Read this if you still fail to understand the power of feminist blogging.
Oh and, this if you're one of those assholes who believes the brouhaha about 'slutty' Halloween costumes.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Monday, October 31, 2011
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.
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?
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.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Dating Violence on the Rise in Canada
A new Statistics Canada report finds that rates of reported dating violence are on the rise, for both womyn and men. I say reported because the study is quick to point out that the rates are probably higher across the board because people so rarely report.
Unfortunately, this information is not surprising to me on its own. The fact that teenage girls experience 10x more dating violence than their male counterparts is not news to those of us that are paying attention but it's 'nice' to have solid statistics to back up what advocates are saying on a daily basis.
One aspect that I hope doesn't get lost in all this is that the majority of incidents occurred after the relationship had ended. So when we hear "Why won't she just leave him?" for the upteenth time, you can point to this statistic to demonstrate why womyn don't leave abusive situations.
The relationship might be awful on its own but many womyn choose to stay because they know that leaving will only make it worse.
Here's hoping those with the power to do so, take this report seriously and start enacting some serious work to combat it.
Unfortunately, this information is not surprising to me on its own. The fact that teenage girls experience 10x more dating violence than their male counterparts is not news to those of us that are paying attention but it's 'nice' to have solid statistics to back up what advocates are saying on a daily basis.
One aspect that I hope doesn't get lost in all this is that the majority of incidents occurred after the relationship had ended. So when we hear "Why won't she just leave him?" for the upteenth time, you can point to this statistic to demonstrate why womyn don't leave abusive situations.
The relationship might be awful on its own but many womyn choose to stay because they know that leaving will only make it worse.
Here's hoping those with the power to do so, take this report seriously and start enacting some serious work to combat it.
Monday, June 28, 2010
I am an activist
I am an activist.
I am a proud, active, social justice activist who fights, day in and day out, for a more just society. I am deeply invested in anti-oppressive politics and am passionate about educating as many people as possible.
Because of all this, I have clearly had a very, very busy weekend. The G8/G20 has forced me to once again re-evaluate my politics, my tactics and quite frankly, my allies.
A few things first:
- I chose not to attend the G8/G20 demonstrations. I make this distinction because I believe there is a clear difference between people like myself who chose not to participate in such events and those who want to attend them but cannot.
- I am highly privileged and could afford to get arrested without enduring serious harm to my physical or political self. In fact, in many of the activist circles I run in, getting arrested would actually give me some serious cred.
Like every annoying intellect worth their salt, I have more questions than answers when it comes to Gs activism but at least I'm honest about not knowing it all.
First confession: I used to be unequivocally opposed to violent protesting and thought that anyone who refuses to show their face during a protest was a coward who was unworthy of the activist title.
Then I listened to Harsha Walia speak about the diversity of tactics. You should, too. You should also note, however, that after her amazing talk about the importance of all types of activism for all issues, the camera pulls back and you see that she is wearing Nike shoes. This should also be discussed.
I agree with Harsha and the principle of a diversity of tactics. I firmly, firmly believe that diversifying tactics is the only way that change will occur. I also now understand the politics of the "Black Block" and those who engage in Block like tactics.
Black Block et al, take note: The revolution will not happen from a burning cop car. Nor will it come from the shouts of "Fuck the police" or the shattering of bank windows (more on this later).
Nor will it happen from letter writing or lobbying alone. Not only is bureaucracy light years behind civilization, even decent, well timed laws or policies cannot single handily change the minds of individuals and create great change.
Change will happen when the grassroots meet the Ivory Tower and people below and above are speaking the same language.
The issues must be attacked from all sides at all times so that different people, with different approaches and different perspectives, are all receiving the same message.
Womyn have achieved a certain level of equity in society not because we fought for the right to vote. Nor is it because of conscious raising groups. It took both. It took womyn on the ground, building solidarity, educating our brothers and sisters about the reality of our lives and it took policies and laws that allowed us to be represented and created opportunities for retribution when our personhood was ignored.
And so my use of lobbying techniques for the G8/G20 go hand-in-hand with those who took to the streets over the weekend, said "Whose streets? Our streets!" and held their placards high.
Second confession: I am not a communist nor do I believe in anarchy. But I am not a pacifist. (I'm also not a terrorist).
I think police are a necessary evil, much like taxes and fluoride toothpaste. I think shouting "pigs" and vandalising stores/banks is short sighted and ineffective.
In the case of the police, good old Rex Murphy made the unfortunate comment that the #1 ally of the Black Block is Stephen Harper, and I believe him. The Black Block and the violent protesters over the weekend simply worked to justify the excessive police state at the Gs (and it was excessive. More arrests this weekend than during the entire FLQ crisis!)
When I speak of violence, I do not, in any way, shape or form include those who used violence in self-defense, in an attempt to protect their friends/allies or as a means of survival when being unlawfully attacked. As I said, I am not a pacifist.
But the BB knows full well that they get plenty of media attention, which was reflected in an iconic photograph (that I, of course, can no longer find... But I'm working on it!) where a member of the Black Block is charging a Starbucks window, staring at camera crews who number in the dozens. It has been argued that this is the point - drawing attention to the issues and forcing people to witness what violence against society looks like.
But what about those who protested with their faces shown, who engaged in the 'critical mass' bike ride or who marched with tambourines and placards? The irony, of course, is that many people who support the Black Block tactics also posted to various articles saying "What the media ignored: 25, 000 peaceful protesters". But many of them ignored it themselves.
Whether you are an activist or a member of the media (or the elite!), we must all acknowledge the 25,000+ protesters who came out en masse, in solidarity and chanted for queer rights, womyn's rights, animal rights, civilian liberties, etc.
I monitor the CBC quite heavily, either radio, internet or television, because quite frankly, my taxes pay for that shit. And as much as I love to hate on the media for their ignorance or selective listening, they have been quite excellent at giving voice to the protesters who came out with serious issues and clear messages. This is reflected in their photo galleries, for example, which gave room for images of protesters and their messages. And not simply pictures of them being arrested.
(Of course, I would argue that much of the press around the security state is because so many journalists were unlawfully detained and so like most people, when one of their own is affected, they take notice.)
All of which to say that insisting that violence demonstrations are necessary to get the message out has been proven false.
Why do I think vandalising stores and banks is ineffective?
Just look at BP. BP has created one of the, if not the, worst oil disaster in history. BP is evil, evil, evil. But independent retailers who carry the BP name are being hit really, damn, hard. Of course, their entire livelihood is built upon the exploitation of mother nature and so one could certainly argue that they are a liability in the fight against oil. Sure. But do you think the individual people who work there are concerned about that right now?
Individual workers at gas stations have had their hours cut or are being laid off because people are boycotting BP for its disaster.
I support the boycotting of BP but I also can't ignore those that are suffering from that. (And let's not pretend that people who pump the gas at the station are rolling in dough, either).
The same goes with the Starbucks and other stores in Toronto. First off, not only major corporations were hit. There is plenty of footage of people vandalising things like local antique stores, so there's that issue.
But let's take Starbucks.
Starbucks is indeed a ubiquitous, yuppie extravaganza that charges a fortune for a fancy coffee. Starbucks is a clear target. Yes, nobody was hurt and a window pane has no feelings. Many, many more people are affected by a brutal police force, violence from the state, state-waged war, etc. Abso-fucking-lutely.
But how can you claim to be fighting for the little guy/gal when you're destroying their store front and therefore keeping them away from their job? Do you think 'barristas' make enough money that they can afford time off work without pay? Most barristas I know are students or lower-class people working for tips.
What about those that were not directly affected by the vandalism but whose customers were scared away by the violence and didn't show up?
We can hate on capitalism all we want and there are great arguments for doing so, but that doesn't change right now. Right now, people are relying on 'capialist pig' jobs to pay their rent, to finance their education, to feed their children.
Hell, how many activists do we all know who stick it to the Man while bagging groceries, selling coffee or stocking shelves?
A diversity of tactics is necessary but so is the respect and understanding of those who do not agree with violence as a method of resistance. As activists, we need to understand that many people cannot engage in violent resistance, even if they want to. Deportation, state scooping up of children, lack of employment opportunities, inaccessibility, etc are all realities for many activists. To assume that only those who knowingly risk arrest are 'legitimate' activists is short sighted and detrimental to the movement. People use various tactics for various reasons and respect needs to go in every direction.
Personally? I choose not to participate in events or forms of resistance that could lead to arrest because much of the work I do requires a clean police check. I'm not being boastful when I say that I do excellent work with children and I could not do that work if I have been arrested. I could argue with my activist friends about the merits of a record of civil disobedience but it would automatically close many doors for me in the work that I do.
I may by highly privileged but I am also able to use that privilege and education to move others to action because I do not engage in violent resistance. This is a choice that I choose, without constraint, to make.
I do not expect this to be every one's politics but I suppose my hope is that others take these politics into account in their own work. I recognize direct action and hope that direct action recognizes my seemingly 'pacifist' methods.
Real change, as I said, will come when the top meets the bottom. I recently heard the term 'movable middle' to describe the vast majority of Canadians who are 'sitting on the fence' and can be moved to either side. These are the people that I actively pursue. These are the people that I think hold the key to the future.
I am not one of these people. I am firm in my beliefs, militant even, and I cannot be persuaded to be anti-choice, anti-immigration, etc. But I can work really, damn, hard to reach those that can be persuaded.
And in my experience, I am able to reach those people because I engage in tactics that are accessible, lack intimidation and take into account their experiences and perspectives.
My work alone will not accomplish much. I need bureaucrats and the Black Block on my side, too.
Lastly (I told you I've had to do a lot of thinking), as activists, we need to constantly remind ourselves that the state wins when we fight amongst each other. It's an age old tactic of the privileged to get the oppressed fighting amongst themselves so that they don't fight them.
My one hope is that the debates amongst activist circles right now remain dialogues and that they serve to strengthen us and not divide us.
While we're attacking each other (and windows), the oppressors carry on.
I am a proud, active, social justice activist who fights, day in and day out, for a more just society. I am deeply invested in anti-oppressive politics and am passionate about educating as many people as possible.
Because of all this, I have clearly had a very, very busy weekend. The G8/G20 has forced me to once again re-evaluate my politics, my tactics and quite frankly, my allies.
A few things first:
- I chose not to attend the G8/G20 demonstrations. I make this distinction because I believe there is a clear difference between people like myself who chose not to participate in such events and those who want to attend them but cannot.
- I am highly privileged and could afford to get arrested without enduring serious harm to my physical or political self. In fact, in many of the activist circles I run in, getting arrested would actually give me some serious cred.
Like every annoying intellect worth their salt, I have more questions than answers when it comes to Gs activism but at least I'm honest about not knowing it all.
First confession: I used to be unequivocally opposed to violent protesting and thought that anyone who refuses to show their face during a protest was a coward who was unworthy of the activist title.
Then I listened to Harsha Walia speak about the diversity of tactics. You should, too. You should also note, however, that after her amazing talk about the importance of all types of activism for all issues, the camera pulls back and you see that she is wearing Nike shoes. This should also be discussed.
I agree with Harsha and the principle of a diversity of tactics. I firmly, firmly believe that diversifying tactics is the only way that change will occur. I also now understand the politics of the "Black Block" and those who engage in Block like tactics.
Black Block et al, take note: The revolution will not happen from a burning cop car. Nor will it come from the shouts of "Fuck the police" or the shattering of bank windows (more on this later).
Nor will it happen from letter writing or lobbying alone. Not only is bureaucracy light years behind civilization, even decent, well timed laws or policies cannot single handily change the minds of individuals and create great change.
Change will happen when the grassroots meet the Ivory Tower and people below and above are speaking the same language.
The issues must be attacked from all sides at all times so that different people, with different approaches and different perspectives, are all receiving the same message.
Womyn have achieved a certain level of equity in society not because we fought for the right to vote. Nor is it because of conscious raising groups. It took both. It took womyn on the ground, building solidarity, educating our brothers and sisters about the reality of our lives and it took policies and laws that allowed us to be represented and created opportunities for retribution when our personhood was ignored.
And so my use of lobbying techniques for the G8/G20 go hand-in-hand with those who took to the streets over the weekend, said "Whose streets? Our streets!" and held their placards high.
Second confession: I am not a communist nor do I believe in anarchy. But I am not a pacifist. (I'm also not a terrorist).
I think police are a necessary evil, much like taxes and fluoride toothpaste. I think shouting "pigs" and vandalising stores/banks is short sighted and ineffective.
In the case of the police, good old Rex Murphy made the unfortunate comment that the #1 ally of the Black Block is Stephen Harper, and I believe him. The Black Block and the violent protesters over the weekend simply worked to justify the excessive police state at the Gs (and it was excessive. More arrests this weekend than during the entire FLQ crisis!)
When I speak of violence, I do not, in any way, shape or form include those who used violence in self-defense, in an attempt to protect their friends/allies or as a means of survival when being unlawfully attacked. As I said, I am not a pacifist.
But the BB knows full well that they get plenty of media attention, which was reflected in an iconic photograph (that I, of course, can no longer find... But I'm working on it!) where a member of the Black Block is charging a Starbucks window, staring at camera crews who number in the dozens. It has been argued that this is the point - drawing attention to the issues and forcing people to witness what violence against society looks like.
But what about those who protested with their faces shown, who engaged in the 'critical mass' bike ride or who marched with tambourines and placards? The irony, of course, is that many people who support the Black Block tactics also posted to various articles saying "What the media ignored: 25, 000 peaceful protesters". But many of them ignored it themselves.
Whether you are an activist or a member of the media (or the elite!), we must all acknowledge the 25,000+ protesters who came out en masse, in solidarity and chanted for queer rights, womyn's rights, animal rights, civilian liberties, etc.
I monitor the CBC quite heavily, either radio, internet or television, because quite frankly, my taxes pay for that shit. And as much as I love to hate on the media for their ignorance or selective listening, they have been quite excellent at giving voice to the protesters who came out with serious issues and clear messages. This is reflected in their photo galleries, for example, which gave room for images of protesters and their messages. And not simply pictures of them being arrested.
(Of course, I would argue that much of the press around the security state is because so many journalists were unlawfully detained and so like most people, when one of their own is affected, they take notice.)
All of which to say that insisting that violence demonstrations are necessary to get the message out has been proven false.
Why do I think vandalising stores and banks is ineffective?
Just look at BP. BP has created one of the, if not the, worst oil disaster in history. BP is evil, evil, evil. But independent retailers who carry the BP name are being hit really, damn, hard. Of course, their entire livelihood is built upon the exploitation of mother nature and so one could certainly argue that they are a liability in the fight against oil. Sure. But do you think the individual people who work there are concerned about that right now?
Individual workers at gas stations have had their hours cut or are being laid off because people are boycotting BP for its disaster.
I support the boycotting of BP but I also can't ignore those that are suffering from that. (And let's not pretend that people who pump the gas at the station are rolling in dough, either).
The same goes with the Starbucks and other stores in Toronto. First off, not only major corporations were hit. There is plenty of footage of people vandalising things like local antique stores, so there's that issue.
But let's take Starbucks.
Starbucks is indeed a ubiquitous, yuppie extravaganza that charges a fortune for a fancy coffee. Starbucks is a clear target. Yes, nobody was hurt and a window pane has no feelings. Many, many more people are affected by a brutal police force, violence from the state, state-waged war, etc. Abso-fucking-lutely.
But how can you claim to be fighting for the little guy/gal when you're destroying their store front and therefore keeping them away from their job? Do you think 'barristas' make enough money that they can afford time off work without pay? Most barristas I know are students or lower-class people working for tips.
What about those that were not directly affected by the vandalism but whose customers were scared away by the violence and didn't show up?
We can hate on capitalism all we want and there are great arguments for doing so, but that doesn't change right now. Right now, people are relying on 'capialist pig' jobs to pay their rent, to finance their education, to feed their children.
Hell, how many activists do we all know who stick it to the Man while bagging groceries, selling coffee or stocking shelves?
A diversity of tactics is necessary but so is the respect and understanding of those who do not agree with violence as a method of resistance. As activists, we need to understand that many people cannot engage in violent resistance, even if they want to. Deportation, state scooping up of children, lack of employment opportunities, inaccessibility, etc are all realities for many activists. To assume that only those who knowingly risk arrest are 'legitimate' activists is short sighted and detrimental to the movement. People use various tactics for various reasons and respect needs to go in every direction.
Personally? I choose not to participate in events or forms of resistance that could lead to arrest because much of the work I do requires a clean police check. I'm not being boastful when I say that I do excellent work with children and I could not do that work if I have been arrested. I could argue with my activist friends about the merits of a record of civil disobedience but it would automatically close many doors for me in the work that I do.
I may by highly privileged but I am also able to use that privilege and education to move others to action because I do not engage in violent resistance. This is a choice that I choose, without constraint, to make.
I do not expect this to be every one's politics but I suppose my hope is that others take these politics into account in their own work. I recognize direct action and hope that direct action recognizes my seemingly 'pacifist' methods.
Real change, as I said, will come when the top meets the bottom. I recently heard the term 'movable middle' to describe the vast majority of Canadians who are 'sitting on the fence' and can be moved to either side. These are the people that I actively pursue. These are the people that I think hold the key to the future.
I am not one of these people. I am firm in my beliefs, militant even, and I cannot be persuaded to be anti-choice, anti-immigration, etc. But I can work really, damn, hard to reach those that can be persuaded.
And in my experience, I am able to reach those people because I engage in tactics that are accessible, lack intimidation and take into account their experiences and perspectives.
My work alone will not accomplish much. I need bureaucrats and the Black Block on my side, too.
Lastly (I told you I've had to do a lot of thinking), as activists, we need to constantly remind ourselves that the state wins when we fight amongst each other. It's an age old tactic of the privileged to get the oppressed fighting amongst themselves so that they don't fight them.
My one hope is that the debates amongst activist circles right now remain dialogues and that they serve to strengthen us and not divide us.
While we're attacking each other (and windows), the oppressors carry on.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Captain Obvious Strikes Again
U.K Press Slams Canada's Hosting of Games
Hum… duh? They’re hosting next so do you think they’re going to paint us in a pretty light?
Hum… duh? They’re hosting next so do you think they’re going to paint us in a pretty light?
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
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Mmmmm.... Controversy, Part II
So back in May, the Governor General created an international raucous when she ate raw seal meat at an Inuit ceremony in the North. Canadians, including myself, applauded her while anti-seal hunt folks were up in arms.Well, let’s put one more point towards the seal hunt camp because Parliament’s fancy, mucky-muck restaurant has added seal meat to the menu. This new item will join already existing meats like beef, pork and bison.
It’s a seemingly small gesture but it’s very impressive when you consider how controversial the whole issue is.
Once again, Michaël Jean for the win!
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".
Monday, November 9, 2009
News Roll
In surprising news, a reserve in British Columbia is hoping to become “delisted” and remove its Indian Status.
In mildly surprising news, talk show host and Media empire Goddess Oprah Winfrey might be switching her show to her own new television station. This means leaving Chicago and no longer being accessible to the general public (since her station is not offered with standard cable).
In not-even-remotely-surprising news, the Catholic Church is not changing its stance on priests and celibacy.
In mildly surprising news, talk show host and Media empire Goddess Oprah Winfrey might be switching her show to her own new television station. This means leaving Chicago and no longer being accessible to the general public (since her station is not offered with standard cable).
In not-even-remotely-surprising news, the Catholic Church is not changing its stance on priests and celibacy.
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!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Tobacco... again.
Tobacco companies knew cigarettes were bad for you long before the information was made public.
Shocking? No
Shitty? Absolutely.
Shocking? No
Shitty? Absolutely.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
All the Single Ladies, Put Your Hands Up
I'll admit to being one of the first people to cry bullshit about the H1N1 hysteria. I think pandemic fears are largely overblown and I am highly, highly sceptical of the new H1N1 vaccine. I also think that there’s been nothing but mass confusion about all this flu stuff in regards to what causes it, how it’s transmitted, what it will do to you and hell, even what the symptoms are. People are getting conflicting information left, right and centre.
As cynical as I might be, I am intrigued by the latest study that shows that of those admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for H1N1, 67.3% were female. The average age of ICU patients with H1N1 was 32.
This flies in the face of previous ideas that only the very young and very old were dying or being seriously afflicted with the virus.
They haven’t been able to pinpoint why womyn in particular are so affected. Unfortunately, it is no surprise to me that aboriginal womyn have the highest rates of H1N1. This is no shock when you consider the dismal quality of life that aboriginal womyn have in this country when it comes to a whole list of things.
But why females as a whole are so affected by H1N1 remains to be seen.
I’m a pandemic sceptic (and hope that I’m not proven wrong) but I’m very intrigued and disturbed by this latest data.
As cynical as I might be, I am intrigued by the latest study that shows that of those admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for H1N1, 67.3% were female. The average age of ICU patients with H1N1 was 32.
This flies in the face of previous ideas that only the very young and very old were dying or being seriously afflicted with the virus.
They haven’t been able to pinpoint why womyn in particular are so affected. Unfortunately, it is no surprise to me that aboriginal womyn have the highest rates of H1N1. This is no shock when you consider the dismal quality of life that aboriginal womyn have in this country when it comes to a whole list of things.
But why females as a whole are so affected by H1N1 remains to be seen.
I’m a pandemic sceptic (and hope that I’m not proven wrong) but I’m very intrigued and disturbed by this latest data.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Smoking Out Big Tobacco
The Province of Ontario is joining British Columbia and New Brunswick in suing the big tobacco companies in order to recover money they've spent on tobacco related illnesses/deaths.Now before I go on, let me establish a few things.
1- I am incredibly anti-smoking.
2- I have never smoked a day in my life.
3- I know and love people who smoke.
4- I know and love people who have suffered serious side effects (including death) as a result of tobacco.
And yet I'm left scratching my head about this lawsuit.
The Province is suing for 50 billion dollars; an amount they say they've spent on treating tobacco related illnesses since 1955. I actually think that amount is too low. I also think that people have known about the adverse effects of tobacco since 1975... So there's a 20 year window where personal accountability doesn't really come into play because people were just rolling with what the scientific data at the time was saying, which was that it wasn't that bad. Hell, even doctors were advertising the stuff!
So for that 20 or so year window, the tobacco companies knew it was bad but people didn't and so I understand that there's a serious accountability issue there.
But where's the personal accountability after that? What about between the 70s and now?
In our Health Care system, being the public system that is, we don't formally discriminate against illnesses. By that I mean that if you're suffering serious emphysema and you've been a- pack-a day smoker, the Health Care system can't say "Oh well, that was stupid, now deal with it on your own"; they've got to do their best to help you. So I understand that the Health Care system is stuck between Big Tobacco and Consumers. And I also understand that the Health Care System is you and me and everyone else living and paying taxes in Ontario. So it's my money that's being spent on big tobacco's side effects.
BUT it's also the Government, both Federally and Provincially, that monitors and governs the rules around Big Tobacco in this country. And so it seems incredibly short-sighted to be benefiting from the taxes and sales of tobacco, and then at the end of the line, suing them to recuperate the amount you've spent on the side effects in between.
The Government of Canada, in general, has such a backwards way of looking at the tobacco industry, much like alcohol and gambling. They benefit up front and then bitch about the after effects; after effects which were clearly foreseeable.
And suing Big Industry to recuperate what is essentially our money just doesn't seem like the right way to do it. Sure it looks incredibly aggressive and anti-corporate and therefore has a nice Erin Brockovich, David and Goliath vibe to it. But upon closer look, it just comes off as greedy and corporate as Big Tobacco itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
