I haven't updated since October?! My bad!
As a support worker for survivors of sexual violence, a feminist academic and a friend to many womyn (and therefore, survivors!), I find myself having the same conversations over and over.
[TRIGGER WARNING for discussions of sexual assault... obviously.]
So here it is.
I wish people understood that women who've been sexually assaulted:
1- Are not fabergé eggs: Womyn who've been sexually assaulted are not inherently fragile and ready to break(down) at any minute. Of course, the time when they start to heal is not an ideal time and they're probably not feeling their best. But if at least 1 in 4 womyn will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime and humankind has existed for centuries and centuries, clearly womyn have found ways to cope and continue living their lives.
It's problematic at best and sexist at its worse to assume that womyn who've been sexually assaulted are forever 'broken' and should therefore be treated like children.
2- Are not going to react in the ways you expect or hope: The amount of people who've told me that their disclosure of sexual assault was dismissed because they didn't 'act like someone who has just been assaulted' is downright depressing. When someone is assaulted, they might pull a CSI victim and break down in tears, they might bury it deep and deny it, they might speak about it non-stop, they might never speak of it again. They might abstain from all sexual activity, they might sleep with anything that moves, they might quit their job or go back to work the next day. They might drink/smoke it away, they might become macrobiotic vegans.
It is absolutely absurd that we throw out all logic about the uniqueness of people when it comes to sexual assault responses.
3- Owe you absolutely nothing: Just because I've told you about my experience of trauma, that doesn't mean that I now owe you every detail of my assault(s), every detail of my therapy session, etc. To pry for more information is both inappropriate and fucking creepy.
4- Want their power back: Sexual assault is not about sex; it's about power. To assume that men sexually assault because they can't control their sexual urges it not only illogical but also offensive to men.
And so when someone is sexually assaulted, they are dealing with the fact that their power, bodily integrity and agency have been violated. And so telling them what they need to do and insisting you know what's best is not only annoying but also contributing to their disempowerment. If I've learned anything in my years as a support worker, it's that the vast majority of womyn who've been sexually assaulted and who seek out help are looking for validation, resources and the space to vent. They know what's best for them and the course of action they should take, they just want you to validate their choices and provide them with any necessary resource information.
5- Don't need your judgment: They don't need you to question why they accepted a ride with that guy, why they dressed that way, why they drank so much, why they went back to him, why they didn't report, why they did report, why they waited weeks to tell you, why they didn't self-defense classes, why they didn't leave the party, why they invited him inside their apartment, etc.
Womyn who've been sexually assaulted don't need your judgment: Society is doing that part just fine, thanks.
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexism. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Friday, August 26, 2011
Why we need to care about DSK's charges being dropped
TRIGGER WARNING: This post discusses sexual assault in concrete and theoretical ways.
I recognize that I've been an incredibly lazy blogger as of late. I apologize about that. I've been extremely busy.
And then beloved Jack Layton died and I've been reeling.
But one thing that's gotten be riled up as of late is the entire case of DSK.
Unless you have the pleasure of living under a rock, you've heard about Dominique Straus-Kahn. Even my last blog post was about the joy of being famous, referring in part to DSK's treatment even though he face(d) serious charges of sexual assault.
Since that last post, the victim in this whole story as come forward. We now know her Nafissatou Diallo, an immigrant womyn of colour who is also a single mother and chambermaid in a New York hotel. She came forward and told her story.
She says that she walked in to clean DSK's room and found him partially undressed/exposing himself. She apologized, he told her she didn't have to and then sexually assaulted her.
DSK has since done what most men do in those situations do: Claimed it was consensual.
It was recently announced that all charges against DSK in the United States have been dropped because of inconsistencies on the part of Ms. Diallo. He will however go on to face similar charges in France for a sexual assault that he committed against a journalist there. Or rather, is "alleged" to have committed.
And that's where I start feeling a little.... stabby.
As an outspoken advocate against sexual violence and as someone who works as a front-line, support worker, Ms. Diallo's story is all to damn common.
On the one hand, you have a poor, single mother who also happens to be an immigrant of colour. On the other, you have a rich, powerful and 'important' man. In many circumstances, people like DSK would deny having any 'sexual relations with that womyn' (Sound familiar?) But in this case, like in Clinton's case, once you get to the point where all evidence leads to some sexual contact, then they play the 'Cried rape' card.
"It was entirely consensual!" they say "It makes total sense that a womyn who makes barely over minimum wage in a precarious job would risk it all to bone me, even though it was not until she saw my face on TV that she knew I was famous. And even though I'm a married rich powerful man, it makes total sense that she would just walk into my room and say 'I WANT TO SUCK YOUR COCK' and then go home. Yup that makes perfect sense".
Let's not kid ourselves folks. That is exactly what DSK is saying. I'm just doing you the favour of sparing you the BS elements of it.
Meanwhile, DSK's wife diligently stands by his side, even though at best, he had oral sex with a complete stranger in a hotel room and at worst, he sexually assaulted her.
"But! But! He should still be in the running for France's President and we should definitely be supporting him, because 'bitches be lyin'."
This narrative happens over and over and over. And then we wonder why 8 womyn a day are sexually assaulted in Ottawa and only 1 reports it to the police. (Source: OCTEVAW)
Because it doesn't matter if you're white, of colour, rich, poor, able bodied, disAbled, queer, straight, etc. It doesn't even really matter if he is either. (Although that's not always the case, particularly around men of colour, queer men and men with disAbilities or mental illnesses, but that's a whole other story).
It doesn't matter what the circumstances are because 'bitches by lying' and 'men getting framed'. ALL THE TIME.
And so in this case, you have a womyn saying she was sexually assaulted by a complete stranger. She got a high powered lawyer, had a publicity machine and she STILL wasn't believed. So do you think that someone who was assaulted by their partner/coach/professor/parent is going to be believed? What if that person was intoxicated? Good luck with that.
Nobody knows for sure what happened except for Ms. Diallo and DSK. Let me clear about that. I cannot prove that she was sexually assaulted just like I can't prove that he didn't. What I can say is that the way in which we talk about this case says a great deal about the culture we live in and the way we treat survivors.
Language is important. I wish I was half as eloquent as fabulous anti-violence advocate Jackson Katz but since I am not, I will let him say it for me "Every time we call [Ms. Diallo] an accuser, we undermine her credibility and bolster [DSK's]". AMEN.
I know that personally, I use the term 'survivor' but I know that's not legally appropriate or universal. I use the term 'survivor' for very political reasons, but also because it's what people who've been sexually assaulted have asked me to refer to them as. So I listen. But I know that we can't all use that term and that's fine.
But in this case, I'll take victim 100x before 'accuser'. Using the term 'accuser' in the case of DSK is the equivalent of the time the New York Post called her a 'hooker', even though they had absolutely no proof she was a sex worker. (Newsflash: She isn't).
Why is that we insist that DSK is innocent until proven guilty but Ms. Diallo? "Oh clearly she's a lying, money grubbing prostitute who is accusing him of a crime he didn't commit!"
Yes, in strictly legal terms, he is accused of a crime by Ms. Diallo and that makes Ms. Diallo the accuser. I understand this. But let's not pretend that legally, socially or otherwise, we treat sexual assault as we do other crimes. We just don't. When people say they've been robbed and have 'proof' that their items are stolen, do we say 'The supposed victim of a robbery'? No, we don't. Even though people make up that their items were stolen, their houses were burnt down, their cars were jacked, etc. So if we treat the accused of sexual assault with kid gloves, why don't we do the same for the 'victims' of sexual assault?
All in all, the DSK case leaves me feeling sad.
There are no winners here. Well, except for the patriarchy, of course. In this case, the patriarchy keeps on marchin' on.
I recognize that I've been an incredibly lazy blogger as of late. I apologize about that. I've been extremely busy.
And then beloved Jack Layton died and I've been reeling.
But one thing that's gotten be riled up as of late is the entire case of DSK.
Unless you have the pleasure of living under a rock, you've heard about Dominique Straus-Kahn. Even my last blog post was about the joy of being famous, referring in part to DSK's treatment even though he face(d) serious charges of sexual assault.
Since that last post, the victim in this whole story as come forward. We now know her Nafissatou Diallo, an immigrant womyn of colour who is also a single mother and chambermaid in a New York hotel. She came forward and told her story.
She says that she walked in to clean DSK's room and found him partially undressed/exposing himself. She apologized, he told her she didn't have to and then sexually assaulted her.
DSK has since done what most men do in those situations do: Claimed it was consensual.
It was recently announced that all charges against DSK in the United States have been dropped because of inconsistencies on the part of Ms. Diallo. He will however go on to face similar charges in France for a sexual assault that he committed against a journalist there. Or rather, is "alleged" to have committed.
And that's where I start feeling a little.... stabby.
As an outspoken advocate against sexual violence and as someone who works as a front-line, support worker, Ms. Diallo's story is all to damn common.
On the one hand, you have a poor, single mother who also happens to be an immigrant of colour. On the other, you have a rich, powerful and 'important' man. In many circumstances, people like DSK would deny having any 'sexual relations with that womyn' (Sound familiar?) But in this case, like in Clinton's case, once you get to the point where all evidence leads to some sexual contact, then they play the 'Cried rape' card.
"It was entirely consensual!" they say "It makes total sense that a womyn who makes barely over minimum wage in a precarious job would risk it all to bone me, even though it was not until she saw my face on TV that she knew I was famous. And even though I'm a married rich powerful man, it makes total sense that she would just walk into my room and say 'I WANT TO SUCK YOUR COCK' and then go home. Yup that makes perfect sense".
Let's not kid ourselves folks. That is exactly what DSK is saying. I'm just doing you the favour of sparing you the BS elements of it.
Meanwhile, DSK's wife diligently stands by his side, even though at best, he had oral sex with a complete stranger in a hotel room and at worst, he sexually assaulted her.
"But! But! He should still be in the running for France's President and we should definitely be supporting him, because 'bitches be lyin'."
This narrative happens over and over and over. And then we wonder why 8 womyn a day are sexually assaulted in Ottawa and only 1 reports it to the police. (Source: OCTEVAW)
Because it doesn't matter if you're white, of colour, rich, poor, able bodied, disAbled, queer, straight, etc. It doesn't even really matter if he is either. (Although that's not always the case, particularly around men of colour, queer men and men with disAbilities or mental illnesses, but that's a whole other story).
It doesn't matter what the circumstances are because 'bitches by lying' and 'men getting framed'. ALL THE TIME.
And so in this case, you have a womyn saying she was sexually assaulted by a complete stranger. She got a high powered lawyer, had a publicity machine and she STILL wasn't believed. So do you think that someone who was assaulted by their partner/coach/professor/parent is going to be believed? What if that person was intoxicated? Good luck with that.
Nobody knows for sure what happened except for Ms. Diallo and DSK. Let me clear about that. I cannot prove that she was sexually assaulted just like I can't prove that he didn't. What I can say is that the way in which we talk about this case says a great deal about the culture we live in and the way we treat survivors.
Language is important. I wish I was half as eloquent as fabulous anti-violence advocate Jackson Katz but since I am not, I will let him say it for me "Every time we call [Ms. Diallo] an accuser, we undermine her credibility and bolster [DSK's]". AMEN.
I know that personally, I use the term 'survivor' but I know that's not legally appropriate or universal. I use the term 'survivor' for very political reasons, but also because it's what people who've been sexually assaulted have asked me to refer to them as. So I listen. But I know that we can't all use that term and that's fine.
But in this case, I'll take victim 100x before 'accuser'. Using the term 'accuser' in the case of DSK is the equivalent of the time the New York Post called her a 'hooker', even though they had absolutely no proof she was a sex worker. (Newsflash: She isn't).
Why is that we insist that DSK is innocent until proven guilty but Ms. Diallo? "Oh clearly she's a lying, money grubbing prostitute who is accusing him of a crime he didn't commit!"
The double standard is so blatantly obvious that it's shocking how rarely it is mentioned.
Yes, in strictly legal terms, he is accused of a crime by Ms. Diallo and that makes Ms. Diallo the accuser. I understand this. But let's not pretend that legally, socially or otherwise, we treat sexual assault as we do other crimes. We just don't. When people say they've been robbed and have 'proof' that their items are stolen, do we say 'The supposed victim of a robbery'? No, we don't. Even though people make up that their items were stolen, their houses were burnt down, their cars were jacked, etc. So if we treat the accused of sexual assault with kid gloves, why don't we do the same for the 'victims' of sexual assault?
All in all, the DSK case leaves me feeling sad.
There are no winners here. Well, except for the patriarchy, of course. In this case, the patriarchy keeps on marchin' on.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Ahh, to be famous...
**Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault, rape and victim blaming**
What do the President of the IMF, the former Governor of California, an information 'freedom fighter' and a Hollywood Director have in common? Why, sexual assault of course!
I know what you're thinking. "No, no Ms. FC, you mean sexual assault accusations." Ahh yes, pardon me! Rape accusations thrown at famous men because womyn are opportunistic whores. Ahh yes, my bad.
So the President of the IMF, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) has been arrested on charges of at least 1 sexual assault of a hotel room cleaning staff. He's also been accused of sexually assaulting at least 1 journalist a few years ago. In fact, Mr. DSK was known as being quite the 'charmer'.
Then you've got the Governator himself who is not only filing for divorce from his Democratic wife Maria Shriver over allegations of cheating (and fathering a 'love child'), he also has a well documented history of being well... grabby.
Julian Assange was accused of sexually assaulting two womyn, but we all know that didn't happen because he's a lefty who wants to take down the greedy government, so it's clearly all just a big old conspiracy to take him down.
And Roman Polanski? Look dude might have anally raped a young girl that he had plied with drugs, but her mom shouldn't have let her come over anyway and it was such a long time ago. Plus, have you seen Chinatown? Cinematic gold!
FYI - This list fails to include athletes, although we could easily talk about Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, and Check-Out-Photos-Of-My-Dick Brett Favre.
See, when it comes to sexual assault, you're pretty much off the hook to begin with, but if you happen to be famous? You're in the clear, my dear!
Every time these 'scandals' come out, we hear the same victim-blaming bullshit, we have other 'celebrities' coming out to 'support them' and we have this whole conspiracy theory machine that states that they're being unfairly scrutinized because they're rich and famous.
To which I say - so what?
Why are we appalled that Paris Hilton only spent a few days in jail for drinking and driving but we're downright infuriated that DSK's case is being investigated at all?
Sexual assault, unlike most crimes, is rife with stereotypes. There are stereotypes around who commits sexual assault, who is actually sexually assaulted, who 'cries rape', etc.
According to the myths, who commits sexual assaults? Well, old men with mental illnesses, of course! They are always strangers to the victim in question, have some sort of sick sexual fetish and in many cases are a person of colour/Queer/disAbled, etc.
Does that mean that never fits the profile? Absolutely not. But the % of people who sexually assault who fit this very narrow and specific profile is slim.
And because we continue to perpetuate this same sadistic bullshit, we are equally appalled by the profile of the rapist as we are by the crimes themselves.
Need I remind you of Colonel Russell Williams? People were SHOCKED that a decorated Colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces committed such heinous crimes and yet, it makes perfect sense. Here is a man with ample amounts of power who leads a secretive life where people who know him fully understand that they don't really know him. Not to mention how he was trained to do just that.
And because we continue to perpetuate the stereotype of who is a rapist we continue to victim blame those who are assaulted by someone who doesn't 'fit the profile', because we just don't believe someone like them could do something like that.
Newsflash, skeptics: Rapists come in every size and flavour. They are decorated military colonels, actors, directors, governors, weight lifters, city councillors, janitors, fathers, sons, cousins, colleagues and people of every background, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, ability and sexual orientation.
Maybe we don't want to believe this because it's too scary to think about. Maybe we want to believe that rapists are easy to spot so that we can sleep better at night, knowing that our radar is on the right people. But this isn't helping anybody.
This mentality is blaming womyn unnecessarily, it's framing men of colour/queer men/ disAbled men/ poor men as sexual predators and it's allowing rich, entitled, privileged piece of shit dudes walk away, consequence free.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world in which we let people get away with sexual assault just because they wear a nice suit and have cushy bank accounts. I gotta believe that we are better than this.
** I'm willfully interchanging the words sexual assault and rape here just for the sake of being concise **
What do the President of the IMF, the former Governor of California, an information 'freedom fighter' and a Hollywood Director have in common? Why, sexual assault of course!
I know what you're thinking. "No, no Ms. FC, you mean sexual assault accusations." Ahh yes, pardon me! Rape accusations thrown at famous men because womyn are opportunistic whores. Ahh yes, my bad.
So the President of the IMF, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) has been arrested on charges of at least 1 sexual assault of a hotel room cleaning staff. He's also been accused of sexually assaulting at least 1 journalist a few years ago. In fact, Mr. DSK was known as being quite the 'charmer'.
Then you've got the Governator himself who is not only filing for divorce from his Democratic wife Maria Shriver over allegations of cheating (and fathering a 'love child'), he also has a well documented history of being well... grabby.
Julian Assange was accused of sexually assaulting two womyn, but we all know that didn't happen because he's a lefty who wants to take down the greedy government, so it's clearly all just a big old conspiracy to take him down.
And Roman Polanski? Look dude might have anally raped a young girl that he had plied with drugs, but her mom shouldn't have let her come over anyway and it was such a long time ago. Plus, have you seen Chinatown? Cinematic gold!
FYI - This list fails to include athletes, although we could easily talk about Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, and Check-Out-Photos-Of-My-Dick Brett Favre.
See, when it comes to sexual assault, you're pretty much off the hook to begin with, but if you happen to be famous? You're in the clear, my dear!
Every time these 'scandals' come out, we hear the same victim-blaming bullshit, we have other 'celebrities' coming out to 'support them' and we have this whole conspiracy theory machine that states that they're being unfairly scrutinized because they're rich and famous.
To which I say - so what?
Why are we appalled that Paris Hilton only spent a few days in jail for drinking and driving but we're downright infuriated that DSK's case is being investigated at all?
Sexual assault, unlike most crimes, is rife with stereotypes. There are stereotypes around who commits sexual assault, who is actually sexually assaulted, who 'cries rape', etc.
According to the myths, who commits sexual assaults? Well, old men with mental illnesses, of course! They are always strangers to the victim in question, have some sort of sick sexual fetish and in many cases are a person of colour/Queer/disAbled, etc.
Does that mean that never fits the profile? Absolutely not. But the % of people who sexually assault who fit this very narrow and specific profile is slim.
And because we continue to perpetuate this same sadistic bullshit, we are equally appalled by the profile of the rapist as we are by the crimes themselves.
Need I remind you of Colonel Russell Williams? People were SHOCKED that a decorated Colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces committed such heinous crimes and yet, it makes perfect sense. Here is a man with ample amounts of power who leads a secretive life where people who know him fully understand that they don't really know him. Not to mention how he was trained to do just that.
And because we continue to perpetuate the stereotype of who is a rapist we continue to victim blame those who are assaulted by someone who doesn't 'fit the profile', because we just don't believe someone like them could do something like that.
Newsflash, skeptics: Rapists come in every size and flavour. They are decorated military colonels, actors, directors, governors, weight lifters, city councillors, janitors, fathers, sons, cousins, colleagues and people of every background, ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, ability and sexual orientation.
Maybe we don't want to believe this because it's too scary to think about. Maybe we want to believe that rapists are easy to spot so that we can sleep better at night, knowing that our radar is on the right people. But this isn't helping anybody.
This mentality is blaming womyn unnecessarily, it's framing men of colour/queer men/ disAbled men/ poor men as sexual predators and it's allowing rich, entitled, privileged piece of shit dudes walk away, consequence free.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world in which we let people get away with sexual assault just because they wear a nice suit and have cushy bank accounts. I gotta believe that we are better than this.
** I'm willfully interchanging the words sexual assault and rape here just for the sake of being concise **
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
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’.
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’.
Monday, March 21, 2011
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 21st 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.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
'Balled of the Female Promoter'
So Jezebel has an article about the situation of womyn who are working to promote their work. Check it out.
This article means a great deal to me because I'm currently in this battle. To be a successful professional, you need to 'sell yourself' and learn to self-promote. But apparently, to be a 'good' feminist, doing that means you're in it for the wrong reasons, egotistical and other evil things.
How do we ensure that our issues get brought to the fore and are discussed in the mainstream when doing so puts us at risk of losing our 'cred' in the feminist bubble?
Do we honestly think that men outside social justice circles go through the same dilemna?
This whole thing feels so gendered to me; it's like womyn have to be meak and downplay themselves or else they're not 'good' womyn. So my initial thoughts are a giant middle finger to the feminist haters for internalizing sexism in that way. But then I can't ignore the way that Jessica Valenti, for example, has been treated. Is she perfect? No way. But the pros of her work far outweight the cons, in my book. And yet, she's been ripped apart by feminists (not to mention the all around misogynist bullshit she's had to deal with). Being shat on by people in your 'circle' is tougher than any anti-womyn BS. So it's not as easy as saying "Ignore the feminist haters" and moving on. There's gotta be some reconciling.
So how do we support feminists and bring their work to the maintsream (which in my opinion, is the only way we'll ever make change) without falling into the traps of questioning everyone's intentions all the time?
Particularly when you add in the extra layer that you may not call yourself a leader, but they'll make a leader out of you. The media, the average Joe-The-Plummer kinda person, wants to see leaders. So even if you insist a hundred times over that you're part of something bigger, you're just one of the pack, etc. they'll paint you as THE person because it makes an easier narrative.
So do you say "I don't want to be part of this at all" and lose the opportunity to have the work be exposed or do you embrace the label and the backlash that comes with it, knowing that at least the work was discussed?
Thoughts?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
"My Mic Sounds Nice"
As someone who grew up listening to a whole lotta music and who was always searching for a female artist to relate to, I am lovin' this BET documentary on female MCs in hip hop.
The whole thing is available online and I totally recommend it.
The whole thing is available online and I totally recommend it.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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, 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.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
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)
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.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Oh Canada, Our Home On Native Land
And apparently, the land of the free... or something.
Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the opening of the "Truth and Reconciliation" talks in regards to Indian Residential Schools. (Also, a little reality check on that one as well: We have more First Nations children in care today than we ever did in residential schools. So the idea that it's over and done with, let's-just-do-these-talks-and-then-move-on-from-the-issue is bullshit).
Then we have a father and son who have finally pled guilty to murdering Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old from Mississauga who was rebelling against her family's stronghold. It's been called 'an honour killing'; a term that is contested by both feminists and non-feminists alike.
Just this past week, another young womyn was attacked by her family, this time her mother, for a so-called shaming of the family's honour. Thankfully, the womyn in this case will survive her injuries.
Oh and we're apparently jumping on the bandwagon of hating on people who call out Israel. Apparently calling out violence against Palestine means you're 'anti-semitic'. NDP MP Libby Davies called out the very obvious fact that criticizing Israel is not something that is done by Canada's Parliament and that many people who support Palestine are silenced or threatened. In saying this, what's happened to ole Davies? She's being threatened.
Where the fuck has Canada gone and what the hell is replacing it?
Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the opening of the "Truth and Reconciliation" talks in regards to Indian Residential Schools. (Also, a little reality check on that one as well: We have more First Nations children in care today than we ever did in residential schools. So the idea that it's over and done with, let's-just-do-these-talks-and-then-move-on-from-the-issue is bullshit).
Then we have a father and son who have finally pled guilty to murdering Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old from Mississauga who was rebelling against her family's stronghold. It's been called 'an honour killing'; a term that is contested by both feminists and non-feminists alike.
Just this past week, another young womyn was attacked by her family, this time her mother, for a so-called shaming of the family's honour. Thankfully, the womyn in this case will survive her injuries.
Oh and we're apparently jumping on the bandwagon of hating on people who call out Israel. Apparently calling out violence against Palestine means you're 'anti-semitic'. NDP MP Libby Davies called out the very obvious fact that criticizing Israel is not something that is done by Canada's Parliament and that many people who support Palestine are silenced or threatened. In saying this, what's happened to ole Davies? She's being threatened.
Where the fuck has Canada gone and what the hell is replacing it?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
The Good: "Africville Apology Coming"
Residents of a black diaspora/suburb in Nova Scotia were kicked out of their neighbourhood in the 60s under the pretense of building a bridge. In reality, it was systemic racism aimed at "cleaning up" Halifax. Congratulations to the former residents of Africville on your victory!
The Bad: "Women Lose Ground in Push for Equality: Report"
Anyone who has been paying any attention didn't need this report to confirm that womyn have been sliding backwards in Canada since the Conservatives got into power. (Although the Liberals have been no better...)
Do yourself a favour: Do not read the comments on that article. In 24 hours online, it has over 500 comments and the vast majority prove what this report is saying: womyn have a long way to go.
The Ugly: "Woman Who Traded Kids for Pet Bird Sentenced"
That's just fucked.
Residents of a black diaspora/suburb in Nova Scotia were kicked out of their neighbourhood in the 60s under the pretense of building a bridge. In reality, it was systemic racism aimed at "cleaning up" Halifax. Congratulations to the former residents of Africville on your victory!
The Bad: "Women Lose Ground in Push for Equality: Report"
Anyone who has been paying any attention didn't need this report to confirm that womyn have been sliding backwards in Canada since the Conservatives got into power. (Although the Liberals have been no better...)
Do yourself a favour: Do not read the comments on that article. In 24 hours online, it has over 500 comments and the vast majority prove what this report is saying: womyn have a long way to go.
The Ugly: "Woman Who Traded Kids for Pet Bird Sentenced"
That's just fucked.
Friday, February 5, 2010
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*
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*
Thursday, January 14, 2010
An Open Letter to Online Commentators Everywhere
Dear Readers of Online News Articles,
Shut the fuck up. No, seriously.
Now in case this takes you by surprise, please, let me explain.
Online commentators used to be a rare breed; oh how I long for those days. Recently, online news portals have decided that they are going to “bring it to the people” and allow any asshole and their neighbour to comment on such things as an earthquake in Haiti, a white collar crime case or the Montreal Massacre.
In theory, this could be a great way to give people a voice. Let’s be honest; whether people comment or not, they typically have some sort of opinion on the matter. So why not share w/ the world, open up discussion and…. That’s where it falls apart.
Dimwits, like yourself Mr. “Canuck-for-a-buck” or “NeoConfromPEI” make ridiculously sexist, racist, xenophobic, classist, etc etc etc remarks under the anonymous guise of the internet identity. You’re not interested in having a discussion. Nope, you’re interested in flaming the shit out of the situation and/or offloading your years of intolerance on the World Wide Web.
Instead of being an intelligent human being who thinks things through, you shoot from the hip, like the Maverick that you are and give us gems like “The Liberals are behind this, AS USUAL” or “I say lock ‘em up and throw away the key” or my favourite “Deport their asses!” Ahh, from the mouths of babes.
Take December 6th, for example. It’s the National Day of Action and Remembrance for Violence against Womyn. Pretty significant day. This past year marked the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre and as usual, right-wing asshole “journalists” laid down editorial after editorial blasting “feminists” for exploiting “one day into a tirade against all men”. Because apparently, Marc Lepine is one insane asshole and every other misogynist is a stand-up guy.
This year, you online commentators took it to another level and brought 21st century Islamaphobia into the picture. How delightful! Now, I obviously blame the journalists in question who fail to put 2 and 2 together and actually understand the gravity of violence against womyn, but that’s another story. Today, my friend, is about you. You and your incessant douchebaggery.
Apparently Marc Lepine was not a product of an environment and culture that condoned violence against womyn. Even though he left a note explaining in detail how he hated feminists and how he was conducting the massacre in order to seek revenge on the womyn who had apparently “stolen his position” at the school, this isn’t good enough for the online commentators of the world. Nope, apparently Marc Lepine did was he did because he was a Muslim.
News to me.
Oh and I would link to your fabulous comments but truthfully, I don’t want to draw more attention to them and hey, you don’t need evidence to make your points so I guess I don’t either.
To conclude, online hate mongers, please consider one of two things. First, enroll in some sort of educational program, whether formal or informal and educate yourselves about the ways of the world. Find out about the history of the conflict in the Middle East, systemic discrimination in Canada (Yes, in Canada), find out how the political system works, read some Canadian history. Hell, just read a fucking book. (Non-fiction, please).
Or two, get off the news sites and get back to World of Warcraft. Your hobbits surely miss you.
Sincerely,
- Feminist Catalyst
Shut the fuck up. No, seriously.
Now in case this takes you by surprise, please, let me explain.
Online commentators used to be a rare breed; oh how I long for those days. Recently, online news portals have decided that they are going to “bring it to the people” and allow any asshole and their neighbour to comment on such things as an earthquake in Haiti, a white collar crime case or the Montreal Massacre.
In theory, this could be a great way to give people a voice. Let’s be honest; whether people comment or not, they typically have some sort of opinion on the matter. So why not share w/ the world, open up discussion and…. That’s where it falls apart.
Dimwits, like yourself Mr. “Canuck-for-a-buck” or “NeoConfromPEI” make ridiculously sexist, racist, xenophobic, classist, etc etc etc remarks under the anonymous guise of the internet identity. You’re not interested in having a discussion. Nope, you’re interested in flaming the shit out of the situation and/or offloading your years of intolerance on the World Wide Web.
Instead of being an intelligent human being who thinks things through, you shoot from the hip, like the Maverick that you are and give us gems like “The Liberals are behind this, AS USUAL” or “I say lock ‘em up and throw away the key” or my favourite “Deport their asses!” Ahh, from the mouths of babes.
Take December 6th, for example. It’s the National Day of Action and Remembrance for Violence against Womyn. Pretty significant day. This past year marked the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Massacre and as usual, right-wing asshole “journalists” laid down editorial after editorial blasting “feminists” for exploiting “one day into a tirade against all men”. Because apparently, Marc Lepine is one insane asshole and every other misogynist is a stand-up guy.
This year, you online commentators took it to another level and brought 21st century Islamaphobia into the picture. How delightful! Now, I obviously blame the journalists in question who fail to put 2 and 2 together and actually understand the gravity of violence against womyn, but that’s another story. Today, my friend, is about you. You and your incessant douchebaggery.
Apparently Marc Lepine was not a product of an environment and culture that condoned violence against womyn. Even though he left a note explaining in detail how he hated feminists and how he was conducting the massacre in order to seek revenge on the womyn who had apparently “stolen his position” at the school, this isn’t good enough for the online commentators of the world. Nope, apparently Marc Lepine did was he did because he was a Muslim.
News to me.
Oh and I would link to your fabulous comments but truthfully, I don’t want to draw more attention to them and hey, you don’t need evidence to make your points so I guess I don’t either.
To conclude, online hate mongers, please consider one of two things. First, enroll in some sort of educational program, whether formal or informal and educate yourselves about the ways of the world. Find out about the history of the conflict in the Middle East, systemic discrimination in Canada (Yes, in Canada), find out how the political system works, read some Canadian history. Hell, just read a fucking book. (Non-fiction, please).
Or two, get off the news sites and get back to World of Warcraft. Your hobbits surely miss you.
Sincerely,
- Feminist Catalyst
Thursday, November 26, 2009
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.
_______
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.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Female Ski Jumpers vs. The IOC
So I've already hashed out on here my opinions regarding the Olympics. But I will say again that I want to believe in the Olympics because having been an athlete most of my life and coming from an athletic family, I really do believe that sport has the ability to bring people together.
As a feminist, I've also seen the way girls/womyn getting into sport helps them build self-esteem, often (but not always) improve their self-image and learn life skills like how to be a team player, sharing and the importance of losing as much as winning. Important stuff.
And so even though I have mixed emotions about the Olympics, I've got very strong feelings about the International Olympic Committee shutting out female ski jumpers. Apparently, so does the BC Court who have actually stated that the IOC's decision to not allow female ski jumpers is discrimination however it is not within the jurisdiction of the BC Courts to change the IOC's position.
So Canada will be hosting Olympics that they know full well and have admitted go against its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and yet, the show must go on. Keeping in mind of course that the Olympics are being held on stolen Native land, but that's another story completely (according to the Press).
I call bullshit on the whole thing. The female ski jumpers have shot down all "reasonable arguments" for their exclusion and they're still not allowed to compete. Oh and I also call bullshit on the language being used in so many of the articles on this. Just as I think ski jumper Lindsay Van was out of line for comparing the International Olympic Committee to the "Taliban of the Olympics", I'm also sick and tired of people referring to adult womyn as "girls" and "ladies".
As a feminist, I've also seen the way girls/womyn getting into sport helps them build self-esteem, often (but not always) improve their self-image and learn life skills like how to be a team player, sharing and the importance of losing as much as winning. Important stuff.
And so even though I have mixed emotions about the Olympics, I've got very strong feelings about the International Olympic Committee shutting out female ski jumpers. Apparently, so does the BC Court who have actually stated that the IOC's decision to not allow female ski jumpers is discrimination however it is not within the jurisdiction of the BC Courts to change the IOC's position.
So Canada will be hosting Olympics that they know full well and have admitted go against its Charter of Rights and Freedoms and yet, the show must go on. Keeping in mind of course that the Olympics are being held on stolen Native land, but that's another story completely (according to the Press).
I call bullshit on the whole thing. The female ski jumpers have shot down all "reasonable arguments" for their exclusion and they're still not allowed to compete. Oh and I also call bullshit on the language being used in so many of the articles on this. Just as I think ski jumper Lindsay Van was out of line for comparing the International Olympic Committee to the "Taliban of the Olympics", I'm also sick and tired of people referring to adult womyn as "girls" and "ladies".
Saturday, October 24, 2009
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!
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!
Monday, September 14, 2009
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...
Friday, September 11, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
