Re-thinking 'Misandry'

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.

Dudes and Chicks: What Men Can Gain from Joining Feminism

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’.

Too Many Amazing People for One Day

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.

No Honour in Misogyny

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.

Sexual Assault Awareness Month

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?

Too Many Jerks, Not Enough Time

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.

Trend Alert!

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*

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!

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...

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?

Mark My Words

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.

Is there an Echo in the Building?

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.

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.

And the Conservatives Continue with their Classy Ways

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.

Story of My Life

"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

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.

FC's Centennial

For this badass feminist’s 100th post, I wanted to focus on something positive. When you do this kind of critical work, as I like to believe I do, it’s easy to get caught in the traps of being a Debbie Downer. As an activist, I think it’s important to always be the kid in the back of the room with their hand up, asking the “But what about (insert here)? And what about (insert here)?” This is the stuff that moves us forward.

But at the same time, people get burnt out for a reason. It’s exhausting to constantly be on the negative side of things.

So I was waiting to write a long post about “This is what the F-Word has brought you”. A mash up, colliding both of my favourite words: fuck and feminism. But then, last night, watching the Grammy’s of all things, I came across something that made my feminist heart a flutter.

I saw rap, hip-hop goddess M.I.A, 9 months pregnant rapping on stage at the Grammy’s. (Click for a video of her amazing performance).The song, “Paper Planes” chronicles the (shitty) immigrant experience. As much as it killed me to see her performance last a measly 30 seconds before 4 dudes came out and drowned her out, I promised I wouldn’t focus on the negative.

The positive here is that hip-hop and rap has traditionally been a very male domain. Hyper masculine and straight up macho, in fact. True, country music has been much the same but they at least carved out a niche for “country songbirds”. I mean, this is the genre that has Patsy Cline and Dolly Parton for Pete’s sake!

And although hip hop has had Mary J, Queen Latifah, Salt ‘N Peppa and others, they rarely got the attention those badass womyn deserve(d).

So to see not only a womyn, but a womyn who was nine months pregnant rapping on stage to rival the best of them, I couldn’t help but think “Right on, sister”.

M.I.A was heavily pregnant (due the night of the Grammy’s in fact) and yet undeniably badass in her swagger and demeanor. And so I can’t help but be proud of the years and years of work that feminists have undertaken to forge a place for womyn in a “Man’s World”. The years that feminists have spent proving that womyn (like men) are complex creatures.

And so the day I see a pregnant, refugee, womyn of colour on stage at the Grammy’s, rapping about “nobody got a swagger like us”, I can’t help but think that maybe us feminists are on to something.



(As for this blog in general, thank you to all of you who have continued to comment, compliment and challenge me. Even the Trolls. I appreciate you, too).

Creeps and Cameras

Let us take a break from the chaos and confusion of Canadian politics to shift gears to..

Upskirting.

Ahh, “upskirting”. Which for the uninitiated, is when someone (typically a dude) uses a cellphone camera (or real camera, if they can manage) to take a picture up a womyn’s skirt/dress. Upskirting has become an umbrella term for also taking pictures down someone’s shirt, or just a general picture of their body in a sexual way.

The “key” to quality upskirting is going unnoticed, so these creeps pretend to send a text message or even just keep the thing hidden and snap away while you’re walking up the stairs, sitting on the bus, bending down in a store, etc.

Sounds like fun, doesn’t it? Especially when they post it online for the world to see. Put “upskirt” into Google and you’ll see what I mean. Entire sites dedicated to the stuff.

A recent article in Salon magazine outlines the legal ramifications in the US of A and how the laws, like the pictures themselves, aren’t very clear.

Most places have laws allowing anyone to take a picture of anyone “in public space or domain”. But like the article says, its one thing to take an artistic photo of pedestrians crossing a bridge and it’s another to take a grainy photo of someone’s ass.

Upskirting is a HUGE problem. I know people who do it. I’ve seen people do it and I can guarantee that someone’s done it to me. But how will I ever know? There are millions and millions of these pictures online and I don’t have time to go through them all. And besides, how will I even know if it’s me? And then when I find the pictures, then what?

There are little to no legal ramifications for this type of thing in Canada.

My issue about upskirting goes beyond that, though. Upskirting is like construction-worker-harassment to a whole ‘nother level. When I’m walking down the street and some asshat yells something at me or honks, I see them, I flip them off and I get pissed off.

But in today’s world, womyn are walking around and being monitored 24/7. And often times, have no idea. Foucault is rolling in his damn grave.

The fact that this exists and is such a huge phenomenon is reason number 81789032 for why I’m a feminist. If you needed any more proof that womyn are objectified and commodified, then you’ve got it, Buster.

I’m not saying that dudes don’t experience street harassment or that someone isn’t taking pictures of their asses either. Hey, I’m sure it happens. But the numbers don’t even compare. And so it’s about more than just the fact that North American womyn wear skirts/dresses and men typically don’t. It’s about the fact that time and time again, womyn are viewed as ready for the taking and that if they don't like it, they have to do something about it.

So what do we do? Do we call a moratorium on dresses in the summer? Ban cellphone cameras? As the Salon article outlines, upskirting is such a problem in Asia that all new cellphones have a loud and distinct shutter noise that goes off with each click, to alert people that a picture has been taken. Should this be mandatory for all new phones?

Will anything really solve the problem? I’m sure there are things that can be done but until womyn are seen as human beings with all the rights and responsibilities allocated to you know… human beings, I don't think a whole lot is going to change.

UPDATE: Thanks to MH for the heads-up about this case. It's mentioned in the Salon article above but this article lists the details. I'm giving a major trigger warning to any readers of this article.

Have We Learnt Anything?

Last week, a prominent sociology professor at St-Thomas University in New Brunswick was murdered by what police now believe was his son-in-law. The son-in-law was wanted by police but was found dead by an apparent suicide. This professor, who is a man, was well known at the university and was a respected sociologist, academic and overall human being. A real stand-up guy. His murder is an absolute tragedy and a loss for both his family and the STU community.

Information is now coming out that this professor “feared for the safety of his family” after receiving numerous threats from his then son-in-law. Sources say that the RCMP was warned about these threats, RCMP says they weren’t and so now we’re in a real shitty game of he-said, she-said.

Although the case was considered closed by RCMP, various organizations in New Brunswick and across the country are calling for a public inquiry into his murder. This inquiry would look into police protocol and the steps (or lack of) taken by police in issues of “family” violence.

I think this is amazing. I think there is an absolute dire need for a review of police protocol and I think that it’s about damn time.

BUT… I’m also disheartened by the eagerness of groups who are pushing for a public inquiry. The blogosphere has been abuzz with rumours about this professor’s life and experiences with the police and people are outraged over the lack of security he received. And rightfully so.

But the truth is that these things happen all the time to Canadian womyn. All the time. In fact a womyn's chances of being further assaulted or even killed, spike after a womyn leaves an abusive situation or reports it. And yet these particular cases are swept under the rug and with the exception of certain steadfast, dedicated, hardass feminist groups, are completely ignored.

I can’t help but think that if this sociology professor wasn’t well… a male sociology professor, there'd be a lot less outrage.

Don’t get me wrong.

I’m deeply, deeply sorry for this man’s family and I’m glad to see that his murder was not in vain and will hopefully serve as a catalyst for major change, but I’m sorry to see womyn’s stories once again silenced. Especially this close to December 6th. Have we learnt nothing?

What's it going to take before Canadians are honest about the reality of womyn's lives?

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.