Rape Culture 101

[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.

Kicking the Habit

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...

Is Bruno a No-No?

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?

Today is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

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.

In Defense of Barbara

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!

Actually, God Hates Assholes

You know things are newsworthy when this badass feminist is agreeing with Stockwell Day.

Reason being?

Apparently it wasn’t enough for the Westboro Baptist Church to protest the actual funeral of Matthew Sheppard. For those of you who don’t know, Matthew Sheppard was an American man who was fatally beaten for being gay. The murder was a tragedy and the case now stands as one of the most high profile gay bashings in North American history.

So these rightwing assholes from Kansas decided to protest his funeral because apparently God Hates Fags. That’s their big slogan because you know, Jesus loves hate speech. They got tons of notoriety for that protest and so now they take their caravan of freaks on the road and protest at the world’s most inappropriate times.

(Which brings me back to my discussion of Engage or Ignore).

Well it seems that Libby Davies, NDP MP for Vancouver and Mr. Stockwell Day himself have said enough is enough. See there’s a play based on Matthew Sheppard’s life that is due to show in Vancouver. The God-Hates-Fags crew have decided that they want to cross the border and protest it because well.. they have a real hate-on for Mr. Sheppard it seems.

Libby Davies, rightfully so, says hell no and is fighting with Public Safety to have them turned away at the border as their protests defy Canadian Hate Laws.

As I’ve said before, I am all about people’s freedom of speech. I think that peaceful anti-choicers have a right to exist even if I don’t like it. But these crazy idiots protested a man’s funeral and now want to do this? Hell no, indeed.

This particular event is rather timely considering a new report was released yesterday arguing that Hate Speech should be removed from the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Act. I’m not a legal expert so I can’t quite decipher much about what this will realistically mean, but it’ll be interesting to see how this particular report plays out.

All in all, you know that the Westboro Church is f-u-c-k-e-d u-p when Stockwell Day “I-believe-in-campaigning-at-Sunday-Schools” says back the hell off.

Oh Pope, You've Got To Be Kidding Me

I've said it before and I'll say it again, sometimes the jokes just write themselves. This lovely headline is a perfect example

"Future priests should undergo psychological screening: Vatican"

Paging Captain Obvious!

Naturally, I think anyone who considers a life of priesthood, that is a life of poverty, celibacy and a whole lotta misogyny should be evaluated for mental stability. I mean let's face it, the job description isn't exactly enticing.

So when I first read this headline, I thought "WOOHOO! The Vatican is on to something!" and then I realized, surprise surprise, that they weren't.

You see, these "psychological tests" are the Vaticans response to the multitude of lawsuits they've received because of child sexual abuse. Let's be honest. The stereotype of a child molesting priest came from somewhere. So instead of examining the types of people who want to become priests or changing the rule of strict celibacy, they decide to "test" potential priests.

What exactly are these tests looking for?

In a nutshell, homosexuality. Yes, that's right - homosexuality.

"The Vatican, in a 2005 document, said men with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies shouldn't be ordained, but that those with a "transitory problem" could become priests if they had overcome them for three years. The Vatican considers homosexual activity sinful.

The new guidelines say priests must have a "positive and stable sense of one's masculine identity" and the capacity to "integrate his sexuality in accordance" with the obligation of celibacy."

Translation: They don't want child touching homos.

Which is ironic, you know, because I know lots of gay men and well none of them are child touchers. And every pedophile I have ever known, heard of or dealt with was a self-identified heterosexual man.

And of course, a man in a long dress with a gold hat who lives in a giant castle with a bunch of dudes is really the one to judge. (Cue Margaret Cho)

Naturally, gay rights groups are up arms for the way in which the Vatican is not only continuing their homophobic attitude of being anti-gay but also for conflating pedophilia with homosexuality.

Hey Pope, here's a lesson for you:

Homosexuals are people who are attracted to people of the same sex. They engage in sexual activities with similar, consenting adults. Pedophiles are people who are attracted to and engage in sexual activity with unconsenting children.

Let me just make this clearer for you. I know Pope, you're old and senile so sometimes you need a little extra help.

HOMOSEXUALITY = GOOD
PEDOPHILIA = BAD

Homosexuality and pedophilia DO NOT GO TOGETHER. Kinda like how Catholicism and common sense don't go together.

Get it? Good. Now go back to bed.

**Now I know that this picture is of the Old Pope, but I mean c'mon.. this picture is amazing.

Why I hate Sarah Palin

So I’ve done my best to stay away from American politics because well… that shit is ugly. And complicated. And well, let’s face it, there are a bajillion other blogs out there that tackle it so I figured, why bother?

But this Sarah Palin business has got my La Senza’s in a twist, so I have to add my voice to the mix.

I want to love Palin, I do. She’s a SHE, she’s young, she’s a mother and she’s from freakin’ Alaska. Nobody cares about Alaska! But then, she’s also anti-choice, a homophobe, a creationist and pro-gun. Now I understand being pro-gun and from Alaska; I’m from Northern Ontario after all. I’ve been hunting, I know these things. But you can’t take a pro-gun attitude into the White House. Washington is nobody’s Alaska.

And when the shocking announcement was made that Palin was going to be McCain’s VP, Obama had plenty of opportunity to knock her down a few pegs by bringing up this anti-womyn, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-logic business. But no, he chooses instead to call her to task on having “no experience”.

Paging Obama: Don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.

And now it seems that Palin has a 17 year old daughter that is *gasp* PREGNANT and of course, unmarried. Well this has sent the “journalists” into a frenzy now hasn’t it? Is she a good anti-choicer for having a daughter who kept the baby or is she coveting a slut? (Forgetting of course that this is the same womyn who cut funding to young mothers and who is a creationist and therefore anti-sex education).

I hate talking about Palin’s private life but I suppose that as long as we can cut up McCain’s rehabbing wife and Michelle Obama’s mothering skills, then everything is up for grabs, like it or not.

But of all the Palin talk of late, I could care less about her daughter, and not just because she has a horrible name (Bristol? Really?).

The latest Palin-ism is her speech at the Republican National Convention where she went on a tirade against Obama for having attacked her lack of experience. Admittedly, she had every right to. But the way in which she did it seemed so… childish. A very “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” kind of attitude.

In response to being accused of lacking experience, she took a stab at Obama’s days as an activist. Her exact words

“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Really Palin? Honestly? That’s your response?

I’d give you my response but I will choose instead to let the delicious Jay Smooth to do it for me instead, because I couldn’t have said it better myself.

“The difference between a community organizer and a politician is that community organizers are the ones who take the responsibility upon themselves to help their fellow citizens without the benefit of a government budget behind them.”

Amen.

**Thanks to Feministing for the IllDoctrine heads-up**

Update: This Daily Show clip is a must-see.

Stay Classy, Ottawa

The maturity of Canadian politicians is often less than desirable. (See Exhibit A). Combine the immaturity of politicians with the sexist environment that is North America and you get this lovely little gem.

You get a Liberal Member of Parliament (man) telling a Tory Senator (not a man) "Marjory should go back to making tea for Brian Mulroney and stay out of serious people's business."

Real mature.

Now he has since apologized and even expanded on what he said to note that he wasn't intending to be sexist but merely to point out that Marjory does Mulroney's bidding and acts like his gopher.

In the sexist environment in which we live, I don't buy it. And quite frankly, as a freakin' Member of Parliament, you'd think he'd use grown up words.

But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, since I live in a country where the Prime Minister uses such eloquent metaphors as "[Opposition's Green Plan will] screw everybody across the country."

And we have a Liberal staffer who insisted that "[You] Don't give people $25 a day to blow on beer and popcorn." speaking in reference to Government issued refunds.

And a current Tory with a history of homophobic comments that he so deliciously said on tape because well.. he thinks ahead like that. And when the tape went public, he said he was sorry and kept his job.

Moral of Today's Story: It's okay for politicians to act like total jackasses as long as they end it with a half-ass apology.

Liquor, love and lesbianism

I have a really bizarre fascination with the new "reality" show A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. I'm fascinated for so many reasons. Like why do we care about Tila Tequila first of all? She was a Playboy model who started a MySpace page and quasi-raps. She's immensely popular for reasons unknown. But that's not why I'm so fascinated because let's face it, that's nothing new. Paris Hilton, The Hills, all that junk is a matter of people being famous for nada.

Alright, so in a 3 second description, A Shot at Love is a "reality" show like the Bachelorette, except that Tila is bi-sexual, therefore she's choosing between 12 men and 12 womyn. Like all other "reality" shows, the whole thing is a joke, as they spend a day together between elimination rounds and yet claim to "love" Tila.

Now, I have to give credit where credit is due. This show is pretty progressive, considering GLBTQ people are typically represented in the media in purely stereotypical and over the top manners. (Think Will and Grace and every show with a gay hair dresser/designer) And I have yet to ever see bi-sexual characters represented on mainstream television.

However (and here comes Debbie Downer). This show is a goddamn train wreck - I can't look away. And not just because it's another crappy reality tv shows but it assaults my feminist sensibilities more so than the average show. This show really highlights the blatant homophobia of contemporary North American society. The men on the show constantly refer to the womyn as "he-she" and at one point, they are referred to as having "cock envy". References are constantly made to how they "just need a good man" and they are consistently questioned about whether or not they are really lesbians or bi-sexual, whichever the case may be.

A Shot at Love is a highly popular show. But the truth is that this show would have bombed (assuming it would even make it on the air) if the main person was a man. Imagine if this show was a a bi-sexual man choosing between womyn or men? This would never happen. And if Tila wasn't a "hot" 4'11 former Playboy model, would people want to watch her make out with womyn?

Therefore, in a strange twist, A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila makes a perfect case for the ways in which feminism's goal of gender justice is beneficial to men and womyn. Woulda thunk?!

Not just for Gramma's candy dish

When I think of the colour pink, I think of those round pink mint candies that used to reside in my nanna's crystal candy dish. You know, the ones that taste like Pepto-Bismol? Well now, the colour pink has taken on a whole new meaning for yours truly.

Two male high school students heard about a grade 9 student at their school who got picked on for wearing a pink polo shirt the first day of school. The usual male target insults of "fag" and "pussy" because pink is for the ladies only, don't you know? Not content to stand back and let the homophobic (and misogynistic) insults fly, they decided to take action.

The next day, they showed up with 50 pink shirts and handed them out to students all over the school. They decided to take a stand against bullying and no doubt, the kid who was bullied was overwhelmed at the outcry his abuse was getting.

Alright, this story is the shit on its own. Hello awesome! However, it gets better because the story has caught on and schools all over are having "Pink Days". And I mean, let's face it, it's a brilliant idea. It's cheap, easy and something that doesn't require much work or resources. One simple action creates a ripple effect and sets a tone for bullies out there.

Of course the cynic in me is bitter that there's no direct gender component to this activism and no challenge to the idea of pink = womyn = bad, but baby steps I say, baby steps.

And here you were, thinking I was Debbie Downer who always focused on the negative. *tisk* *tisk* I say.