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!

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!

Ordinary People Don't Like the Arts?

You just had to know that I would respond to that one! However, before I finished my response, Margaret Atwood responded even more eloquently in the Globe and Mail last week:

MARGARET ATWOOD
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we already live in? What do we like? Who are we?

At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector accounted for an "estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined)."

But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called "ordinary people" didn't care about something called "the arts." His idea of "the arts" is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand: I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.

Every single one of those people is an "ordinary person." Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. "Ordinary people" pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for "the arts" in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. "The arts" are not a "niche interest." They are part of being human.

Moreover, "ordinary people" are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. "Ordinary people" have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.

They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and "ordinary people" will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.

I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is "ordinary." It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of "ordinary people." He's the "niche interest." Not us.

It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is "ideologically motivated." Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.

Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.

The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!

I don't think I need to add anything to that. Thanks for reading, and please remember to vote peeps!

To Vote or Not to Vote

Hello friends,

A friend of mine forwarded this to me recently and I felt impelled to post it. The original author of the message is from the US, but the message is pretty universal.

Women friends and family please read this to the end as it is important and a part of our struggle for equality!

Let's honour these brave and daring women by voting and acknowledging them for our freedoms. Thank you for taking the time.

Remember, the vote for women was a massive struggle. See the movie, Iron Jawed Angels. It will inspire you to vote!

WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE




This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.

Remember, it was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.

(In Canada full enfranchisement was not to come until 1918, when the Dominion (federal) parliament passed an act giving women the vote. The remaining provinces quickly followed suit, except for Quebec, which did not do so until 1940. Agnes Macphail became the first woman elected to the Dominion Parliament in 1921.)



These women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking for the vote.

And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'



(Lucy Burns)

They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air.



(Dora Lewis)

They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.

Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women. Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because
they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote. For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.



(Alice Paul)

When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Last week, there was a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels.' It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. We need the reminder.

Voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said. 'What would those women think of the way I use, or don't use, my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The
right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'

HBO released the movie on video and DVD . I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum I want it shown on Bunco [sic] night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy.

The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'

Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know.
We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote liberal, conservative, green, new democratic, democratic, republican or independent party - remember to vote.

Please remember to vote on October 14th friends! I don't feel that we're entitled to complain unless we are willing to participate in our social contract. Like the author of this piece, I won't presume to tell you how to vote (your conscience should guide you in that regard), I just want you to vote.

Thanks for reading & drive safe peeps,

Election Day Approacheth in Ontario

Greetings Good Peoples,

I hope you are all well, and I would like to thank any of you who are actually still clicking on my little blog occasionally to see whether or not my writer's block has ended yet.

I'm hoping it has. I have tried several times, unsuccessfully, to start blogging again, but those posts are still in draft form and are still incomplete.

Anyway, if there's one thing that may spur me into action, it is an election! Ontario is having a provincial election tomorrow and I'd like to urge all of you Ontarians to vote. As any of my regular readers may know, I am a huge supporter of participating in the electoral process; which, for most people, means voting. I don't even view the right to vote as a privilege (which it may be for some who do not possess it), I view it as an obligation. It is a duty to which we, as participants in our social contracts, are bound. How can we expect our political representatives to know what we want if we don't tell them? Further, how do we know which representative will best represent us if we don't get involved and find out what they (or their party) stand for?

This particular vote is especially important because it contains a referendum (yes! we can have them too!). If this is news to you (and you're an Ontarian) I urge you to visit YourBigDecision to see what all the hoopla is about. I'm not going to explain everything here, but the government is asking its citizens whether we want to keep our current electoral system (first-past-the-post) or if we want to change to a mixed system which involves both first-past-the-post and mixed-member-proportional. Please click on the link for further explanation of these. I don't want to explain these options in a perhaps slanted way.

As of this time, I have still not decided how I am going to mark my ballot tomorrow, but mark it I will, and I will do so with the knowledge that I have done all that I could to determine what I think are the best options for our province.

Thanks again for your time, and thanks for your patience.

Drive safe peeps,
Lesle