So you're an activist. Now what?

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.

Things You Should Know About Canadians

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.

Apples Meet Oranges

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.

Snot Rags and Stereotypes

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.

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

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

Looks like Quebec has jumped on the bandwagon, too.

Smoking Out Big Tobacco

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.

REAL Sexual Assault Prevention Tips

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

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

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

Kids, Cars and Drive-Thrus

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"

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.

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

I am one pissed off Carleton University graduate.

Muckraking in the Name of Ovaries

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?

GG: 100 Years of Keeping It Real

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.

Because You Don't Win Friends With Salad

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?

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.

Misdirected Anger

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.

As You Should Be

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.