

The study was based on 100 college students who were presented with two different menus. When presented with the option of choosing the salad, they took fries instead.

This is a pretty big deal in terms of research because it flies in the face of the years of previous commentary from people that healthier choices are what's needed on menus. Hell, even McDonald’s has yogurt parfaits and apple slices now! Clearly the complaining has worked to get healthier options on the menu. But what these researchers are showing is that it doesn’t matter; people still choose crap.

There is a lot that can be chalked up for this. North America is a glutton society that loves its shit food. We should eat healthier but we don’t because we’re lazy, unmotivated, etc. Some people think that “healthy food doesn’t taste as good as nuggets and fries” hence their choices. And truthfully, if the words “healthy” always result in salad, then you can’t really blame people. It’s not really a choice. It’s either PICK ONE OF TEN AMAZING THINGS or SALAD. Maybe a variety of healthy food choices that don’t involve simply adding different types of salad is an option?

But I also think that it’s much simpler than that. In my opinion, when people go somewhere that sells “fries, chicken nuggets and baked potatoes” they’re not eating out to be healthy. They’re eating out for a “treat”; nobody goes to Wendy’s (which is a prime example of this type of menu) for salad. I say this as someone who loves the Wendy’s chicken salad and is terrified of their burgers. But I know that I’m not most people and I get that.

The people in this study were just presented menus and said “What would you prefer to eat?” When people choose to hit up Wendy’s or McDonald’s, it’s usually because they’re jonesing for a Bacon Mushroom Melt or a Big Mac, not chicken salad. If you wanted decent chicken salad, you’d go somewhere that specializes in chicken salad. Wendy’s is not this place.

Now if you have no choice in the matter, like you’re on a road trip for instance then you might be grossed out with so much take-out and choose the salad and apple juice choice. But the people in the study possibly hadn’t had take-out in a while and were thinking “Mmm… that’d be a nice treat”.

See what I’m getting at?

If you’re hitting up fast food, then you’re craving some fast food, something that you either wouldn’t or couldn’t make at home. The problem that I see, is if people always choose the shittier option, everyday. The key to fast food is not to demonize the stuff but to view it in moderation.

I went to McDonald’s as a kid and turned out okay. Why? Because it was a “treat”. We got a Happy Meal, we played in the ballroom; it was swell. If my parents had brought my ass there three times a week, different story.

And who knows? We’re dealing with 100 college kids here. They were probably recovering from 4/20 and were thinking FRENCH FRIES before the study had even started. It’s not impossible.

**A nice unhealthy donut to whomever can reference the blog title

Who Pays?

2009-04-15T13:51:00.001-07:00

Mmmm... recession. It seems we can speak of nothing else these days. With good reason, of course.

Recession talk leads to the next big "C" word. (Not C-U-Next-Tuesday, you dirty kids) but cuts. Job cuts, budget cuts, tax cuts, etc. Everything is cut. It's a scissor fest these days. And without any real critical analysis, it would appear that the cuts are not discriminatory. Sure, they are in terms of class, because let's face it: It's Jim, Bob and Jane who are making the cars that are losing their jobs and not Robert So-and-So who runs the joint.

But the evil "c" word is also becoming a way to really conveniently "do away" with things that folks weren't too happy with to begin with.

Exhibit A: We've got Women's Studies at Guelph that has been chopped due to "budget constraints". Ahh yes, that other evil "c" word. This would seem like just another run-of-the-mill, aww-shucks cut if it weren't for the fact that "Cutting the Women's Studies program will save *less than 0.17%* of the University's predicted $46 million shortfall. And yet Women's Studies is the only program in the university that's slated to be cut." This was written in a petition to save the program; the program has now officially been cut.

You gonna tell me that this isn't just a wee bit suspicious? I'm not saying this is a full on witch hunt but when cuts are needed and the first thing to do is Women's Studies, which represents such a measly part of the total budget, one's gotta start asking questions.

Exhibit B: Oh Alberta! The land of bounty! Or not. Seems they're hurting in the Health Care department so they are making cuts, too. Massive cuts, it seems. Although there have only been two major cuts announced and they are *drumroll please*

Chiropractor services: Which will save them 53 million a year

and

"Sex Change Surgeries": Which will save them 700,000$ a year.

"The latter move has become particularly controversial. " No shit, CBC.ca 53 million vs. less than one million. Hmm...

I get that these will be two of many cuts but once again, you gotta start thinking this through. It's no coincidence that when the axe comes down, things like Women's Studies and sex re-assignment surgery are seen as disposable and easy to chop.

Women's Studies is chronically underfunded everywhere and in the case of Guelph, represents peanuts in terms of financing. Sex re-assignment surgery in Alberta, with only 26 people currently undergoing it and 20 people on a waiting list, represents such small numbers in terms of people and in terms of money, but represents so much to the livelihood of trans people that it makes no sense to see it go at this point. Unless there's a hidden agenda at play here.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I call bullshit on both the University of Guelph and the province of Alberta.

Attention All Students!

2009-04-13T07:49:00.000-07:00

Today's lesson: Take a book out from the library for so long that it becomes an artifact, not a late fee.

Misdirected Anger

2009-04-08T07:27:00.000-07:00

So I have purposely avoided discussing the "alleged" assault of popstar Rihanna by fellow popstar Chris Brown.

I've purposely stood back since the very beginning because I felt like it was not the place of people who are not involved to "weigh in" on what they think. Sure, the police report was leaked and so were photos of her bruised and beaten up face, but neither of these should have been released to the public in my opinion and asshole gossip bloggers should not have published them. But we still don't "know" the situation nor do we "know" them.

Rihanna is not even her real name. So what does that tell you?

I was particularly disgusted with people weighing in on the rumour (and yes, it was only a rumour. To this day, Rihanna has never issued a statement regarding the incident) that Rihanna "took back" Chris Brown and attempted to reconcile their relationship. Bloggers, journalists, talk show hosts and everyday people went ballistic on Rihanna, asking her what kind of message she was sending to "her fans", etc.

I refuse to comment on this aspect because it's a rumour and I don't know Rihanna or her situation/politics/feelings and so I am way overstepping my boundaries by casting judgement here.

I did appreciate how some commenters took this is as an opportunity to discuss teen violence and how this particular incident is but the tip of the iceberg. Teen violence is rampant and so rarely talked about. And so for people to take the discussion in this direction was a positive step, in my opinion.

But the reason why I feel the need to pipe in now is that I've officially snapped on the Judgy McJudgerson folks out there. Commentator, after commentator, after commentator was quick to point the finger at Rihanna for possibly having wanted to reconcile with Chris Brown, as I've stated above. People were losing their minds, totally ouraged and "disgusted" with her.

And yet, Chris Brown turned himself in to police, issued a statement admitting that he was involved and was just in court last week to plead not guilty.

So, when people decide that it's their business to get involved in the business of others, why are they losing their shit over a rumour on Rihanna's part and yet letting this one slide?

Admittedly, not everyone is letting this second part slide. But I'm not seeing the angry outbursts, television segments and blogger comments flooding this one, when I saw exactly that in regards to Rihanna.

Using myself as an example, I spoke on the radio about violence against womyn and was asked to comment on the "fact" that Rihanna wanted to reconcile with Chris Brown and yet my phone hasn't rang once about his not guilty plea.

Chris Brown turns himself into police for battery and uttering threats and yet his CD sales remain steady. So the writing is on the wall here, people.

Why is that Rihanna "possibly" returning to Chris Brown is a disgusting example to her fans and yet Chris Brown admitting that he took part in an assault and then pleading not guilty is not?
What kind of example is he setting? That it's okay to assault your girlfriend and then act like you did nothing wrong?

There is so much wrong with Chris Brown's not guilty plea. So many concrete, proven things wrong with this. And yet, a rumour smeared Rihanna's reputation.

Somebody explain this to me.

Like so many cases of violence against womyn that I have witnessed in my short lifetime, the onus always falls on the womyn involved. Why aren't we turning the focus to the men?

Why aren't people directing their anger about domestic violence at the men involved?

** I usually post to a lot more secondary articles to back up what I'm saying but 90% of articles featuring this story and the reactions I'm mentioning also post the police photo of Rihanna and I do not want to be a part of reproducing that image on the internet.

Lesson Learned?

2009-04-02T13:22:00.000-07:00

As you may or may not remember, a prominent New Brunswick sociology professor was murdered last November by his son-in-law. (I wrote about it here). I was (and still am) deeply saddened for him and his family and I was equally as pissed about the complete negligence by the RCMP and police officers involved in the case.

The silver lining at the time was that social justice groups were pushing for an inquiry and report in regards to the investigation. Well, the report has been tabled.

The report calls for better training for RCMP officers regarding domestic violence. Domestic violence, from an investigation point of view, requires certain knowledge and skills that this report found were lacking in RCMP officers.

"The administrative review of the case found that the focus of their investigation was primarily on the theft and fraud allegations, and the mental health of Baker instead of the possibility that there were factors that could lead to domestic violence."

I cannot speak for Mr. McKendy's family members or friends but I can speak for myself in saying that this report is somewhat of a relief in the sense that at least there is the possibility of change occurring. There is no guarantee that anything really will change but it's a possibility now.

I'd never heard of Professor McKendy until his death but if you have a second, Google him. You will get page after page of both his work and people responding to it. He clearly made a difference around the world. Let's hope that this report makes a difference, too.

As You Should Be

2009-04-01T15:27:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Harper is "deeply troubled" by the newest Afghani legislation that would make it illegal for a womyn to refuse sex from her husband, for a womyn to leave the house without permission and to have custody of children.

Well Steve, so am I. For once we agree!

But I do find it rather suspicious that you're not "troubled" by the 500+ missing and murdered aboriginal womyn.

Or the fact that Canadian womyn make an average of 72 cents for every dollar that a man makes while still debating the merits of pay equity legislation.

Or really, every other statistic and study demonstrating that systemic violence and sexism against womyn in this country continues to happen day in and day out.

So kudos Steve, on speaking out against this proposed legislation and its very real effects on the lives of womyn in Afghanistan. Kudos, my friend.

But please don't forget the ole adage about stones and glass houses.

Back To Basics

2009-03-30T05:45:00.000-07:00

According to a new report by the Canadian Council of Learning, 20% of Canadian university students can't read above a 3rd Level, which means that they are functioning illiterates.

As a Canadian, I hope this shocks you but I must say that as a TA in a Canadian university, this doesn't shock me at all. Some of the stuff I read would give an English Lit Doctor, heart palpitations.

I suppose I spoke too soon when spoke about the Big Decision. I suppose the decision shouldn't be "College" or "University" but rather "Dr Seuss" or "Judy Blume"? Hell, even R.L Stine would do the trick. Anything to get people reading, I suppose.

Because this is not just a problem for the TAs of the world who are forced to read papers with spelling mistakes on the title page or 6 page papers with no paragraph break, the truth is that statistics like this are a real smear on anyone's BA. If I have a BA and you have a BA, but I can read at a university level and you're at the junior high level, suddenly my BA doesn't look so good.

But above all else, it is a true disgrace that in Canada, in 2009, 20% of university students are functionally illiterate. Think about those that didn't make it into university and then the statistic really starts to sink in.

We are in a world of hurt if we don't get this addressed.

The War on Womyn Continues

2009-03-25T15:20:00.001-07:00

I was on a talk radio show recently about violence against womyn and the conversation quickly turned to why womyn stay in abusive relationships.

THIS is one of the reasons.

Womyn in abusive situations are stuck in a Catch-22. Stay in the relationship and continue to endure abuse and ostracism from others or leave the relationship and possibly have the abuse cease or leave the relationship and have the abuse escalate.

I've said this before and I will say it again: Statistically, a womyn's experiences of violence drastically increase AFTER they leave said relationship. Often, the violence results in murder.

In this latest case, the womyn had separated from her husband, attempted a restraining order and had called the police multiple times. And now, she's dead. According to CBC.ca, her murder is the third family homicide case in Quebec this year alone. Quebec is also currently in the midst of the trial for Ms. Michaud who appears to have been murdered by a neighbour. All this in only one province during one particular frame of time, in a country that apparently prides itself on democracy and keeping the peace.

My heart goes out to the children of Ms. Ghannoum and Ms. Michaud. What unspeakable tragedies.

Another Not-So-Friendly PSA

2009-03-23T09:26:00.001-07:00

Children: Please observe carefully.

Good Satire.

Bad Satire.

Observe the subtle differences between intelligently used irony and outright assholery.

"Water Not Recognized As Human Right"

2009-03-22T18:39:00.000-07:00

... a headline that breaks my heart.

A headline which clearly breaks CBC's heart too, based on their very obviously slanted article that follows it. But I'm not complaining. I'm sad, too.

Crazies Come Out To Play In Calgary

2009-03-22T07:28:00.000-07:00

If you're looking for a Canadian city with a perpetually negative reputation, look no further than Toronto. On any given day, someone, somewhere is bashing Toronto, actively hating Toronto or talking about the latest crime spree of sorts in Toronto.

Hell, there was an entire documentary based on hating Toronto!

But watch out T.Dot; Calgary is climbing up the ranks and looking to steal your much-coveted spot as the most hated city in Canada.

Why?

First, they went and invited former President George W. Bush to come and speak. (True, there were anti-Bush protesters, but still... they invited him at all. That's telling).

Then, religious folk from Calgary got upset with the atheists buying some bus ads, so they went and bought their own. Which, whether you agree with the atheists or not, goes to prove their point that people are uber concerned about "their" God.

And then, in a move that stunned the country as a whole, Calgarians witnessed 50 white supremacists marching down the streets on the International Day to End Racism, who then clashed with actual anti-racists protesters. Apparently those ever-clever aryan race asshats have called March 21st "White Pride World Day". Anti-racists advocates didn't like that, so they blocked their way and then riots ensued.

Calgary police are now being criticized for protecting both the white supremacists and the anti-racist demonstrators.

Personally, I don't believe in any violent protesting and I do believe in Freedom of Speech but I also believe that it's really fucking sad when in 2009, Canada has at least 50 people in one city alone who are wanting to march through the streets in support of White Pride.

I love Alberta, I really do, but shit shows like these only act to reinforce the stereotype of Alberta as the Conservative, racist, Bible Belt of Canada.

(For a healthy dose of the Alberta that I love and adore, check out Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying).

In Defense of Barbara

2009-03-18T06:55:00.000-07:00

I was planning on writing a post about Barbie's 50th Anniversary this year and how I call myself a feminist and a major Barbie lover, but it seems that everyone has done this. Which makes me really happy, actually.

I could be sour grapes that other feminist bloggers have stolen my thunder, but the truth is, I'm happy to see that people are engaging in a critical analysis of Barbie.

In a nutshell? I understand that Barbie promotes unrealistic body ideals and that as a skinny, blonde, white girl growing up, I took that for granted. Barbie kinda looked like me, after all. But the truth is that Barbie was and still is in many ways, one of the few toys that didn't require you to mother it. She's not a doll in the typical sense of the word. You didn't feed Barbie, clothe Barbie or change Barbie like she was your child. You acted like you were her. And Barbie had some pretty bitchin' jobs, too. (For proof of how multi-tasking Barbie is, check out the amazing Sarah Haskins' video.)

Barbie was a "grown up" who was mature and not fetishized. She's a healthy way for young girls to see themselves as "older" without being... a Bratz doll. Hell, even the amazing Dora the Explorer got a makeover to look older and more attractive! Not cool. What was wrong with the other Dora?

So to me, the real magic of Barbie is that yes, she was an adult, but she wasn't telling girls to grow up and be an adult too quickly. Bratz et al on the other hand are telling girls that they can be adults now. All they need is to hike that skirt, lower that shirt and load up on the makeup. Barbie on the other hand, let you imagine you really were a Vet who was checking up on Skipper's dog or that you were cruising along the beach with your fancy car and all your lady friends. You were imagining it, after all.

So I say kudos, Barbie. You and your man have created impossible beauty ideals and promoted heterosexism above all else, but your plastic ways have also shown young girls (and boys!) that pretty girls aren't just pretty girls, they can be doctors, pilots, vets and singers, too.

Here's to 50 more years of synthetic tresses and disproportionate torsos!

Laugh of the Day

2009-03-10T09:16:00.000-07:00

Alright ladies, here’s the deal: In case you thought that your liberation was the result of hard work fighting for suffrage, access to education, reproductive justice, or hell, even the right to wear pants, well girl, you are mistaken. Uh huh. According to the Vatican, washing machines are the real heroes in this story.

On International Women’s Day, the Vatican’s main newspaper had an editorial proclaiming that womyn around the world should be hugging their machines because the availability of the automatic washing machine is the number one cause of womyn's liberation. Apparently, it's what saved us. It liberated womyn from the labour of washing laundry which then allowed them to do other things. Like clean dishes, wash floors, fold the damn laundry, do the gardening, cook the meals…

Oh Vatican, keep the laughs a comin’. Honestly. This shit rules my world.

Of course, if you want my opinion, what really set womyn free was “the right to bare arms”. That's what really sealed the deal on our equality.

And the Conservatives Continue with their Classy Ways

2009-03-10T05:48:00.000-07:00

Taken from the March 2nd Question Period in the House of Commons:

Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe, ON, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Women's Day. Unfortunately, in Canada, our celebrations were marred by the regressive actions of this Government when it killed pay equity. Worse, they've insulted Canadian women by telling us that this decision was in our best interests. Mr. Speaker, women are not naive. We're sick of the half truths and we will fight back. Will the Government table any legal opinions that show it has contravened the Charter, and if not, what is this Government hiding?

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board): Well, Mr. Speaker, this Government thought it was wrong that women would have to wait for 15 or 20 years to achieve pay equity in the workforce, and so we brought forward legislation that was, in fact, partly inspired by the Liberal taskforce on this issue in 2004. And, in fact, we, in fact, ensure that … and I know the Member from Beaches got an issue and maybe she can speak later, but she just keeps on whining and whining and yelling, but it's very difficult for me to speak in these kind of circumstances. (FC's Note: Emphasis mine).

Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe, ON, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Minister is so constable sending (FC's Note: I think this is supposed to read as condescending) and we're tired of the sales job. We can see through it, which is with disproportion at alI affected by the recession. Globally, 70% of the poor are women and in wealthy countries like ours, women are the majority of the poor. Women still earn less than men, and as a result, have less to fall back on when times are tough. Killing pay equity is an afront to women's human rights. Can this Government explain by muzzling women was necessary as part of their so-called economic plan? Or are they admit that it's ideologically driven and a swipe at human rights?

Oh the Conservatives; an ever classy bunch.

Cities Contemplate Banning Bottle Water

2009-03-08T13:40:00.000-07:00

... and I say, "It's about damn time!".

The Canadian Federation of Municipalities is toying with the idea of banning the sale of bottled water on municipal properties.

Setting aside the very real fact that there's a water war brewing in this world and that water privatization is scary as hell, the existence of bottled water is killing our environment. Our landfills are filled with the stuff and even if every bottled was recycled, the environmental cost of making those bad boys is outrageous.

And then you throw in the various studies showing that most bottled water is no better than what you get from the tap and personally, I'm left scratching my head.

To me, bottled water is one of the biggest scams in existence. I see it in the same category as "Botox" where our children and their children will look at us and say "WTF were you think?" "You mean, you used to BUY water from a BOTTLE when you could get it from the tap?" And then they'll burst into laughter. Especially if the water wars continue and our children's children will be forced to buy water from a bottle because we'll have sold it all to a handful of corporations.

Treat your water like a commodity to be bought and sold and that's exactly what will happen.

So "Kudos" to those municipalities who decide to follow through on this. There will be tons of pressure from Coke, Pepsi and the like but I'm hoping they stick to their guns.

Drinking bottled water has become a cultural symbol, right up there with drinking from a Starbucks cup. It's a class symbol. But it's also learnt behaviour. And just as society is starting to shift towards carrying around travel mugs for their coffee, the same can be done for water.

This may blow some people's minds, but there are such things as water bottles that you buy and you use over and over and over again. Yup. You buy it once and you keep using it again and again. And you fill it up with whatever you want. I know, it's crazy. But you should try it. All the cool kids do.

Catholic Church = Epic Fail

2009-03-07T15:57:00.000-08:00

"A Vatican cleric is defending a Brazilian archbishop's decision to excommunicate several doctors who performed an abortion last week on a nine-year-old girl who became pregnant with twins after alleged sexual abuse by her step-father.

"It is a sad case, but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated,'' Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told the Italian daily La Stampa." (CBC)

A nine year old girl is sexually assaulted and becomes pregnant. Clearly nobody else was coming to this unfortunate girl's side, so doctors performed an abortion to save her from being a 9 year old mother and the Church decides that the innocent babies were the real victims, so out go the doctors and the girl's MOTHER! Yes, that's right, the girl's mother was also ex-communicated. And just in case you think it's because she was part of the abuse, think again.

As for the incestuous step-father? Well, the bishop "did not excommunicate the step-father, saying the crime he is alleged to have committed, although deplorable, was not as bad as ending a fetus's life.".

We all know that the Catholic Church has a fabulous reputation of protecting pedophiles, but this... this is something else.

I'm not one for sensationalism and although this appears to be a case of extreme sensationalism, I feel it's important for feminists to continuously take a stand against garbage like this. Although this may appear to be an "extreme" example of religious fantaticism, I believe that all acts of violence, and violence against womyn in particular, exist on a continuum.

There really are no words for something as despicable and disgusting as this. Shame on you Vatican; shame on you.

A Not-So Friendly PSA

2009-03-03T05:14:00.000-08:00

FeministCatalyst interrupts to declare that:

The Term Reverse Racism Needs To Die.

Reverse racism's friends (.i.e.: reverse sexism, reverse discrimination) need to die as well. It's either discriminatory or its not. Yes, she understands the "logic" behind this term; that it defines an act of racism that goes against the usual forms of racism.

But the term and its uses make no sense and only serve to further discriminate against those who are actually, you know... discriminated against.

So remember kids, friends don't let friends use this term.

This Public Service Announcement has been brought to you by the letters F and U.

You may now return to your regular scheduled programming.

Story of My Life

2009-02-26T11:17:00.001-08:00

"Women Still Feel Neglected By Car Repair Sector: Survey"

This Canadian survey, financed by Speedy (a car care company!) found that 43% of womyn felt that they received poorer customer service as compared to men.

A similar study, conducted in the US in 2008, found that 90% of womyn reported receiving different treatment in comparison to men.

I am not only a young womyn but I also drive an antique classic car and so I've had people not just short change or over charge me, but flat out charge me for a part that does not exist on my car.

This is just one more aspect of the car industry that needs an overhaul. They need to build cars that people actually want to buy, learn how to spend their money and overhaul their archaic gender stereotyping.

And a bailout won't do shit for that last part.

Ahh, There's Nothing Like A Good Abortion Joke

2009-02-26T07:19:00.000-08:00

I came to the idea of being a blogger, and a feminist one at that, after I found myself commenting like crazy on some of my favourite blogs. And in typical internet form, an article posted somewhere else has echoed across the blogosphere with everyone throwing their 2 cents in.

So here's the background.

An article, originally posted on Nerve.com, is written by an anonymous womyn about her experience of having an abortion. In a nutshell, it didn't shatter her life or dreams and she found that self-identified "liberal" and "progressive" dudes were freaked out by the whole thing.

Then AlterNet took a stab and so did the always amazing Jill from Feministe.

And since you're reading this, it means you at least somewhat care about what homeslice has to say, so here it is.

I think the article is fucking brilliant.

Firstly, this womyn offers a story that resonates so much to my own reality and the reality of people I know and love. I've never had an abortion, I'll start off with that one, but the way in which she reacts to her abortion is something I can relate to. See, her whole "schtick" in the article (and what has right-wing nutjobs so upset) is that she dealt with it humourously. Like any other major event in her life, she chose laughter as her means of dealing. Genuine humour. Although people often use humour as a way to placate the fact that they can't deal with their true feelings of anguish or pain (which I still think is healthy and fine by moi), she honestly chose to laugh the whole thing off.

As someone who cracks jokes at funerals and rarely agrees with it being "too soon" to poke fun, I can get this. I can also, however, understand how humour is often a way to keep one's sanity; that it is easier to laugh at a situation than let the whole thing take its toll.

And yes, as a fetus fetishist, the idea of a womyn having an abortion and then cracking jokes about the irony of getting pregnant on birth control while Bristol Palin fucks with her fingers crossed, this is a slap in the face. "You mean your life wasn't completely destroyed by the murder of an innoncent fetus?" Nope. No it wasn't. Take that "Silent No More".

I think that if I, or anyone else, is to call themselves pro-choice, then they have to be prepared to genuinely, whole heartedly accept how people choose or deal with their choices. Which is the point of her article.

She's calling out people, and in this case men, who march, petition and lobby for a womyn's right to choose but then in the heat of the moment, quiver and judge.

Sure, talking about someone's experience with abortion, especially if it's just kinda dropped into a conversation, can be awkward if you're not sure if the person is heart-broken or laughing it off. However, a true pro-choice stance is one of genuinely allowing womyn to choose not only to terminate a pregnancy but to decide how they will feel about their experience.

Although this article is taken as a stab towards all liberal men, I personally see it as a challenge to all pro-choice labelled people. Lady folks and men folk. Basically that it's one thing to talk the talk of choice but you have to be prepared to walk the walk, too.

And that means allowing womyn to choose whether to view their experience as devastating or as nothing more than physically painful.