Violence Against Women: Why do we still accept it?

Hello my friends!

It's been too long... my fault of course.   I apologize; my only explanation is that I've gone back to school and I find it very demanding of my time.

I hardly know where to begin!  As I start to write this, it is still December 6, 2016.  December 6 is Canada's National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.  (This probably won't actually get posted until the clock ticks past midnight.)  For those of you who may not know why we have such a day, here is a link to a story from today, and for those of you who want more background, here is a link to the Wikipedia page regarding the Montreal Massacre.  14 women were killed and another 13 injured by a man who professed to hate feminists.  He didn't target these women specifically as individuals, he targeted women who were studying to be engineers.  That was 27 years ago.

A friend of mine shared a link today to a Chateleine tweet referring to a story they ran in 1971 about how women who reported rapes were put on trial just as much as, or perhaps more than, their rapists.  45 years later, we're still having this conversation.  Why?

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that most rapes are committed by people with whom we are acquainted?  The spectre of scary men looming in dark alleys is mostly that:  a spectre.  Of course it happens; but the vast majority of rapists are 'normal' guys.  Guys who take you out to dinner (first).  Guys who buy you drinks (to loosen you up).  Guys who expect something in return.  And for the longest time we have accepted that.  We believed that 'nice girls' didn't get raped.  We believed that if you drank too much or if you wore too short a skirt or flirted too much you must have provoked him.  Heck, some people people believed that if you danced too provocatively, you were clearly asking for 'it'.  No one ever pointed out the obvious elephant in the room:  it's all our fault because men are clearly not responsible for their actions.  Wait, haven't I heard this story before?  Oh yeah, in that really old book about Adam and Eve.  It was totally her fault then too (just in case you don't know me, this is sarcasm).

I'm going to throw a bunch of statistics at you now because I occasionally get accused of making unsupportable claims.  Mostly I don't make arguments using statistics because those can always be looked up.  I like to make arguments using logic.  However, since some people don't respond well to logic, I've decided to include some statistics regarding violence against women.  Most of these are from the YWCA Canada and they're gathered from Canadian statistics.

Here's an info graphic (everybody loves pictures right?) from the YWCA in 2012:

More stats from SACHA (the Sexual Assault Centre of Hamilton Area) and I'm including their links to their sources:

Only 5% of survivors report to the police.

One in three women will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime.

One in six men will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime.

39% of Canadian adult women reported having had at least one experience of sexual assault since the age of 16

Only 1 in 3 Canadians understand what sexual consent means.

Over 80% of women with disAbilities will be sexually abused in their lifetime

Sexual assault victimization rates are five times higher for women under the age of 35.

In 99% of sexual assaults, the accused perpetrator is male.

Most perpetrators don’t consider themselves perpetrators.

The perpetrator is known to the victim in 82% of sexual assaults.

Women with disabilities are three times as likely to be sexually assaulted.

The yearly economic costs of sexual violence is $4.8 billion, compared to gun violence at $3.1 billion.

It is estimated that between 15% to 25% of North American college and university-aged women will experience some form of sexual assault during their academic career.[1]

Alcohol is most commonly used drug in drug facilitated sexual assaults.

Only 2-8% of rape claims are false reports.

28% of Canadians say they have been on the receiving end of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or sexually-charged talk while on the job.

91% of men would like to intervene if they knew someone was in a violent relationship.

Women and girls are five times more likely to experience sexual violence than males.

53% of survivors in a survery responded that they did not report their sexual assault because they were not confident in the police. Two out of three responded that they were not confident in the criminal justice and court system in general.

So, lots of numbers and stuff.  Sorry about that.  I don't usually do that (as I mentioned above), but I guess it's time that I did.  I don't think there's any question anymore about the fact that we live in a 'rape culture'.  Lots of people don't want to call it that.  I totally get that.  It's not a nice thought.  We like to think of ourselves as civilized; and I think to some degree we are.  It's just taking a long time to spread.

Too much of our focus has been on teaching girls how to protect themselves and not enough time (until recently) has been spent on teaching boys respect.  This is changing and I applaud school boards who have implemented systems that incorporate the concept of consent into their curricula.  In Ontario it wasn't easy to implement, but despite fierce opposition, implemented it was.   Here's a link to a blog from the YWCA's Director of Advocacy and Public Policy discussing changing cultures.  It's well written, but I know, my blog post is long enough, so I'll sum up:  the author discusses the change in curriculum as well as the Ontario government's changes to address Violence Against Women in general.  One of the most salient points she makes (I think) is:

“To end rape culture we must create a consent culture,” that’s the message of the petition organized by Grade 8 students Lia Valente and Tessa Hill, which garnered more than 40,000 signatures – including mine – before Premier Wynne announced that consent would be covered in the revised curriculum.

 That petition was started by grade 8 students.  That's awesome.  The overall gist of that post is that change will take time.  We need attitudes to shift and in order for that to happen, we have to start teaching kids about consent.

Whilst I have meandered a bit with this post (sorry, I'm out of practice) my original theme was a discussion about violence against women.  In light of the recent presidential election in the United States, much has been said regarding sexism, misogyny and trust (amongst other things).  At first I was surprised that so many people would support Donald Trump for the nomination; mostly because he seemed to be taking it like a bit of a joke; a lark if you will.  Then he won the nomination.  Whoa, I thought:  clearly I do not have my finger on the pulse of that nation.  Then he kept gaining more and more support.  And really, I totally understand supporting your party.  I totally understand conservative politics versus liberal ideals.  I do.  I get that.  Especially in the United States.  A nation born after a rebellion against a strong (faraway) ruling central government.  I seriously understand decentralized government.  The US doesn't always make sense to me (I still don't understand the electoral college and probably never will) but other people had become leaders without any experience.

What surprised me (and I don't know why I continue to be surprised by people, but I do), was the number of people who still voted for him after he admitted to sexual assault.  This wasn't an allegation (like so many of the others: like the 13 year old girl he allegedly raped).  This wasn't just a media story trying to defame him in some way.  This was him on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women.

By all accounts (his words, his deeds:  on tape, video and voice) Donald Trump is, at the very least a misogynist.  Yet a large number (almost half) of the white women who voted in this election chose him.  And I was surprised; for so many reasons.  Why would they do such a silly thing?  All of the false allegations about Hilary Clinton had been proved false, she had experience, she was articulate, educated, respectful, successful.  I'm sure she's not perfect, but who of us is?

There is no way I can do her justice so I won't try.

What it all comes down to really is that we're still living in a rape culture: and we're okay with it.  Let me say that again:  We're okay with it.  If it doesn't happen to us, then it's okay.  This is the year that a Stanford swimmer got 3 months for 3 counts of rape (in a county jail) because the judge didn't want to negatively affect the young man's life after he raped an unconscious young woman behind a dumpster.

Unfortunately, too many people don't want to admit there's a problem, and if you won't admit there's a problem, then nothing will be done to fix it.  I can't tell you how many men I've met who don't believe that sexism still exists.  I'm tired of arguing with them (I still do sometimes when I don't have too much studying to do).  So many privileged young men refuse to open their eyes and simply can't see beyond their own experiences.  And again, if you won't admit there's a problem, there's nothing for you to fix is there?

That's why we have to start in school.  That's why curricula have to be changed to include the idea of consent.  It's actually a small step, but ideologically, it's a big one.  The more people are willing to acknowledge that there really is a problem, then the sooner we can all resolve it.

Funnily enough, one of the quotes from the 1971 article is remarkably spot on.  It's by the lawyer who was interviewed for the piece:

“Stanley Gershman, a lawyer in his early thirties, goes even further. ‘If society recognized a woman’s right to have love affairs and express herself sexually, and brought up their daughters accordingly, then rape would be seen as an act of violence, punishable as violence,’ he says.

Unfortunately it seems that he was speaking hypothetically.  That shouldn't be a hypothetical:  society should recognize women's rights to self-determination, and rape should be seen as an act of violence, punishable as violence.

I would like to see this happen in my lifetime.  Wouldn't you?

Thanks for reading and drive safe peeps!

If Apple Loses, the Terrorists Win

Hello my friends,

I hope all is well with you! Today is my birthday, so, Happy Birthday to me!

I have been thinking of late about the recent court order obtained by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation which compels Apple to create a new iOS to hack the iPhone of one of the suspects in the 2015 San Bernadino terrorist attack. Apple has of course refused and appealed the order and many other tech companies and experts are uniting to stand with Apple in this argument.

Obviously, I don't think that the government should be able to force any company to do such a thing. The FBI's arguments are spurious at best and the law that the order was based on was written in 1789. Seriously. 1789. A smartphone would have seemed like either magic or something devilish in 1789. No law regarding technology could encompass the security of a smartphone. Here's the link to the Wikipedia article regarding it that even mentions the Apple case and that it should be taken with a grain of salt. But I don't really want to get into the legal arguments here. That's why lawyers make so much money... so they can argue with each other.

I want to discuss why the FBI wants the phone unlocked and why the families of the victims want it too: fear. (The families are also probably angry and hurt and would like some closure.)

Fear is a powerful motivator. Fear can make us do things we might not otherwise do. Things that would seem ridiculous if we had never had reason to fear. Things like force a technological giant to write new software (that doesn't even currently exist) to hack into it's current software and open up the potential (heck it's not a potential it's practically guaranteed) for the US Government and their Patriot Act to access anyone's phone (and all that entails) anytime.

Sure they say they'll only use it this one time... Right. Then it'll happen again. And again.

Of course it won't stop with the FBI. If we're lucky, it will stay in the US. (As if.) If it exists, it will get everywhere. If the US government can compel Apple to do this and give it to them, then why can't Russia? Or China? And if it exists then the hackers will get it too.

The FBI is playing right into the terrorists' hands. What do terrorists want? To cause terror. To instil fear in a population; usually for political purposes. Well they have succeeded. We are afraid of terrorists.

But are we afraid enough to give up all of our civil liberties? The Patriot Act was seen by some as the beginning of a slippery slope, but the government response was: if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear from it. Obviously that's not a quote, but that's the gist. It's called a slippery slope for a reason: once you're on it, it's very difficult to stop sliding down it to the inevitable end (hell, an Orwellian-like state aka 1984, etc.).

I have a tendency to take a situation to the extreme in a hypothetical because it's always a possibility: what's the worst that can happen? Everyone everywhere can lose their privacy. Why? To what end? For the semblance of safety? Giving the government access to our phones won't make anyone anywhere any more safe than anyone currently is. (A much more effective way to keep more people safe would be to take guns away from the citizens of the US but that's not happening is it? But that's a whole different kettle of fish for a different post.)

The FBI wants to access the phone because there 'may' be information relating to other 'potential' terrorist activities or other 'potential' terrorists. They don't even know that there is anything on it for sure and they are willing to risk eroding basic civil liberties... A judge is willing to do this!!!! How scared are they?

We can't live our lives in fear. Terrorists have committed atrocious acts, yes; but we can't allow those few acts to dictate how we govern ourselves or we have already let them win. Wikipedia tells us that the number of people in the US who died in car accidents in 2014 was 32,675. Another statistic I found from START (Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism) indicates that according to the Global Terrorism Database, 3,066 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks from September 11, 2001 through December 31, 2014 (2,902 occurred on September 11, 2001).

I am not suggesting that those 3,066 lives don't matter: all lives matter. But are they worth changing the fabric of society for? Because that's what this argument is about.

Heart disease is the number one killer in North America but potato chips are still legal (as they should be). We are more likely to die from our lifestyle choices (texting while driving, heart attacks, Type II Diabetes, drinking alcohol, smoking) than we are from terrorist attacks but no one is suggesting that our right to make our own nutrition choices be curtailed.

In another post, at another time, we can discuss the idea of privacy in this new world of cameras everywhere, but for now, I respect the right to privacy and your ability to have whatever funny photos you want to keep private, kept private.

Drive safe peeps!

The Social Contract... wait, what?

Hey peeps!  Long time!  Thanks for tuning in!

Yes, I am still around, and I do occasionally think of interesting things, I've just been really busy playing Candy Crush for a while... ;)

All kidding  aside, I finally decided to write something down because a) I find myself with a little spare time this evening, and b) it occurs to me that perhaps not everyone (of the age of majority) in Canada knows that they are indeed participating in a social contract and what that entails.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a good book about the idea of a social contract a few hundred years ago.  It was called Leviathan; famous for it's rather quotable idea (often misquoted) that life 'in a state of nature is... nasty, brutish and short':  

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.^[5]

 Rousseau later wrote a book called (oddly enough) The Social Contract.  Both excellent works as far as I'm concerned. 

To save you the effort of reading them (I know you're busy too), I'll sum up:  in order to enjoy a life free from the constant anxiety found in a state of nature (i.e. free from worry that your neighbour will rise up against you at any time for any reason; free to pursue your pursuits, whatever they may be; free to actually walk around freely, without undue fear) society needed to get together and come up with some kind of agreement.  An agreement that would allow us to feel safe in our homes.  An agreement that it was indeed not cool to attack your neighbour just because you wanted some of the stuff in her house.  An agreement that society could be and should be civilized and that we, as citizens of that society, should work together for the greater good.

Clearly I am paraphrasing A LOT.  And obviously, I've left out a lot about their discussions regarding government  and personal liberties etc., but the essence of a social contract is that we, the people participating in the social contract, agree to do so willingly, for the greater good (our safety and our betterment is included in this greater good too).  And that we give up certain things in exchange for the security the social contract affords us.  Things like the freedom to kill others willy-nilly, or steal their stuff.

So what is this greater good you ask?  I'm glad you asked!  Hobbes mentions some things in the quote above.  Arts, letters (written works), society itself, commerce, exploration, (and I'm going further here now) advancements in technology, education, medicine.  This list could go on ad infinitum.  Essentially the greater good is that which is good for humankind, that which is good for the advancement of the species:  our species.  US.  All of us.  You and me.

One of the reasons that I've been thinking about the the idea of the social contract lately is that we, as a society, seem to have forgotten the idea of a greater good.  I don't know whether or not you've noticed this, but it seems to me that we have become incredibly self-absorbed.  To some degree it may be that we just aren't as polite as we used to be but even beyond that, it's as though nothing else matters but us.  You could call it self-absorbed-ness (I know, that's not a word).

Everyone with access to the internet seems to think that he or she is an expert on something (or everything) and that everyone else in the world needs to know this and should join in (read: follow his or her example).   There is a ridiculous ad being shared on the interwebs by Similac that is supposed to remind us (well, mothers I think) that despite our differences, we all have the same goals, but it really just serves to remind us how extreme we've become in our know-it-all-ness (again, I know it's not a word) and our self-absorbed-ness.  We are so busy surfing the web and trying to tell other people how great we are that we lose sight of what's really important:  the greater good.

There's that term again!  What is up with that?!?  Well, when we're parents, the greater good is raising our children and everything that goes into that.  But then of course, everyone is an expert on that too:  no one agrees on anything, and everyone does their own thing which does no one any good, least of all the children; who, as Whitney Houston told us, are our future.  I jest only slightly.  I really do believe that raising children is a very serious responsibility.  It's why I haven't chosen to do it:  I would probably mess it up.  Before any of you think I'm being judge-y about parents, I'm not:  I admire people who are creating our future.  It is a tough job raising children, and, as is evidenced by that commercial, lots of people are always judging you as a parent.  It is always easier to criticize than to create.

I think one of the reasons that parents in particular seem to have forgotten 'the greater good' is that there is SO much involved in being a parent.  People want to do the best they can.  They want to provide the best life they can for their kids; they want to make sure their kids are as best prepared for the big scary world (which we know from Thomas Hobbes can be nasty, brutish and short) as they can be.  They want to protect them from it for as long as they can, and they want to make sure that they are not hurt by it in any way.  Unfortunately, this is impossible.  No one is perfect.  Life is not perfect.  Life is not fair.  You are never going to prevent your child from ever getting hurt ever; no matter how much research you do.  Regardless of how much you love them and how hard you try:  you can't always protect them from everything.  They have to live in this world.

But in our efforts to protect our children from the nasty brutish world, we seem to have lost sight of why we have a social contract in the first place.  Of course our instincts have always been to protect our children (it's why vaccines were developed in the first place), and now that most of us have never seen first hand what life in a developing nation is like, we have no idea the privilege we've been granted by our ancestors who first created the social contracts which enabled the societies we live in today.

As a result of social contracts, we, Canadians, enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world.  (I know, I've seen the discrepancies.)  With very few exceptions: we have hot and cold running water in our homes; we have national highways and railways from coast to coast to coast.  We have an airline that flies coast to coast to coast.  We have phone service all over the country.  (And we take all of this for granted:  not everyone can get anywhere in their country easily, or phone anyone from anywhere.)  We have universal healthcare (granted it's a little broken, but if you're having a heart attack, you'll be taken care of).  We have universal public education (again, not perfect, but it's pretty good and it's covered by your taxes).  We have labour laws.  We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  We have the right (obligation) to elect our own government, and the right to complain about it.  These are just the basics;  we have world class universities, museums, hospitals, and there is so much more, too much to list.  Compare all of this to life in Hobbes's state of nature:  we would have none of that if no one ever thought beyond what was best for him or herself (or their children).

So what is the actual greater good?  I'm sure people would debate that too.  A little bit of knowledge (and access to Google) can be a dangerous thing.

My short definition of the greater good is the advancement of humankind; not at any cost mind you, but overall.  I know that's easy for me to say when I have no children.  I know that your life changes completely when you have a child and that nothing else seems to be very important anymore (this seems to hold true for people in my life anyway).   

From a slightly distanced perspective (i.e. not a parent) it seems to me that the more import we put on ourselves and our children (i.e. the good of the one or few over the good of the many) the closer we get to being back in a state of nature.

I don't want to live like that.  Do you?

If we've learned anything from Star Trek, it's that Spock is usually right and that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Until next time, drive safe!

Lesley

Acceptance

Hello my friends,

I know, it's been a long time.  I've been busy; sort of.  Anyhoo, I hope all is well in your worlds.

So I don't know if you've been paying attention to the news regarding the new 'anti-gay law' which has been enacted in Russia.  If you have any questions about the specifics, you could read this AP story which spells things out in a little more detail.  If you don't want to bother reading these, the essentials are that Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993; however this new law criminalizes public expression of support for 'non-traditional' relationships.  Basically, it allows the authorities to fine anyone found to be promoting 'non-traditional' sexual relations to children (people under 18).  It uses the word propaganda, and a couple of the articles I read defined 'non-traditional' as 'those not related to procreation'.

I could not find any mention of incarceration, however, it seems that the government has the right to throw you out of the country if you're not a citizen and you're found propagandizing.  This is not surprising:  any country has the right to throw you out if you're not a citizen and they don't want you there.

The fact that this law was enacted is offensive enough despite not actually criminalizing homosexuality.  If you do a looser search you'll find many stories/articles which claim that 'anti-gay' sentiment in Russia runs very high:  last August Moscow banned gay pride parades for 100 years despite being fined in 2010 by the European court for not allowing them earlier (2006).  You'll also find stories that claim that non-traditional relationships are an affront to 'traditional' Russian values and the Russian Orthodox Church (they never say how, just that they are).  They can wrap it up however they like, it's still discrimination:  it always has been and it is now legal in Russia.

When you hear about this law in the news you also hear about the potential impact it will have on the athletes participating in the 2014 winter Olympics that are being hosted by Russia.  There has been much ado over this.  A couple of well-known celebrities have called for boycotts, and some have even suggested that the games be moved to a different city and country altogether (George Takei suggested Vancouver).  The reasons behind this movement is not just the law itself though:  apparently, the anti-gay sentiment has led to a lot of violence against LGBT people in Russia.  From the Advocate:

"Additionally, a well-known group of Russian neo-Nazis has been luring gay teens in the country with personal ads on gay dating websites, then beating them, humiliating them, and forcing them to come out on video.  

Russian authorities have either ignored or condoned the antigay violence."

So is boycotting the right thing to do?  Of course it is.  Will it happen?  Unfortunately not.  Why  not?  For the same reasons that any type of discrimination still exists:  because we accept it.

Sexism still exists because we accept it.  Racism still exists because we allow it to.  Obviously I don't mean on an individual level:  I don't accept discrimination and it's gotten me into hot water more than once.  But I'm okay with that.  Most of my friends don't accept discrimination either.  What I mean about accepting it is on a societal level.  As a society, we allow discrimination by letting it happen; by not stopping it if it's not happening to us.  All sorts of bad things happen in the world and we shake our heads and say out loud how horrible and unjust life can be, and privately thank whatever powers may be that these things didn't happen to us and we go about our business.

We accept that bad things happen to good people.  We accept that people are going to be mean to other people and hurt other people.  We accept things like rape and murder.  People possessing illicit drugs, and bank robbers get longer sentences in most American states than rapists and people convicted of manslaughter (that's a generalization obviously and it doesn't apply to the one percent).  And we accept discrimination because it's not happening to the majority of us.  Obviously.  When the brave young woman in Stuebenville went to the police after being raped by members of the local high school football team the state attorney general said that, unfortunately, this was just another Friday night and that the culture had to change (don't quote me on that, I can't find a reference but that was the gist).  Without getting too far into one type of discrimination over another, the essence is that these things happen because we let them.  And they're systemic.

So people are going to complain about the human rights violations in Russia, but the countries are still going to go because the people who make the decisions (the people who count the money) are okay with human rights violations (as long as they aren't affected individually).  And if your team is going and you've been training for at least the past four years, you don't want to miss the games if everyone else in your field will be there and the games are still on.  Everyone went to Beijing despite the protests about human rights violations there.

Discrimination is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels.  What is happening in Russia is wrong - for so many reasons, on so many levels.  Is any other country going to actually do anything about it?  No.  Nobody wants to stand up and be counted.  No one is going to make those unpopular decisions:  at least not at that level.  Not where and when it counts.

I can't imagine this will make anyone feel any better, but I'll boycott watching the Olympics on principal.  It's a small thing, but it's what I can do.  If anyone else has an idea, please let me know.

Until next time peeps, drive safe!

Bill 115 - Putting Students First?

Hello my friends,

Happy New Year!  Thanks for tuning in!

I've been thinking about this subject for a while now.  As a somewhat disinterested bystander I wasn't following the story too terribly closely at first, assuming that the interested parties would figure themselves out sooner or later.  Well, it's later; much later and they still haven't figured themselves out.  Before I get too far into this please understand, I'm not taking sides.  The point of this post is just to raise a few points and perhaps clarify a few things for some people who may not know the whole story.

For those of you who do not live in Ontario, Bill 115, Putting Students First Act - 2012 was implemented by the current Liberal government as an amendment to the provincial Education Act seemingly because the current (at the time) teacher and support staff agreements were about to expire (on August 31, 2012) and only two unions had reached agreements and signed memoranda of understanding with the government.  Theoretically, this bill was implemented so as to allow for two years free of labour disputes.  While I'll go through the nuts and bolts of the bill in detail below, this is the meat of what the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) had agreed to (and the one upon which the government has based Bill 115):

• Zero per cent salary increases in 2012-13 and 2013-14.
• All teachers will take a 1.5 per cent pay cut in the form of three unpaid professional development days so that younger teachers will continue to move through the grid according to their experience and additional qualifications.
• Agreement to restructure the grid with a view to long-term, sustainable savings.
• Elimination of the current retirement gratuity for payment of unused sick days that was responsible for a $1.7 billion liability for school boards.
• A restructured short-term sick leave plan that would include up to 10 sick days. This sick leave plan would benefit younger teachers by providing income protection for serious illness and improved maternity leave provisions.

 Those of us who aren't government employees read this and think to ourselves "So?  What's the big deal?  Lots of companies have or have had wage freezes.  At least they have jobs."  The vast majority of people who work outside of government have no such thing as banked sick days or even job security anymore, so they have a hard time feeling any empathy towards people who, in their opinion, only work 10 months of the year (with 2 weeks off at Christmas plus March Break) and 7 hours of each day.

I know teachers.  I'm related to teachers.  I like teachers.  And that myth isn't exactly true; but it isn't entirely false either.  They do get most of the summer off.  And they get two weeks off every Christmas plus they get March break off.  But they also work all day, every day.  Even when they're not actually teaching your kids.  They're there before your kids are and they're there after they leave.  They take their work home with them.  They organize the concerts and the sports teams and the school plays.  Sure, that's part of what teachers are expected to do, but they don't do it during class time.  My point here is that I think the public has maybe forgotten that we expect an awful lot from teachers.  I would not trade places with a teacher for the world.  I'm not sure I could manage a whole class of children and I wouldn't want the responsibility these days when parents seem to expect everything and a bag of chips from teachers.

Moving on to Bill 115, lots of the news, tweets, messages etc. seem to focus on this 'work to rule' (my words) protest being about labour rights rather than the actual changes in the agreements.  So, I looked it up.  and since most people probably don't want to read the whole bill (or any of it)  I'll give you the highlights (there is mention that these powers are granted on an exceptional and temporary basis):

• Section 4(1) refers to the types of agreements which the collective bargaining must resemble:  i.e. the one agreed to by the OECTA and the terms must not be inconsistent with that agreement.
• Section 9 is actually called Minister’s advice to Lieutenant Governor in Council.  
• Subsection (1) specifies how the Education Minister can, and should, give orders to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) regarding signing agreements.  Essentially, the Minister must approve of whatever agreement the boards and teachers come up with, and those agreements must resemble the agreement reached with the OECTA.
• Subsection (2) is a little more complex, but it specifies that if the Minister advises the Lieutenant Governor that an agreement does not meet the above-mentioned criteria, then the LG may order just about anything, "(vi)  do anything else that the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines is necessary in the circumstances".  It then goes on to detail what things may need to be done if the Minister advises the LG that a board and a bargaining agent are not going to be able to come to an agreement before the December 31, 2012 deadline:  impose a collective agreement as per above, prohibit strikes, prohibit lockouts and everything associated with those things.  
• The rest of the subsections are mostly legal stuff, nothing earth-shattering.

• Section (10) makes it okay for the LG to impose a collective agreement.  Period.

Whew, that section 9 was killer huh?  So now we're getting to the really good stuff and I won't bore you with lists anymore.  In section (11) the bill states that the Minister can make a complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging a contravention of this Act.  Section (12) follows by declaring that the Minister must be notified of any proceedings relating to this Act including request for judicial review.  Then in section (13) it states that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 applies, except as modified by this Act.  Which sets us up nicely for section (14) wherein we learn the following:

   14.  (1)  The Ontario Labour Relations Board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.

   (2)  An arbitrator or arbitration board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.

Yikes!!!  They can't even complain if their human rights are violated!!!  That would be breaking the law.  Seriously. 

The bill goes on to say that there will be no review by court.  Period.  No orders made or advice given under this Act will be reviewed or arbitrated.  There will be no causes of action resulting from this Act.  There will be no remedy.  There's more after that, but it's legal stuff; this is the meat and potatoes.

So, if someone was taking my rights away, I might be a little miffed too.  Wouldn't you?

Having said all of that, I'd like to go in a different direction now.  When I was first researching this bill, the idea that kept popping into my mind was that while this bill is a Draconian measure, would it have been necessary if the threat of labour disruption wasn't real?  Yes, this bill goes too far in my opinion,  but I think the threat was real.  And why was the threat there in the first place?  Because the government was trying to control spending by implementing the measures listed at the top of this post; and, as I mentioned above, I don't know very many people (outside of the government) who would have a hard time accepting those provisions as long as they still had jobs.  So as much as the teachers want to take the high road and claim that this isn't about money or banking sick days, that's what started it.

That and the fact that they are unionized professionals.  Think about that for a minute.  Roll it around in your mouth.  Professionals.  Because teachers are professionals.  They have to get a second university degree to teach at any level, they have specialties, they have to maintain and continue their education and keep current.  Teachers are professionals.  But they're also in unions.  What's up with that?  Are there any other professionals you can think of who are unionized?  I can't think of any.  The other professionals that come to mind have organizations which are responsible for maintaining their membership, accreditation, discipline when necessary, education etc., but they aren't unions.  The Law Societies, The Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, the Associations of Chartered Accountants, to name but a few. 

At the risk of offending teachers (which is not at all my intent), the rest of the western world is in, at the very least, a recession.  Much of southern Ontario over the past five years has had to deal with the fallout of the collapse of the auto industry and everything that rippled from that and the American banking collapse.  Teachers have been laid off and still there is a threat of strikes or lockouts.  No one wants to lose something that they already have.  That's understandable.  But banking sick days?  Forever?  There are teachers who can't get jobs and the ones who have jobs want to strike because they can't save up their sick days.  Many people don't even get paid when they're sick.  Other professionals get paid for the work they actually do (doctors get paid per client visit, lawyers bill by the hour that they are actually working on your stuff etc.).  They don't get paid a salary and they certainly don't get paid when they don't do anything.

 As I mentioned above, I have the highest regard for teachers, and I am always suspicious of the government.  This legislation is outrageous and while the teachers themselves can't do anything about it, perhaps the taxpayers should:  because if the government can do this to one group of people, then they can of course do it to another group (and you're fooling yourself if you think not).  I have no idea how to go about that at this particular time, so I'll just leave that in your laps for now.

I think that I have rambled enough for today and I will remove myself from my soapbox after saying one more thing:  I think that both sides are wrong and neither is putting students first.  The Minister and the teachers (or at least the organizers of the work stoppages) are antagonizing each other and holding the students hostage. 

Drive safe peeps,

Jenny Doherty Lazary, November 25, 1969 - July 19, 2012

Hello my friends,

I was sitting in my garden this afternoon / evening reflecting when a little bird alighted on my fence and started twittering like crazy.  I looked and said "little bird, today is not a day for being chipper, today is a sad day."  The little bird paid me no heed (of course) and continued chirping away with careless abandon; so much so that a little friend came to join in.  Birds will be birds I suppose.

This had interrupted my sad reflections (obviously), but only to a degree.  I had previously been thinking about how sad it was that my cousin had passed away in the wee hours this morning having finally succumbed to the cancer that she had been valiantly battling for the past two and a half years.  Jenny was eight months younger than I am and we had spent lots of time together as kids.  Our families used to spend Christmases together.  As we grew older, and we moved physically apart, we didn't spend as much time together as I would have liked (for all the little reasons that life throws at you) but whenever we did see each other as adults we always got along just as we always had.

Before the birdsong, I had been feeling sorry.  Sorry for her mom and dad, because it's just not right to lose a child no matter how old they are.  Sorry for her husband because they had known each other longer now than they hadn't and I could only imagine how hard this was going to be for him.  Sorry for her son because he is almost sixteen and that's too young to be deprived of your mom, especially one as great as Jenny.

After the birdsong though it occurred to me that one of the great things about Jenny was her attitude towards life.  She was cool without trying, laid-back, smart without making a big deal about it, and funny.  She took things as they came, and when bad things came she took those in stride and just dealt with them.  She wasn't perfect, none of us are, but if her afternoon had been interrupted by birds she would have probably welcomed them.  Jenny was given a fair number of lemons in her life and she had no problem turning those lemons into lemonade.  Not that she would necessarily drink it, she would probably prefer tea, but I'm sure she gave it to someone.

When Jenny found out she had inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), she didn't just lay back and accept a death sentence:  she was determined to fight as hard as she had to.  And fight she did.  It wasn't easy, but she didn't give up because it wasn't in her nature.  The problem with IBC is that it's not usually detectable until it's already spread to your lymph nodes.

Jenny was beautiful inside and out.  I will miss her very much, but I will always remember her as one of the most positive people I know.

So, I'm still sad, but not quite as much.  Remembering Jenny (her laugh especially) cheered me up a little.

Thanks for tuning in peeps!  Drive safe and remember to call your loved ones when you can.

International Women's Day 2012

Hello My Friends,

It's been too long.  I hope all is well in your worlds.

I know that International Women's Day was yesterday, but I was still thinking about what I should write then so I'm posting this a little late this year.   I'm not really going to get on a soapbox this time (at least not too big a soapbox) because I don't think there's any point in re-hashing the same kind of stuff we've talked about in the recent past.   I am however going to ask a question that was asked last year and more than once again on March 8th: Do we still need an International Women's Day?

Some people say yes, others say no.

I say yes, but I'm always open to other opinions so when people scoff and say things like 'when are we going to have an International Men's Day?' I listen to them.  And I think about why they might be asking this.  And I think about why they might think we don't need an International Women's Day anymore.

Obviously these are people who live in North America so there's that: women here legally have equal rights.  We do get to vote and own land and more of us get post-secondary educations than men these days.  We can also (kind of) support ourselves; at least some of us can.  We still get paid a lot less (29% less by most accounts), but the scoffers have rationalizations for that: women are typically the lower earners in 'traditional nuclear' families so when someone has to take time off for childcare, it makes more fiscal sense for the woman to do so.   Extrapolate that, and since women take time off to actually have children and nurture them, it stands to reason that we're not as solid an investment as men because we could get pregnant or have a sick child at any time.   [Sarcasm - just in case you didn't notice.]

Regardless of the pay issue, why else might we still need an International Women's day?  Well, the obvious answer is that not all women have equal rights.   There are many places in the world where women can't vote and they can't own property.   And frankly, those are the least of their worries.  This post is not about atrocities, but if you've ever read any of my previous posts, you are probably aware of some of them.  There are women and girls all over the world who live in fear every day simply because of the fact that they are female.

Another troubling issue:  there are many places in the world where selective abortion is being practiced to the extent that it is changing the societal makeup of the country so that more boy babies are being born.  If you extrapolate that, where is that going to leave the young women in 13 - 18 years?   I'll let you think about that one.  If abortion based on the gender of your fetus isn't sexist, I don't know what is.

Ergo, I think I'm going to stick with my opinion that we still need an International Women's Day; at least internationally.  The fact that something isn't happening in your backyard doesn't mean it's not happening at all.

So let's turn our attention back to the west: a bit more of a conundrum here because of the whole having the same legal rights thing.   So I'm going to ask some more questions (because I'm in a questioning mood) to which I don't have easy answers; maybe some of you will.

How many women do you know who have ever, in any way, experienced some form of physical abuse from a partner?  How many do you think have but wouldn't admit it?   Now ask yourself how many men?

How many times have you heard men jokingly complain that women 'travel in packs' when they're out at night so that it's difficult to approach just one?  And how many men know that we 'travel in packs' for safety?  We wouldn't do this if we weren't afraid.  How many men do you think travel in packs for safety?  How many do you think promise each other not to leave without any of the rest?  We do this because we're afraid of being raped and/or killed, and then sometimes blamed for it because we were drunk or dressed provocatively.

We don't talk about it, we don't say it out loud, we just know it. We're all trained from a young age not to get in a car with a stranger offering us candy, and we're all trained not to put ourselves in situations where we'll be at greater risk.

Too extreme you say?  Perhaps, but perhaps not.

If you're a woman you know exactly what I'm talking about.  We live in a world where we have to take precautions because even though no one says it out loud, we live in fear.  People will scoff at this and say 'everyone has to take precautions, that's just common sense.'  But do my brothers who are at least six inches taller and about 100 pounds heavier than I am have to take the same precautions I do?  No.  They never have and I doubt they ever will.

I'm not suggesting that men don't also have fears, and that some men may also live in the same type of fear that we do, but not the majority of them, and not all the time.

So I say we will need an International Women's Day until self-determination is no longer in question and we no longer live in fear.  Any of us.

Thanks for tuning in.  Drive safe!
Lesle

GSAs Part Deux

Hello my peeps!

In the interest of closure, I thought I should write a little post letting everyone know that the Ontario Catholic school trustees have changed their collective mind - a little - and decided to allow clubs in Catholic schools (not gay-straight alliances) which are focused on helping students who are bullied because they are gay. Here is the Toronto Star's article on the story.

Yay! It may seem like a small victory, but it's still nice to celebrate.

Peace out peeps, and don't forget to vote on Monday!

Mobbing the Vote

Happy Easter Everybody!

I guess it's about time that I posted a little bit about our current election. I just haven't been inspired to this time; until now.

There really hasn't been much of a campaign in my opinion. It seems to me to be mostly a scare campaign with each major party trying to scare you out of voting for the other. Perhaps I've missed the boat, but all the ads and all the headlines seem to be more about the same old stuff: Harper's evil (which of course we know is true, you can see it in his eyes) and wants to kill healthcare, Ignatieff is not really Canadian because he spent too long away from Canada (in the States and England) and only came back to be Prime Minister, and Layton is all about the 'ordinary' Canadians ('cuz anyone who has a post secondary education or is middle-class doesn't really count).

If you actually go to the Liberal and NDP sites and read their platforms they have some interesting stuff that isn't negative about the other guys (not a casual use of the word). Iggy wants to help us with childcare and education. They both want to help with job creation and healthcare. I'm not going to reprint their entire platforms for you, but you can follow the links if you're interested. If you go to the Conservative site, the first thing you see is a negative blurb about one of the other leaders. Nice.

Regardless, I'm pretty tired of hearing negative advertising myself. They all do it and they're all acting like children in my opinion. If they can't get elected on their own merits, then they're clearly not worthy of election. However I know that politics is all about the negative advertising now because that's what we respond to apparently. What does that say about us, the electorate? I don't think it says anything good.

It's a shame that the only candidates we have to choose from are name-calling, power-hungry adolescents who don't seem to have our best interests in mind. If they really did, they wouldn't behave the way they do. They would actually accomplish things when they got elected. They would try to work together despite their differences for the benefit of the people (you know, the people for whom they work). It's clear that our system has broken down to the point where those who have either been elected to or who work for the government in the bureaucracy have forgotten that they are supposed to be working for the people. It should be viewed as a privilege to serve in public office, but instead it seems from the actions of those who are currently elected officials that the prevailing attitude is rather one of entitlement to rule and behave badly - and not be held accountable.

Our elected officials in Ottawa do not believe that their spending of public money should be subject to audit. They expect to have their cake and eat it too. And we let them.

So the original point of this post was about a relatively new phenomenon: vote mobs. In case you don't know what one is here's a link to an article about the first ever. Ah, to be young again! These are happening all over the country and I say good on 'em! They're good clean fun and they get the message out: go vote!

Today's particular post was inspired by a different kind of article though. Not surprisingly it was a negative article by a former Stephen Harper lackey who thinks that vote mobs are bad. Why? Because it would be just awful to have a bunch of uninformed kids running around exercising their rights and making decisions regarding who should run our country. Umm, okay (that's sarcasm just in case it didn't translate well).

I guess we should start giving every person who votes a test before they do so to ensure that they know why they're voting for the candidates they're choosing. Perhaps we should start verifying education documents as well. We wouldn't want people of any age really who are uninformed making decisions about important things. Maybe we should just take the decision-making out of the hands of the people altogether because really, they can't be trusted to make the right decisions: they don't have all the relevant facts. (Again with the sarcasm, sorry, I just can't help myself.)

Obviously I think vote mobs are a good thing. They look fun, they seem harmless and they're inspiring. If even half of those people vote, then that's fabulous as far as I'm concerned. Sorry if my little rant was a little meander-y, but that's just how I'm rolling today.

Have a good long weekend and drive safe! Peace out!

Catholic Schools Ban GSAs? That's a Shocker!

Greetings my Friends,

I hope all is well with you on this sunny (in the GTA anyway) Sunday.

Today's little story came to me through an email from a friend of mine who is, understandably, alarmed at this news. His email didn't contain the actual story but I have great faith in him. Most of you don't know him so I'm including a link the The Globe's story.

If you don't want to jump to the Globe, I'll sum up: St Joseph's Catholic Secondary in Mississauga has decided not to allow students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. This is not terribly surprising to me. It is a Catholic school.

PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT I AM CONDONING OR AGREEING WITH THE DECISION. I am simply not surprised. I was raised as a Catholic and anyone who follows the goings-on in the Vatican should know that the Papacy officially frowns on homosexual behaviour. (I'm not even going to start on priests.) The Catholic Church frowns on any type of sexual behaviour outside of marriage too (marriage being defined as the union between a man and a woman), and even within a marriage it really should only be for the sake of procreation. Seriously.

So, having said that, let's look at what institution is making this decision. An aging, fearful, corrupt one. I'm not suggesting that each and every Catholic is old, scared and corrupt/evil. I'm talking high-level.

I am not and have never been a Church-basher. The Catholic Church has been responsible for a lot of good in the course of modern history. They educated and nursed the poor (in droves); they provided light where there was only dark for many. They helped untold numbers of people. They gave me a good education and I never once was abused (neither were my brothers). However, they have also been responsible for their share of bad. I'm sure I don't need to go into it, but I think the biggest mistake the Church is making is not evolving.

Things which don't change die. The Church refuses to accept that the world and the people in it are not the same as we were 2,000 years ago. We are not afraid of the dark anymore. A growing number of us do not even believe in their God and thus we cannot be cowed into obediance with threats of everlasting hell.

There have been gay people as long as there have been people: that hasn't changed. What has changed is society's acceptance of difference. I'm not gay, but my friend who sent me the email offers this:

Growing up gay in suburban Toronto during the nineties was not easy. Feeling different from a young age, and hitting puberty with an attraction to the same-sex, I realized very quickly my environment was not friendly towards such feelings.

My attempts to suppress my attraction, and fit in, led to a major depression in my early teens, with self-destructive behaviours that were all-consuming.

The only support groups for gay teens were in downtown Toronto at the time, and accessing these supports was difficult for a north of Steeles Avenue teenager on a school-night. It involved making up stories about where I disappeared to every Tuesday night, and feeling there was no space for gay teenagers in the suburbs.

I was lucky enough to meet other gay, lesbian and bisexual students in my Thornhill public high school, and together we started York Region’s first LGBTQ support group in Richmond Hill , open to all youth living in York Region. With the support of the York Region Public Health Department, we secured a space, and were happy to see large numbers of youth attend these meetings, finding a place to grow their self-esteem and realize they were not alone. This group became very meaningful for me, and for many other youth who were struggling with isolation.

Perhaps I'm a little too jaded sometimes, but part of me thinks, is anyone really surprised by this school's decision? It's the second recently. The Halton District Catholic School Board had it's similar decision overturned (and I assume the same will happen here). Perhaps we shouldn't be sending our kids to Catholic schools if we don't want them to be excluded.

Perhaps most important to remember: the Catholic schools in Ontario are no longer separate. They are entirely funded by public money now. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. These are not Catholic schools any more, these are public schools that teach the Catholic religion. Of course, either way, individuals should not have to feel invisible or excluded. Either way, all kids should feel that they have a voice and a safe place at school.

That's all I've got for now peeps!

Peace out,

International Women's Day 2011

Good Day Peeps,

Happy Fat Tuesday! I hope you are all well on this sunny March Tuesday. I've been surfing around the web today checking on the status of women (as I am wont to do on this day every year) and I've come across a few differing opinions regarding our status. One that's trending on Twitter right now is by Margaret Wente about how the war is over and life is rosy now: we're equals! Yay! Right.

There are few other people who might disagree with Ms. Wente, including 007. I'm inclinded to agree with him and Q.

I'm not disagreeing with Ms. Wente regarding the basic facts that women in the west are now legally entitled to own property, vote and get an education. On paper, sure, affirmative action has made inroads: but anyone who actually has a good liberal arts education (i.e. has learned how to think beyond the stats) knows that equality isn't just about numbers. It certainly isn't just about the ability to get an education and get a job. It isn't about people in unions getting paid the same amount of money for doing the same work. Equality is much more complex and will take much more than affirmative action to become pervasive.

Ask anyone who is not a straight white man whether or not he or she feels that equality is a reality and the answer will probably be unequivocally no.

I am an eternal optimist (if you've ever read this blog before you probably know that) and I do think we're headed in the right direction, but to sit back and rest on the laurels of the women who made what we have possible and pretend that we've won would be a grave error. We will not be equal until we don't have to live in fear any longer. We will not be equal until we can all live our lives as we choose.

All people deserve the right to self-determination: not just those of us who are educated, affluent and are lucky enough to be born in the west.

Peace out peeps,

Judge Blames Victim in Sexual Assault Case? In Canada!

Hey Peeps!

Hope all is well with everyone.

A friend of mine posted a link to this article on Facebook.

I couldn't believe what I was reading at first. The I clicked on a few more stories (here's CBC's) and it seems to be true. A judge actually let a convicted rapist go free without jail time because the woman the rapist assaulted was dressed provocatively.

I'm in a little bit of shock right now. I know that there are still men in the world (and even this country) who probably believe that women 'deserve' to be raped, or 'are asking for it' when they're dressed in short skirts and tight tops and are wearing make-up, but I used to think that the men we trusted in our judicial system were more enlightened. I used to think that women who were brave enough to face their rapists would at least find some justice in the system and would be able to feel safe for a little while whilst their attackers were thinking about their actions in jail. I used to think that our justice system was moving forward, not backwards.

It seems that I was mistaken. This makes me sad. Decisions like this reinforce the idea that we really are not even close to being equals. Every now and then I get a little bit too optimistic, and I believe that we're moving towards equality in a slow, but steady manner; then something like this happens and I'm reminded that we're really only half a step above the state we were at when we weren't even allowed to own property.

I have nothing more to say about this right now.

Drive safe peeps,

Corrective Rape???

Good day my friends! I know it's been a while; I hope you've all been well.

The following was forwarded to me in an email and while it includes a plea to sign a petition, I'm not asking you to do so: you can follow your own conscience there.

The reason I'm copying it here is because I had never even heard the term 'corrective rape' before and I'm fairly up-to-date on current events. Or so I thought. The story is not pretty (rape stories never are), but the statistics included in the email are abysmal. I am aware that you can't believe everything you read, but I did a little checking and found that while I couldn't get all of these stats verified exactly, the numbers are supported elsewhere on the net (at least to some degree).

The stories at the ends of a couple of the links made me want to cry. Just warning you.

Anyway, that's enough from me because it's a bit of a long-ish post on its own, so without further ado:

Millicent Gaika was bound, strangled, tortured and raped for five hours by a man who crowed that he was ‘curing’ her of her lesbianism.

She barely survived, but she is not alone -- this vicious crime is recurrent in South Africa , where lesbians live in terror of attack. But no one has ever been convicted of 'corrective rape'.

Amazingly, from a tiny Cape Town safehouse a few brave activists are risking their lives to ensure that Millicent’s case sparks change. Their appeal to the Minister of Justice has exploded to over 140,000 signatures, forcing him to respond on national television. But the Minister has not yet answered their demands for action.

Let's shine a light on this horror from all corners of the world -- if enough of us join in to amplify and escalate this campaign, we can reach President Zuma, who is ultimately responsible to uphold constitutional rights. Let’s call on Zuma and the Minister of Justice to publicly condemn ‘corrective rape’, criminalise hate crimes, and ensure immediate enforcement, public education and protection for survivors. Sign the petition now and share it with everyone -- we’ll deliver it to the South African government with our partners in Cape Town :

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

South Africa , often called the Rainbow Nation, is revered globally for its post-apartheid efforts to protect against discrimination. It was the first country to constitutionally protect citizens from discrimination based on sexuality. But in Cape Town alone, the local organization Luleki Sizwe has recorded more than one 'corrective rape' per day, and impunity reigns.

'Corrective rape' is based on the outrageous and utterly false notion that a lesbian woman can be raped to 'make her straight', but this heinous act is not even classified as a hate crime in South Africa . The victims are often black, poor, lesbian women, and profoundly marginalised. But even the 2008 gang rape and murder of Eudy Simelane, the national hero and former star of the South Africa women's national football team, did not turn the tide. And just last week Minister Radebe insisted that motive is irrelevant in crimes like 'corrective rape.'

South Africa is the rape capital of the world. A South African girl born today is more likely to be raped than she is to learn to read. Astoundingly, one quarter of South African girls are raped before turning 16. This has many roots: masculine entitlement (62 per cent of boys over 11 believe that forcing someone to have sex is not an act of violence), poverty, crammed settlements, unemployed and disenfranchised men, community acceptance -- and, for the few cases that are courageously reported to authorities, a dismal police response and lax sentencing.

This is a human catastrophe. But Luleki Sizwe and partners at Change.org have opened a small window of hope in the fight against it. If the whole world weighs in now, we could get justice for Millicent and national action to end 'corrective rape':

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

This is ultimately a battle with poverty, patriarchy, and homophobia. Ending the tide of rape will require bold leadership and concerted action to spearhead transformative change in South Africa and across the continent. President Zuma is a a Zulu traditionalist, who has himself stood trial for rape. But he condemned the arrest of a gay couple in Malawi last year, and, after massive national and international civic pressure, South Africa finally approved a UN resolution opposing extra-judicial killing in relation to sexual orientation.

If enough of us join this global call for action, we could push Zuma to speak out, drive much-needed government action, and begin a national conversation that could fundamentally shift public attitudes toward rape and homophobia in South Africa . Sign on now and spread the word:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_corrective_rape/?vl

A case like Millicent’s makes it easy to lose hope. But when citizens come together with one voice, we can succeed in shifting fundamentally unjust, but deeply ingrained practices and norms. Last year, in Uganda , we succeeded in building such a massive wave of public pressure that the government was forced to shelve legislation that would have sentenced gay Ugandans to death. And it was global pressure in support of bold national activists that pushed South African leaders to address the AIDS crisis that was engulfing their country. Let’s join together now and speak out for a world where each and every human being can live without fear of abuse.

With hope and determination,

Alice, Ricken, Maria Paz, David and the rest of the Avaaz team

SOURCES:

Blog of Luleki Sizwe, South African organization leading the call to their government to stop 'corrective rape', and provides support to victims
http://lulekisizwe.wordpress.com

Minister of Justice Radebe’s nationally televised interview (South African Broadcasting Corporation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkx-PYqHM0U

Protest against ‘corrective rape’ (The Sowetan)
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/01/06/protest-against-corrective-rape


Petition launched on Change.org by activists from Luleki Sizwe
http://humanrights.change.org/petitions/view/south_africa_declare_corrective_rape_a_hate-crime

" South Africa 's shame: the rise of child rape" (The Independent)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/south-africas-shame-the-rise-of-child-rape-1974578.html

"Exploring homophobic victimisation in Gauteng , South Africa : issues, impacts, and responses" (Centre for Applied Psychology, University of South Africa )
http://www.avaaz.org/out_ucap_gauteng_study

"We have a major problem in South Africa " (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/nov/18/south-africa-murder-rape

" South Africa : Rape Facts" (Channel 4)
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/south-africa-rape-facts

"Understanding men’s health and use of violence: interface of rape and HIV in South Africa " (Medical Research Council)
http://gender.care2share.wikispaces.net/file/view/MRC+SA+men+and+rape+ex+summary+june2009.pdf

"Preventing Rape and Violence in South Africa " (Medical Research Council)
http://www.mrc.ac.za/gender/prev_rapedd041209.pdf

Drive safe peeps,

Peace out

Mad Woman?

Hello all,

I hope you are all well as summer begins to wind down. Our summer here in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) has been HOT HOT HOT. I don't remember the last time we had one this hot. No complaints from me, but my electricity bill was a lot higher for this summer than last, and I imagine mine was not the only one.

Anyhoo, on to my post, which I'm sure you're all eager to read! ;)

I've been talking to people lately about the tv show 'Mad Men' and why I don't like it. The people I've been talking to have all been men. They all like the show. In case any of you, my faithful readers, don't know what the show is about:

Set in 1960s New York, the sexy, stylized and provocative AMC drama Mad Men follows the lives of the ruthlessly competitive men and women of Madison Avenue advertising, an ego-driven world where key players make an art of the sell.

That quote is from the AMC (the show's producer) website.

So what's up with me? It's an award-winning show. People seem to love it. It's character driven, it's got snappy dialogue and fabulous wardrobe; and I'm seriously into clothing as those of you who know me know. For years I've been lamenting the fact that people don't know how to dress for work anymore. But I digress.

One of the men I talked to said he thought guys liked the show because it allowed them to revel in a time when men could be men and not have to apologize for their behaviour. My response: Excuse me? Answer: You know, we didn't have to worry about being politically correct and stuff. This conversation can be summed up thusly: He suggested that men enjoyed the show because it was set in a time when men could be as sexist, racist and bigoted as they were naturally inclined to be and didn't have to worry about the repercussions. After a little discussion (read grilling, and I admit that my discussions on topics like this may seem a little like grilling when speaking with someone with this kind of belief) he protested that this was not his opinion, just what he imagined others' opinions are. Right.

Okay, this I get: if you're sexist, racist and/or bigoted, and still wish that white men were as dominant and oppressive as they were fifty years ago, I can completely understand why you would enjoy this show.

Another guy I spoke with told me I was reading too much into it. It's just a show. He doesn't think about it at all and I shouldn't worry about. I shouldn't worry about the rampant misogyny? Nope. It's just a show. Get over it. Move on. This conversation isn't worth having. Okay then. I'll move on.

The last guy I talked to about this show is someone I consider to be not only very liberated but also an entertainment connoisseur. When he asked why I dislike the show I told him I was uncomfortable with how misogynistic it is. During our conversation he pointed out that the show took place during a time when that was the norm and that the show's protagonists were not depicted as heroes, rather they were shown as anti-heroes and that the misogyny was not glamourized but highlighted as something negative. He enjoys the show for the story lines, characters, etc. not for the wistful harkening back to 'better times'. He also pointed out that I sounded a little harsh when talking about it. Okay, maybe I am a little; or maybe a lot. He asked why I was so upset about this particular show when almost anything historical would contain some form of oppression. This is true.

So I've been thinking about this and I've decided I just can't stomach it. Perhaps this show is worst because it's so good; because it's so believable. Perhaps it's because I don't have to suspend any disbelief: I believe in these scenarios; these things could have happened. It's similar to why I don't find slasher movies scary but Silence of the Lambs scared the heck out of me: slasher movies are completely fabricated, but serial killers with anti-social personalities exist.

So I admit it it's me. I don't enjoy watching it. I prefer my entertainment to be fun, or intellectual or something that doesn't make me feel bad. Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that I'm a 'bury my head in the sand and forget about what women have had to go through to get where we are today type of person'. I'm just saying that when I watch t.v. it's because I don't want to think, I just want to enjoy myself and I can't enjoy myself if I'm feeling bad. I'm glad society has changed and I don't really have to deal with treatment like that on a regular basis. Obviously, we're still not equals and sexism still exists. Racism and bigotry of all kinds still exist too, but I think society is moving forward and I am happy that some people are watching what they say and do. Not enough mind you, but at least people are trying and I give them kudos for that.

I look forward to a time when people don't have to worry about political correctness anymore because they won't even be thinking that way. People will have come to the realization that people are people and while different, equal. I'm not naive enough to believe that will happen in my lifetime, but I believe it will happen someday. Maybe then people will watch something like 'Mad Men' and marvel at how pre-historic the people in the twentieth century were.

Until then, be good and drive safe peeps!

Abortion? Again???

Why People Why????

Have they nothing better to do with their time? Seriously? Are there not more important issues concerning their constituents that they should be worried about? I think yes. Child poverty, health care, education, the military action in Afghanistan: these are but a few of the issues that are current, urgent and far more real than what some of our MPs seem to be spending their time and our money on.

According to a story in The Toronto Star today, some people are under the misapprehension that there is still such a thing as an 'abortion debate' in Canada. Are they not aware of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? According to section 7:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

As far as I'm concerned, this means I'm allowed to do whatever is necessary to secure my life as it is and I have the right not to be deprived of that right. Of course, I also must not be depriving any other person who also has a life and is entitled to the same rights.

Further, according to section 15:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

This means that I cannot be discriminated against because I am a woman. Since only women can have abortions, then it follows (granted in a somewhat odd fashion) that preventing women from having abortions is discriminating against them.

Women have just as much right to self-determination as men do. Period. When are these people going to catch up? The so-called abortion debate is sooo twenty years ago. Or maybe they just can't come up with solutions to real problems so since they feel a need to be in the news, they figure they'll push our buttons about this.

Hmpf!

Peace out peeps,
Lesle

Sex Ed in Ontario Gets a Slap in the Face!

Greetings,

I hope you are all well. Catchy title huh? I'm kind of kidding; but just a little.

If you live in Ontario (as I do), you may have heard that our provincial government had been planning on updating the physical health education curriculum for elementary schools until recently. The Toronto Star ran a story here. In case you don't feel like reading the story, the gist of the updates are:

What kids will learn

Grade 1 — Body parts, including genitalia using correct terminology

Grade 2 — Stages of human development

Grade 3 — Healthy relationships, differences and how they make humans unique (discussion could include sexual orientation, physical abilities, cultural values)

Grade 4 — Puberty and physical/social impact

Grade 5 — Reproductive system, menstruation, spermatogenesis, emotional stresses of puberty

Grade 6 — Emotional, social and physical changes of adolescence (discussion could include wet dreams, erections, vaginal lubrication, masturbation)

Grade 7 — Delaying sexual activity, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy and STI prevention, (possible discussion of oral sex, intercourse, anal intercourse)

Grade 8 – Making decisions about sexual activity; sexual health/abstinence/safe sex; gender identity (male/female/transgendered/transsexual)

Apparently, these changes were published sometime in January of this year but only became news in the past week (or so). I'm not entirely sure what caused the public outcry, but the result of this public outcry has been our Premier's decision to 'rethink' the proposed changes and to leave the existing curriculum in place. Another result is that the changes have been removed from the government's website so we can't even look at them anymore.

Many people have commented on this. As you may have guessed, many of them espousing 'family values' and age-appropriate-ness (I know, that's not a word, but you know what I mean). One of the Star's columnists Rosie DiManno wrote an editorial on Friday which is what actually prompted me to write.

DiManno rails against the government daring to tell parents how to educate their young children about healthy relationships. She claims that six is far too young an age to introduce children to sex and that's why so many parents were taken aback. She claims the new curriculum was not value neutral, but an alternative moral code and that the government was simply teaching a different dogma (her word). She also claims that the curriculum "went well beyond instruction on body parts, prevention of disease and pregnancy and exploration of sexuality/orientation." Of course, we don't know that and we can't check now either. In summary, Rosie DiManno seems to have responded just like the 'Moral Majority', or the Canada Christian College. She writes editorials: she's supposed to have an opinion. I'm not knocking her for that. I am knocking her for sensationalism. She seems to have exaggerated a little to me, but I'm not going to split hairs.

I am going to suggest something else though. Studies continue to show that in developed nations with less public education about sex, there are higher rates of teen pregnancy.

However, that's not why I really wanted to write. There was something about the self-righteous tone in DiManno's article that set off alarm bells in my little head. It reminded me of something else I read in the Star (a year or two ago) that prompted me to blog: the new V-word. Remember that one? Va-jay-jay; because people aren't comfortable with the word vagina. Because it's a scary word. Like cancer or something. Or homosexual. You know, something you have to whisper in polite society. We can't possibly trust the educational system to teach these words to our children. We have to load them up with values first. We have to put them in context and make sure they understand why they're bad words.

I know that sarcasm doesn't translate well in print so I'm just going to write it out: those last few sentences after the word vagina were totally sarcastic.

My point is that to a child who doesn't know the difference between a penis and a vagina (which is a little hard to imagine at age six but I'm good at suspending my disbelief) a textbook definition of biological terms is hardly going to be value-laden. In grade three when they're being taught about relationships and what a heterosexual relationship is versus a homosexual relationship, again, a textbook definition is going to be a lot less value-laden than anything most parents would give them. I'm not suggesting that the government is infallible, or that the teachers are always going to have the best responses. Chances are, the kids are still going to learn the slang terms in the schoolyards (or on the internet), but when you're teaching something in the public school system, it becomes less scary and by the time those kids grow up, maybe they won't feel as threatened when someone wants to teach their kids about alternate lifestyles; like why their best friend has a mommy and a daddy living together at home.

Thanks for reading and drive safe peeps!