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!"

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.

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?

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

Racism is Child's Play

A new study looks at how aware children are of racism. And their conclusion?

By age 9, children are well aware of the existence of racism. "I think that would be surprising to many people, that by second or third grade a lot of kids get it, they get that there's racism in the world and they understand what it is", says one of the researchers involved.

Probably not surprising to the 9 year old kids who are the target of racism and prejudice...

Snot Rags and Stereotypes

Let's play a little game, shall we? It's called "Guess What's Wrong with This Picture!"

The offender? The Kleenex "Get Mommed" Marketing Campaign (Warning, besides being incredibly offensive, it also takes a long time to load. Dial-up readers, be warned).

A) It's sexist. It perpetuates stereotypes of womyn as mothers and fails to recognize that fathers can "mother" i.e PARENT as well.

B) It's racist. The finger waving black womyn, the affectionate latina mother, the overbearing Eastern European mother. It's all there.

C) It actually fails at marketing the product. What the hell does this have to do with tissue?

D) All of the above.

You be the judge!

Kicking the Habit

So the Vatican is doing an internal review in the United States. Reviewing what?

First thoughts: Child molestation, rampant homophobia, misogyny and racism.

No? No takers?

Nope. The Catholic Church is doing its first ever major review of… nuns?

They are conducting a “large-scale review of women's religious institutions in the United States, the first of its kind in history.”

My next thought turned optimistic, thinking that perhaps the Church was interested in re-examining the role womyn play in Catholicism and as nuns in particular.

They are examining this exact thing, but are hoping to step back, rather than forward, on the issue. Basically, the Church thinks that nuns have “stepped away” from the Church, are not living in communities (i.e.: convents) as often as they should be and are living “secular” lives. The goal is to put together a report that will bring 21st century nuns back to their roots of being in habit, living in convents and living a “stricter” religious life.

Having grown up Catholic and having actually attended a non-private, Catholic school run by nuns (which included a convent within the school), I have an educated opinion on nuns. I do not begrudge anyone’s choice to join the Convent. In the most objective sense, the life of a nun is one of serving. Churches and religions of all kinds have typically stepped up to help the homeless for example and many, many charities are religiously-run. The Salvation Army is religious, after all. Nuns also serve(d) as school teachers and work(ed) in hospitals. Hey, Mother Theresa was a nun, let us not forget.

HOWEVER, they are always serving someone. And they are always below someone else. Nuns serve the Church and the Church is run by men. Therefore, the “vocation” of nunnery is inherently sexist. In Catholicism, womyn hold no position of powers that rival those of men. Not to mention that being a nun means agreeing to the homophobia, racism and sexism of Catholicism. (I am stating this in the assumption that one chooses to be a nun. I am excluding those who are forced into religious life, obviously. That’s a whole other picture to paint).

So on one hand, I think it is unfair for me to pick on one individual nun, but I also don’t think it’s fair to let all nuns off the hook either. If you’re promoting hate, then you’re promoting hate.

BUT! I think it goes without saying that if anyone should be undergoing a review, its priests, cardinals and actual leaders in the Vatican. To say that the Church is in need of a review and to ignore the blindingly obvious issues and choosing instead to focus on the American nuns is shady and so indicative of how out-of-touch the Church really is. In case you needed any more proof that the Church is sexist and misguided and in need of an overhaul, this review is it.

The report, compiled by a Sister, will be submitted to the Vatican in 2011. It is up to the Vatican (read: male leaders) discretion on how to move forward after the report is compiled.

Who knows, maybe the nuns will do a preemptive strike and revolt. One can always dream...

Crazies Come Out To Play In Calgary

If you're looking for a Canadian city with a perpetually negative reputation, look no further than Toronto. On any given day, someone, somewhere is bashing Toronto, actively hating Toronto or talking about the latest crime spree of sorts in Toronto.

Hell, there was an entire documentary based on hating Toronto!

But watch out T.Dot; Calgary is climbing up the ranks and looking to steal your much-coveted spot as the most hated city in Canada.

Why?

First, they went and invited former President George W. Bush to come and speak. (True, there were anti-Bush protesters, but still... they invited him at all. That's telling).

Then, religious folk from Calgary got upset with the atheists buying some bus ads, so they went and bought their own. Which, whether you agree with the atheists or not, goes to prove their point that people are uber concerned about "their" God.

And then, in a move that stunned the country as a whole, Calgarians witnessed 50 white supremacists marching down the streets on the International Day to End Racism, who then clashed with actual anti-racists protesters. Apparently those ever-clever aryan race asshats have called March 21st "White Pride World Day". Anti-racists advocates didn't like that, so they blocked their way and then riots ensued.

Calgary police are now being criticized for protecting both the white supremacists and the anti-racist demonstrators.

Personally, I don't believe in any violent protesting and I do believe in Freedom of Speech but I also believe that it's really fucking sad when in 2009, Canada has at least 50 people in one city alone who are wanting to march through the streets in support of White Pride.

I love Alberta, I really do, but shit shows like these only act to reinforce the stereotype of Alberta as the Conservative, racist, Bible Belt of Canada.

(For a healthy dose of the Alberta that I love and adore, check out Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying).

A Not-So Friendly PSA

FeministCatalyst interrupts to declare that:

The Term Reverse Racism Needs To Die.

Reverse racism's friends (.i.e.: reverse sexism, reverse discrimination) need to die as well. It's either discriminatory or its not. Yes, she understands the "logic" behind this term; that it defines an act of racism that goes against the usual forms of racism.

But the term and its uses make no sense and only serve to further discriminate against those who are actually, you know... discriminated against.

So remember kids, friends don't let friends use this term.

This Public Service Announcement has been brought to you by the letters F and U.

You may now return to your regular scheduled programming.

Gangsters Versus Gangstas

According to a "news" article on CBC.ca, there's a marketing campaign underway for the new "Las Vegas Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement", also known as the "Mob Museum". But do not fret children, this museum won't "glorify criminal activity" but rather will "candidly explore [the mob's] influence on Las Vegas and the role they played in transforming the city into a famous gambling and entertainment destination."

The role they played in transforming the city into a famous gambling and entertainment destination sounds kinda like glorifying to me. "Hey, look at what the Mob did for us!"

This marketing campaign includes "cheeky" t-shirts with the expression "There is no such thing as a Mob museum nor have I ever been there."

So at this point, you're probably thinking: "Why are you going off about this? And lighten up would ya! This is hilarious!"

Don't get me wrong. I have an enthusiastic sense of humour and I was once a huge Sopranos fan.

But what we have here is a clear distinction between "good" criminals and "bad" criminals. Gangsters AKA the Mob = good, Gangstas = bad. I highly doubt that the "Chicago Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement" would get the same round of applause and "OMG, AREN'T THEY JUST SO DAMN CHEEKY?!"

And what is the difference between a gangster and a gangsta? Well not much really. Both have been involved in the drugs, arms and sex trade. Both have been linked to murder and theft. Organized crime is organized crime.

What we have here is a major racial and class divide. On one side we have white gangsters who are glorified in film and now their very own museum. On the other side we have people of colour who may be glorified in music and certain categories of film, but who are blamed for many of today's social ills, including high rates of violence in high schools and drive-by shootings, specifically in lower-class areas.

Why is it that the Mob has been elevated to this pseudo-glorified status of being Museum worthy whereas gangstas and I would even include Biker Gangs here to really bring in the class argument, are seen as the vile of society?

This is race and class privilege at its very best.

I say what happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas.

White Privilege and American Politics

So I could write another biting and clever post about Sarah Palin and the tragedy that is the American election right now.

Or I could let Tim Wise do it ten times better than I ever could.

I'm going to stick with that.

Oh and do yourself a favour. When you follow the link to his article, DON'T read the comments. They just reinforce the need for these types of articles in the first place.

Culture For Sale

So I’m sure most of you can deduct by now that I’m a really shitty person to watch television with. I comment on everything and there is very little that doesn’t irk me in some way. Last night was no exception.

Last night was The Miss Universe 2008 competition. Obviously this is just a cesspool of misogyny, objectification, racism, capitalism, etcetera. Don’t preach to me about a “scholarship” program and all that jazz. Sure, the Miss Universe gig is prestigious and you get a lot of free swag, but you also get the same by being voted Playmate of the Year and nobody calls that a goddamn scholarship program.

They are grown womyn called “Miss” who strut around in their underwear, wanting world peace and if that wasn't enough, Donald Trump owns the franchise. And to quote David Letterman, why is it called Miss Universe? Shouldn’t it be Miss World? I haven’t seen anyone competing from Jupiter.

But I digress.

My issue last night was not with the competition per se, as I knew what I was getting into when I flipped to it, but with the “National Costume” portion of the show. This year, each contestant strutted in a “costume” that represented their “nation” and online voters decided which was best. Ironically enough, I made a guess before that part of the show even started as to what Miss Canada would be dressed as. And it turns out, yours truly was correct.

Miss Canada was dressed as... an Aboriginal.

Now, on the surface, that’s pretty damn stellar. Samantha Tajik, Miss Canada, was born in Iran and raised in Canada and was representing Canada in Aboriginal garb. Diversity as its best!

Except of course for the fact that it's example number 871267234 of Canada appropriating Aboriginal identity for its benefits and completely negating their existence as human beings (and yeah, I’m bitter that the costume was also incredibly inaccurate. But I’m a stickler for details).

At Disney exhibits demonstrating “Nations Around the World”, you go to Canada and you get totem poles. You go to tacky tourist traps in Canada, you can buy headdresses for your rearview mirror and little totem pole statues.

I’m all about the celebrating of aboriginal cultures but the commodification of cultures does not do this. It homogenizes them and keeps them somehow frozen in time, denying them the ability to actually you know… exist. There's no dialogue, no celebrating. There's this "Aww, aren't they cute?" quality to the whole thing that is gagalicious.

But what can you expect from a competition that places equal weight on your bikini strut as your ability to answer a question on the spot.

(For the record, Miss Venezuela won).

If By "Entry Error", You Mean "Stereotyping", Then We're Talking...

A Winnipeg youth worker and rapper was pulled over in Winnipeg on Wednesday and accused of driving a stolen vehicle. The man and the youth he was mentoring, had guns pulled on them and were cuffed and thrown to the ground.

The vehicle was not stolen and did in fact belong to him. He never reported it stolen and was just leaving Starbucks with, did I mention, the young man he was mentoring?

The police say it was a "data entry error" and the man in question says it was "racial profiling" as he is a young black man who was driving a Chrysler 300.

You say "data entry error", I say "profiling". Semantics? I think not.

But remember, kids: Canada is not racist. Noppers. Not one bit.

* I used a nice old school picture of the Manitoba police force because they might as well be dressed as archaically as they act.

Shedding a tear for the white man

Canadians are multicultural, diverse and my favourite “tolerant”, right? I call bullshit! The reality is that racism and racial tensions do exist in Canada. The issue is coming to the fore right now in regards to young men and womyn of colour and the education system.

In a nutshell, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) held public discussions this week on the possibility of creating a “black only” high school. The reason being that drop out rates for youth of colour, particularly youth men, are alarmingly high. 200 or so community members came to the public meeting and most were in favour of a pilot school. Supporters argue that the current public education system does not fully represent black culture and black youth tune out and drop out because they don’t feel engaged.

I will admit to being undecided on the idea of a segregated or “Afrocentric” school, as it is sometime referred to. Therefore my musings here today are not on my opinion regarding where I stand but rather I want to demonstrate that there is a definite need for something to be done. Stats on drop out rates are great but one need only read the coverage of this issue to understand the racism bubbling under the surface in Canada.

Sometimes, you need to search for it under the politically correct stench of bullshit, in the case of Margaret Wente’s Globe and Mail discussion. Other times it’s so blatantly obvious that it’s startling. The National Post, bastion of all things right-wing went all out in their absolute hatred of this proposed school. They list four main reasons why these schools are a bad idea, and let me tell you, there’s some real zingers.

“Experiments with "Afrocentric" schools have often yielded bizarre curricula that teach students puffed up fairy tales about the supposedly ignored grandeur of ancient African civilization, and which describe the history of European peoples as one of unrelenting brutality and colonial exploitation.”

Yes, because the white man has always been so nice to the black people and nobody’s ever mistreated them, abused them or made them seem savage and uncivilized. Slavery (and residential schools for that matter) were a damn good time, don't you think? Right up there with the Holocaust on my list of favourite historical moments.

The National Post should of just made the title “PRAISE THE WHITE MAN” so that you’d save yourself the five minutes of reading the whole editorial to figure out their main argument.

But the best part of this whole thing? Their conclusion. The high rates of dropout amongst black youth have nothing to do with the education system. No no no! It’s substance abuse, lack of respect for the education system, bad parenting, fatherless homes, etc. When they say that, I’m thinking “Alright, I like this so far. They’re going to break into a discussion of societal racism and institutionalized oppression." Well apparently I was giving them way too much credit.

“The roots of these sociological phenomena are rooted deeply within individual families and the lifestyle decisions they make. That is where any solution will have to originate.”

You heard it here folks. According to The National Post, black youth are dropping out of school because they choose to be poor and living in fatherless homes.

And the white man marches on.