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!

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!

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

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,

I know it's not a written entry, but I really wanted to post this...

Taxes! Taxes! Taxes!

Hi Everybody,

It's that time of year again... Nope, not spring, because as the weather has just reminded us here in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), we really can't rely on the past to help us figure out the weather's behaviour in the present (maybe it's supposed to be spring, but no... some more snow for us). No, now is the time when all the little accountants start sharpening their little pencils and stacking up the rolls of adding machine paper (I don't really know the name of that paper, sorry). It's Tax Season folks!!!

Aren't you all excited? I am! Well, I was, but I got my refund two weeks ago, so my excitement has subsided a little. I have safely tucked most of it away (no I'm not telling where!). I am kidding about getting really excited about tax time; slightly. Taxes are so easy now if you use software and file on-line that it literally takes only a week (maybe two if you file closer to the deadline) to get your assessment. If you have arranged for direct deposit, and you're getting a refund of your hard-earned money, then the money is in your account before you even get the paper assessment.

But I digress. My excitement was not why I wanted to discuss taxes today. A friend of mine sent me an email today that reminded me that I've wanted to discuss taxes before (but clearly had not gotten around to it). This is what she sent me:

Explaining Taxation

Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1
* The sixth would pay $3
* The seventh would pay $7
* The eighth would pay $12
* The ninth would pay $18
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested:

* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings... the least proportionate savings)

Each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings: "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

As a consequence, the first nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Okay, that may be a slightly heavy-handed example, but it's essentially true. As much of a socialist as I am (sort of), I am not a fanatic and I do understand money management. People (media, politicians) like to grab headlines, but the bottom line is that a tax cut is not 'free money' for anyone. It simply means that the amount of taxes we have to pay is proportionately less. That's why they call refunds; refunds. We're getting our money back. It was our money to begin with. It may seem as though the wealthy are getting a break when others are not (or are not getting much of one), but only because they were paying more originally. If we're not paying any taxes, then there is nothing to refund. If we're paying some, then we'll get some back, and if we pay lots, we'll get more back.

The bottom line for me is that I support paying taxes. I don't think I've ever complained about it, and I know several others who feel the same way. I think that we need to pay taxes to keep our social services alive and well. Yes, I am aware that there are some serious problems with our social services in Canada, and I am also aware that the more wealthy you are, the more opportunites your accountant will find to save you tax money. But, the wealthy (and businesses) still pay more in taxes than middle income or low income earners, and when there is a cut, the dollar value looks better for the wealthiest, even if the percentage doesn't.

When you enter into a social contract, there are benefits to be gained and there are obligations imposed. The taxes are one of the obligations we must meet so that we can benefit from living in one of the most developed nations in the world. Benefits like socialized healthcare and welfare, and passable roads and clean drinking water running hot and cold from our taps inside our homes (for the most part; if you don't have a home, you're probably not paying taxes).

I hope this little post of mine hasn't offended anyone!

Drive safe peeps!

International Women's Day '07 - Epilogue

Sorry to bug you twice in one day friends, but I was catching up on news and found this headline: Witness at Sask sex assault trial testifies girl made first moves on him , so of course I had to click on it.

If you don't want to make the effort to click on the link, here's a quick summary: three men (white men in their mid-twenties) have been accused of gang-raping a twelve year-old aboriginal girl. They picked her up on the steps of some bar, she had just run away from home, they drove out into the country and they gave her beer (four of them I think). But she started it. She was the aggressor.

This is why we need an International Women's Day.

Peace out peeps,

International Women's Day '07

Hi,

Today is International Women's Day. This year marks the 30th Anniversary and our theme in Canada is Ending Violence Against Women: Action for Real Results (well, that might be the theme for the whole world, but don't quote me on that).

I am all for that! (As an aside, I am all for ending violence against everyone, but that's a whole other post.) In fact, I'm sure most of you reading this are supportive of this year's theme; otherwise you probably wouldn't be reading my blog and you probably wouldn't like me much. So, great! Now what do we do?

First, how many of you knew it was International Women's day today? Or that it is International Women's Week (March 4th - 10th)? I'm not entirely sure how I know, but I have a good memory. You don't have to answer, it's a rhetorical question. Second, how many of us (social workers & teachers excepted) have any idea what to do about ending violence against women? Sure, if we're actually being violent towards women in our lives, we could stop that, but what if we're not? What if we don't know anyone (that we are aware of) who is a victim of violence (domestic or otherwise)? What is the average person to do? Third (and last), why do women need an international day? Women are alive, empowered, celebrated, exploited, oppressed, mutilated, beaten and murdered every day. Why make one special?

Since you're not actually here to answer my questions, I'm going answer them for you to the best of my humble abilities. I'm going to bet that most of you (> 65% of you) did not know that today is International Women's Day. I know that it is today because I possess a good liberal arts education (something that can never be repossessed and is worth way more than most people give it credit for) from a world-class university. I know because I try to be socially aware of issues affecting Canadians, and women and society in general. I know because I read a lot.

Second, how do we (the average Janes and Joes) end violence against women if we're not actually committing it? That's a good question... and I'm guessing that most of you don't have an answer to that one either. So how do we take action for real results? If you read the articles you can find on the web, it seems that most of the people in the western world are saying the same things... they're pledging to do more to close the gender gap and the wage gap. The men in countries with slightly less equality are going to make a more concerted effort to stop violating women and girls. They're going to try not to use acid to disfigure women and girls as a form of punishment. (Hmmm...) But what can we do? How do we close the wage gap? How do we end the exploitation of women and girls? How do we change a global way of thinking? I still don't have an answer for that one folks, and I don't think that anyone else does yet either. If you can come up with one, I would really like to hear it.

Thirdly, why do women need an international day? Men don't have an international day. What's so special about us? Well, what's not? We're not asking anyone to get us cards, so this isn't like a Hallmark holiday. Why do we need a day? It's kind of like celebrating Valentine's Day only a lot more important. We (everybody in the world) need to be reminded that women have been subserviant to men for all of human history and while some of us (western women) have attained a number of rights, many more of us have not. We need to be reminded that women are subjected to violence of all types every day. We need to be reminded not to shut our eyes and ears to the signs of violence happening around us every day. We need to be reminded that women are still seen as subservient to men, even in western society, and will continue to be so until everyone acknowledges the oppression and subservience and recognizes that people are people and deserve equal rights and treatment regardless of gender (ethnicity, religious belief, etc.). Men don't need an international day because they have everything: they have all the power and all the rights. We don't need to be reminded of that. They're the ones we had to ask permission from when we wanted the right to vote, or own land, or attend universities.

So, please at least help by making sure that your words and actions do not lead to violence or oppression in any way. Even if you're not always aware of it, just laughing at the jokes conveys the message that you agree with the subject matter. Watching the movies and buying the magazines is directly supporting the oppression and sexual subservience of women. I don't intend to sound too preachy, but I don't think I can put this any other way.

Happy International Women's Day my friends!

Drive safe peeps,

What's Happening to our Little Girls?

Hello peoples,

I was sitting in a waiting room again the other day so I picked up a Maclean's that I hadn't read. It was old(ish); I think it was from January. The letters section had several letters from readers about an article in a previous issue on how we're dressing our daughters. They made me want to read the article, but that issue wasn't there and I had to go, so I looked it up online and found it here.

It's a little long, but the essence of it was that we're dressing our daughters like little tarts and the author of the article was investigating the possible reasons as to why. She covered most of the common answers: girls are hitting puberty earlier, they are trying to emulate older girls, girls and young women have become one of the most targeted demographics for marketers, and my personal fave "everyone else is wearing it".

I will grant you that girls are reaching puberty at earlier ages on average now than we did when I was a pre-teen. I will also grant that little girls have always looked up to and wanted to imitate the older girls in their lives, this is not new. However, the next two reasons don't really hold water for me. Since when do we buy kids things they don't need just because someone has introduced them to the market? Further, I don't know about you, but when I was a kid if someone said to my mom "everyone else is doing it", her usual response was "if everyone else decides to jump off a bridge are you going to do that too?"

The article mentions that one company introduced a line of thongs for little girls 'because little girls worry about visible panty lines too'. The only reason a child would possibly care about this is if we told her to. There is no reason to even mention something like that to a child, and even if she has visible panty lines, that's okay. She's a child: she should be wearing underwear! With the days of the week, or superheros or flowers or something on them! Not things like 'juicey' or 'sweetcheeks'.

Another argument for allowing your daughter to dress like a skank is that parents don't want their daughters to not fit in with her peers and what with all of the pressures of life, sometimes it's just easier to give in. Well, I admit, I am not a parent, so this is a little bit like a priest giving marital advice, but I'm going to anyway. As soon as you let your children pressure you into making decisions you don't want to make just because you're tired or stressed out, you've lost control and you will never get it back. What kind of a lesson are you teaching your daughter with behaviour like that?

Or, you just don't care all that much and are just using that explanation as an excuse. Which is entirely possible. There are many many young women today leaving nothing to the imagination and they think they're sexy. They dress like that on purpose. Perhaps they think it's cute to dress their 6 year old just like mommy.

For the record, these clothes are not practical. Plastic heels for toddlers are counterproductive to their proper spinal development. Plus, they could hurt themselves. Tank tops? On a child? Low rise jeans? Toddlers and little girls typically do not have hips to hold them up and thus, they slip down. Belly tops? Mini skirts? You really can't do much in a mini skirt.

One of the biggest obstacles we have to overcome as a society before women and men are really equals is the sexual exploitation of women. One of the more insidious aspects of our sexual oppression is that it is so ingrained in society that most of us (women included) don't even question it. We think that because women can 'choose' or we can say 'no' that we are now equals. We think that pornography is okay because the women participating aren't being forced. This is simply not true. I am not going to digress into a rant against the pornography industry right now, but this is where it begins. With little girls. And they keep getting younger and younger.

Why are we dressing our little girls like tarts? If it's not sexual exploitation, then what is it?

Drive safe peeps, (and put a sweater on your kid!)

Equality Goes Both Ways

Aloha,

I was watching Dr. Phil last week and I saw a segment about a guy who was suing the court to be released from the obligation to pay child support because he was not given any choice as to whether or not to have the child. He had a lawyer who was claiming that his rights were being denied using the same argument used in Roe v. Wade.

The background is that this guy and his girlfriend (both pretty young-looking) had discussed children. He had said that he wasn't ready, she told him she couldn't get pregnant, but was on the pill for other medical reasons. So he had stopped using condoms. Lo and behold, she became pregnant and kept the child. He had been ordered by a Michigan court to pay over $500 per month in child support.

As Dr. Phil pointed out, the only way to be sure that you're protected is to use protection (and as Ross from Friends found out, even then you can't be sure). However, while I'm glad I'm not the guy in the hotseat, I'm also glad this has finally come up. I've often thought the law a little one-sided when it comes to this issue. Please don't get me wrong: I know that women predominantly bear most of the burden and all that stuff, however, thinking abstractly, we really do have more options than men do.

We choose what type of birth control we use (for the most part), and after the fact, if we get pregnant, we have the ultimate voice in determining what happens with the pregnancy. We choose whether or not to tell our partners we're pregnant, we choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy full term and we choose whether or not to keep the child if we decide to have it. If we're married or in a committed relationship, chances are, we're going to make that decision with our partner, but if we're not, then the man involved might not even find out that he was almost a father.

So when a woman gets pregnant and chooses not to have the child, we applaud that woman's right to choose and her right to self-determination. However, when a woman gets pregnant (in this case against the expressed wishes of the man) and decides to keep and raise the child, the man is reviled by the audience of the Dr. Phil show as a deadbeat for not wanting to have anything to do with the child. That seems awfully incongruous to me. This particular case is still before the courts, so we didn't get to hear all the details from the woman's side (she declined the invitation to the show), but she was apparently not denying that they had discussed the baby matter before she got pregnant and his position had been made clear.

I do not think that a man should be able to choose whether or not a woman should be able to have an abortion, or could be made to have an abortion, but I think that in a case where a pregnancy occurs and the woman proceeds against the wishes of the man, perhaps we should rethink our ideas about what that man is responsible for.

How can we ever consider ourselves equal if we don't start taking responsibility for our actions? If a woman chooses to have a child on her own, she should be prepared to raise the child without the support (emotional, financial or otherwise) of the man involved. In a perfect world, this wouldn't happen. All pregnancies would be welcomed with open arms and there would never be another abortion or deadbeat dad; but we don't live in a perfect world.

The moral of the day: always wear a condom, except when you're trying to get pregnant.

Later peeps,

Hippocrates & Hypocrisy

Hi,

I can't sleep again, so I thought I would keep myself occupied by scribbling a little.

To further develop the train of thought I last hopped on, I thought I might discuss the role that doctors can/should/do play in this whole jumble we call life. First and foremost, it is a physician's responsibility to 'do no harm'. That is basically what the Hippocratic oath is. They take an oath to not hurt people. Beyond that, the rest is gravy.

Seems simple enough right? Unfortunately nothing is simple when it comes to abortion. The first question here is what constitutes harm? Then, harm to whom? Then, how to weight harms? Who decides the answers to these questions? On what basis are those decisions made?

Not so simple anymore...

So what constitutes harm? The new legislation passed in South Dakota makes it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion unless the pregnant woman's life is in danger. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you have to stipulate that a law which prohibits doctors from acting in the best interests of their patients on an individual basis is one which prevents them from upholding their oath to do no harm. You may argue that an abortion is harming a fetus, but not performing an abortion on an unwanted pregancy is also doing harm; perhaps not as dramatic, but harm nonetheless. It is refusing the woman's right to self-determination.

So let's get back to our doctors' role in this mess. What's a doctor in South Dakota to do? Or better yet, what's a doctor in El Salvador to do? If a woman is admitted to hospital and a doctor suspects her of having had an abortion, that doctor is supposed to report her to the police. Not only is that a breach of what we would consider doctor patient confidentiality, it would most likely lead directly to harm. So, a doctor in a place where abortion is a felony finds herself stuck between a rock and a hard place: obey the law or uphold the Hippocratic oath.

If a woman and her physician decide that the right course of action is an abortion, then that should be the result. A doctor should not face criminal charges for helping patients. Pierre Trudeau once said that the government had no place inside the bedrooms of the citizens of the nation (or something to that effect). I don't believe that the government has any right to be inside the doctors' offices of its citizens either. I'm not suggesting that doctors are infallible; they are human, and thus, prone to err. However, we can't expect them to excel when we won't even let them uphold the basic oaths of their office. Abortion is not always the answer, but neither is abstinence; clearly. This situation is complicated enough without the threat of jail time.

One of the articles I read quoted a woman (an American who worked for Planned Parenthood) who said something to the effect that Republicans only cared about protecting life until birth. After that, they didn't care about the child anymore. I'd never seen that written or heard it said that way before, but it seems so true. Where are all the pro-life protesters when the unwanted children are abandoned and become part of the foster system? Where is all the love and respect for the child after she is born and becomes neglected?

I think that's probably enough of my rant for today.

Ciao ciao,
Lesle

Felonies & Pharmacology

Greetings from sunny Toronto!

I've been reading lately about the recent passing of legislation in South Dakota which "makes it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman." So, if the mother's health is at risk, they still can't have an abortion, they have to wait until she's about to die. Even in the case of rape and incest, this legislation would make abortion a felony. The doctor would (theoretically) face jail time.

The purpose of this legislation is to challenge Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court of the US now that there are two new Justices sitting who were appointed by President Bush (and are theoretically pro-life).

This situation has sparked quite a debate and prompted me (among many others I'm sure) to start looking into the frightening possibilities. This is not the only state in the union that has taken a step down this path. Clearly, there is a large contingent of 'The Moral Majority' that would still like to control women and what we do with our bodies. If not South Dakota, then Ohio, Georgia, Indiana or Tennessee (similar bills are in the works there).

Whilst I was surfing the web looking into this, I found some articles about abortion bans in other countries... the ones in latin America. The ones that are almost entirely Catholic. They can't have abortions there either. In El Salvador, for example, doctors can't even perform an abortion if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy until the fetus is no longer viable (for anyone who doesn't know, an ectopic pregancy is what they call it when a fertilized egg attaches itself somewhere outside the womb, and the embryo / fetus is 'viable' until just before the mother starts hemorrhaging). In El Salvador, if a woman has a late-stage abortion, she can be charged with aggravated homicide and the minimum sentence for that is 30 years (the maximum is 50 years). If they catch the doctors, they would be charged also. (I wonder how long rapists get?)

It's possible that some of you may not have a position on the pro-life / pro-choice debate. It's possible that some of you may be pro-life. Either way, I'm about to sound a little bit feminist again... I think my position is probably pretty clear.

Has it ever occurred to you that several of the 'hot-button' feminist issues are directly related to women's bodies and our control over them?

I am not a 'conspiracy theorist feminist' and I do not think that men have deliberately conspired over the ages to keep us oppressed and 'all men are evil' and all that stuff, but think about it for a minute or two; abortion, prostitution, pornography. Three things that you should not bring up in polite conversation at the dinner table; they all have to do with women's bodies, and yet none of them are controlled (completely) by us. We've never been in charge when it comes to prostitution or pornography, but it wouldn't exist without our bodies. What would they do without us?

And even though we think we've won the abortion debate, they keep wanting to open it up again. I know that not all men want to control women. And I know that not all women are pro-choice. However, for those of us who are in Canada and are now being governed by Stephen Harper and his former Alliance cronies (sorry Owen), this is just a little reminder that this debate is not closed. There is a Minister in this Cabinet who has very publicly stated that he does not believe in evolution. Yes, there are former Progressive Conservative members governing us as well, but there is nothing stopping any of them from introducing a private members' bill.

This debate is not over. Unfortunately.

The one bright light is that pharmacology is getting better. Soon, we may be better able to provide women with the means to terminate unwanted pregancies that will not risk their lives in botched back alley-style abortions. Because the bottom line is: just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's going to stop.

I'm thinking that there will be more to this particular train of thought, but not at the moment. I gotta book.

Ciao for now,
Lesle

ps - Happy Birthday to my nephew John! He's 14 today!