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!

Quebec Votes 2007

Good Rainy Morning to you!

I don't know what it's like where you are, but it's raining like crazy here in the Big Smoke. It was sunny when I was driving to work, then about an hour later it was pouring, then it stopped, then it was pouring, now it's drizzling... Like I said, crazy! However, the temperature is a balmy 14 degrees Celsius and I am pretty pleased with that. I think we may be on the road to spring!

So, with spring in mind, I'd like to point out a little something to my faithful friends: Quebec is having a provincial election on Monday and apparently, the Liberals may not win! Follow along with the CBC to keep tabs on the nail-biting, mud-slinging, name-calling race.

Some of you who are Canadian, will understand what it means for the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) not to win the provincial election: the issue of separation will once again rear its ugly head. If the Liberals are not elected to government, then (most likely) the Parti Quebecois (PQ) will be elected; although that is also not guaranteed any longer because there is a relatively new player, the Action Democratique de Quebec (ADQ), that is right up at the top of the polls with the other two. Both the PQ and the ADQ are sovereigntist parties. Therefore, if either of these two form the provincial government in Quebec, there will be more, and louder, and more insistent talk of referendums and separating from the rest of Canada.

The rest of Canada (as far as I know) doesn't want them to separate; aside from the whole 'losing a vital part of your country and its history' thing, we'd be cutting our country in half and that would mess up our maps. Thus, I will be following the results on Monday as closely as I can. I'll have to do it in French, but that's cool; they say better stuff in French anyway.

I'm not sure how many of you knew about the upcoming election, or the platforms of the parties or how the race was going, or anything like that. As I was reading the French language articles on canoe.ca from Quebec I began to realize that I should have been aware of more than I was. There's a lot of stuff going on in our country that we don't know about because we don't read their newspapers, or watch local French news, etc. It occurred to me that if we (the rest of Canada) always wait until the horse has left before closing the barn door (so to speak) then we're not going to be able to have any credibility with the Quebecois. Or, to put it more simply: Most of us are going to wait until a separatist party is elected before we even think about the fact that a large amount of people in Quebec are willing to separate from Canada.

I don't think that's a good idea. I know it seems as though there is nothing we, the rest of Canada, can do since we don't get to vote in a referendum, but perhaps we're wrong. What if we did think about it more? What if we tried to make it an issue with our MPs? What if we told them that we wanted Quebec to be a part of Canada and that we wanted making that happen a priority? Isn't that what government is for? Aren't the elected officials supposed to represent the will of the people? Are we not obligated to take an active role in public life in some way as part of our social contract? Yes. To all of those questions. If we want something to be done, we should not wait until the milk is spilling to start crying about it. We should be working pre-emptively to try to prevent the milk jug from tipping over in the first place.

I am as guilty as the next person. It wasn't until my friend from Quebec pointed these articles out to me that I woke up to the realization that all sorts of wierd political stuff is going on in Quebec right now and that a separatist party just might win the election on Monday.

We (the rest of Canada) may be 'tired' of hearing about Quebec's distinct society, or some of us may think they should just let it go because they've had two referendums and lost both; but at least the Quebecois care about their nation and their politics. That's more than you can say for most of the rest of us. (I'm not suggesting that their position is a good one.) Would we all get out and vote if we were allowed to vote in the referendum? I'm not sure that all of the people I know would.

Rant over for today, thanks for coming along for the ride!

Drive safe peeps,

Anastasia De Sousa, Rest in Peace

Greetings,

It was another dark day for Canadians when Kimveer Gill decided to go on a rampage and shoot up Dawson College in Montreal. For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past few days, go here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dawson-college/

for the full story. I don't think I have to recap much. Alienated young man hates life and himself and decides to take out his frustrations on the rest of the world with his gun, then shoots himself in the head in a stand-off with police.

I think you can probably all guess what my opinion of random, senseless killing is. While I have all the understanding in the world for people who feel lost and alienated (being a bit of a loner myself), there is absolutely no excuse for that kind of behaviour. If he needed help, he could have asked. He lived in Canada. We have social programs for everything. I will go out on a limb and say that our system isn't perfect. I will even go so far as to say that sometimes life is difficult even with help, but that does not now and will never excuse killing as a cry for attention.

As I was watching all the news coverage (or listening to it) after the initial shock wore off and the actual emergency was over, the coverage focussed predominantly on how this could have been prevented. The news on Friday (I think) was highlighting the fact that he purchased his guns legally, and that the infamous gun registry failed. I don't think that this proves that it failed; au contraire, I think that it proves that it works admirably in showing that the registry was pointless in the first place. A gun registry is not going to prevent incidents such as this. What this shows is that this particular person was in need of serious help and didn't get it. This sort of thing is becoming all too frequent and is certainly indicative of a greater societal ill, but the gun registry is not to blame. (I believe the guns used in Colombine were also legal, but don't quote me on that.)

The point of this particular little rant of mine is that the news coverage was all too ready to focus on how we could have prevented this tragedy, and they were talking to security specialists, counselors, police and people on the street. They were all looking for answers and reassurance. They wanted to be able to pin the blame on someone, and since the gunman was dead, we couldn't really blame him any longer. That bothered me. Our society has come to a state where we have to find an excuse/reason for everything. I understand why they want the reassurance; they want someone to tell them everything's going to be all right and it won't happen to them. They want to know that their little world is secure and that if anyone does anything like this to them (or theirs), then they will at least be able to sue someone. They're looking for security in an increasingly insecure world. I get that, but what they don't get is that the harder they grasp, the more elusive it becomes.

The articles I've read included references to the US Secret Service and the findings from the review after Colombine. The bottom line is that this kind of violence really can't be accurately predicted, thus it can't really be prevented. Scary, but true. It's kind of like terrorism in that way except that there's no real message from the killer here.

Another thing I noticed in yesterday's news coverage was something Anastasia's mother said. She was being interviewed and she made an excellent point: this pathetic, sad little man will be remembered (albeit as being a crazy killer) and her daughter will be either forgotten or remembered as a sidenote. She was only 18 years old and the only reason she's dead is that she went to school on Wednesday. So I'm posting her picture, not his. There are pictures of him all over the web, but I can only find one of her (I think I got it from the CBC).

That's all I have to say for now peeps. Peace out,