Justice is a Woman with a Sword

The "Smart Women are Scary" Moment of the Day....

2008-11-11T21:33:00.002-05:00

A friend of mine, who is a smart and attractive young woman, was sitting at a bar, when some guy came up to her and offered her a drink. He started chatting her up, and eventually asked what she did for a living.

She replied that she was working on her PhD in Neuropsychology. The guy did not answer and simply took his drink elsewhere.

This, people, is 2008. "Smart women are scary." Boo.

Happy halloween. (Sort of.)

Blogging in French

2008-10-26T16:43:00.002-05:00

From November on, I will be also be blogging - in French - at Je suis féministe.

I will also keep updating this blog from time to time, and perhaps even cross-post translations of posts from one blog to another.

Breaking News: Raising a Family Interferes with Pursuing a Career

2008-09-23T22:51:00.003-05:00

Wow. I'm in shock.

The Québec government, just found out, from the conclusions of a totally groundbreaking study, that fathers who take this whole raising kids thing seriously and who are actually involved in the upbringing of their offspring do not ascend the workplace ladder as fast as their childless or deadbeat counterparts.

No shit. Really. Who knew?

***

It's interesting to note how the media spun this news. For men, family is seen as interfering with paid work, i.e. a man's natural activity, whereas for women, it's paid work that is seen as interfering with childrearing, i.e. our natural purpose...

At least that's the appropriate use for "bitch"...

2008-09-23T22:09:00.005-05:00

I stumbled upon this while I was surfing the web in search of ideas for a Halloween costume for my dog...

Not only can modern, post-feminist, empowered women dress like slutty schoolgirls/nurses/prison wardens this Halloween, but they can also dress their pet as a slutty [insert chosen variation on the theme of sexual objectification here] girl-dog!

How lucky are we!

*sigh*

I don't know what's more disappointing:

a) the mere fact that someone thought this was a great idea

b) the fact that some women - and men - will actually buy those costumes; or

c) the fact that they felt the need to remind their audience that women are human beings, just like the men who objectify and commercially exploit them, by naming that section of the website "matching costumes for female dogs and female humans".

Ugh.

***

*Surprisingly*, this website didn't seem to have a similar section of sexy matching Halloween costumes for men - even though they are sensitive enough to gender differences to distinguish between "male dog costumes" (such as the pimp dog, the cowboy dog, the astronaut dog...) and "female dog costumes" (such as the "doggie bride", the fairie princess dog, and the dog cheerleader costume)...

***

This, on the other hand, is cute.

A Call to Action Against Legislative Assaults on Reproductive Freedoms

2008-09-23T21:44:00.003-05:00

If you find yourself in Montréal this Sunday, there will be a protest against the recent legislative assaults on the reproductive freedoms of Canadian women.

The protest was originately against Bill C-484, but the people behind it decided to broadened its purpose, given that the upcoming elections have effectively put C-484 on hold - for now - and given the other crazy right-wing anti-abortion legislative initiatives that have surfaced recently.

Come and join other feminists and like-minded citizens at 1:30 p.m. in Parc Lahaie (corner of St. Laurent and St. Joseph). Bring signs, t-shirts and catchy slogans.

In the mean time, do visit the organization committee's website.

***

As a general note, let's not kid ourselves. On October 14th, Canadians will vote for the future of reproductive and abortion rights in Canada.

Is your current MP pro-choice or does he/she oppose abortion? Check and find out here.

***

The Barreau du Québec has finally taken a stand against Bill C-484. The Barreau's letter to the Senate exposes how the C-484 effectively would have the effect of conferring legal personality onto the fetus, and how it could undermine women's right to have an abortion.

The "You've come a long way, baby" moment of the week

2008-09-14T19:25:00.006-05:00

Law, when it comes to gender issues, is a most amazing field of study - and work.

One very interesting thing is that, along with medicine, law used to be a predominantly male bastion of the workplace. Don't get me wrong, our noble profession is still in many ways run like an old boys' club (think "billable hours"). However, young women are graduating from law school and are being called to the Bar in gargantuan proportions (in Québec, there are roughly 3 female law students for every male, and guys are becoming an endangered species in Bar school).

The phenomenon is strikingly observable in the courtroom. In practice division (where lawyers show up at court in the morning to be either heard by a clerk or dispatched before a judge to present their motions), the great majority of lawyers in their 20's as well as a good proportion of lawyers in their 30's are female, while the lawyers with grey hair are almost all men.

10 to 20 years form now, if we keep this pace, we'll be running the business.

Until then, I guess we'll have to cope with our beloved patriarchal legal practice, as sexist and - sometimes - disappointing as it gets...

***

I was waiting for my case to be called in practice division the other day, when I had to momentarily leave the room to speak to the other counsel, leaving my briefcase and my documents on my seat behind me.

When I got back inside, a middle-aged lawyer was sitting on my chair, preventing me from getting to my stuff. I politely whispered: "Excusez-moi, mais ce sont mes affaires."

He got up, smiling, started stroking my shoulder paternalistically and said: "Tu sais, tu peux t'asseoir sur mes genoux."

I managed to stay polite and not to let show how pissed I was from this verbal butt-slapping, and told him: "No, I don't think so."

Many people noticed, among them the clerks (all women) who, to my relief, frowned in utter disgust.

The lawyer in question, on the other hand, seemed blissfully unaware of both the lack of propriety of his conduct, and the fact that he's part of a - hopefully - dying breed.

Updates on Bill C-484

2008-03-01T09:21:00.003-05:00

Bill C-484 wasn't debated yesterday in the House of Commons as expected earlier. As a matter of fact, the debate has been postponed to this Monday, March 3rd.

In the meantime, Conservative MP and proponent of the Bill, Mr Ken Epp, reassures Canadians that the so-called "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" has absolutely nothing to do with restricting abortion:

"Because we want to recognize the humanity of that unborn child. Whether that child was killed three months before birth or three months after birth, it was still a child, there was still a loss of life. The other side might wish to deny the humanity of that unborn child, but we want the law to recognize it."

***

For more debunking of the anti-choice bullshit in "women's protection" disguise regarding Bill C-484, click here.

***

And don't forget to do you part and write to Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and to your MP!

The WTF moment of the day, brought to you by Playboy...

2008-03-01T09:11:00.004-05:00

... yet another good reason to "bin the bunny"!

And yes, this is supposed to be some creative form of advertisement... *sigh*

Via Feministing.

Newsflash: PETA confirm they're anti-fur, anti-women

2008-02-25T22:51:00.004-05:00

Actually, it's no news that PETA has frequently resorted to objectifying women as a medium to get its message across.

To my eyes, this blunt and often quite gory objectification of the female body, and the distasteful sexualization of violence against women could already be characterized as pornography.

But now they've officially crossed the line between the radical feminist interpretation of what constitutes pornography, and that of the mainstream public.

As a matter of fact, PETA has teamed up with Suicide Girls, a so-called "alternative" pornography website for its new campaign against fur. Seemingly nubile, skinny pornography models strike falsely coy poses, and are tagged with the slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur."

Please do complain to PETA if you feel shocked by their exploiting women to promote their ideas. (And prepare yourself to get a patronizing, "you should know that there's nothing shameful about the female body, you should learn to love yourself", touchy-feely kinda crap of an answer.)

***

Just a few quick facts about Suicide Girls (no, I won't link to their website).

Although they flatter themselves for allegedly featuring "alternative porn" and models, they mainly feature very young, skinny, conventionally beautiful, able, hairless, White women (though apparently, some of the models are "alternative" to the extent that they've got tattoos, piercings or still a little pubic hair left);
They objectify women for money;
Suicide Girls is - no shit - run by men;
The company's managers have been accused of exploiting their female employees - yes, the very same people who are being objectified in such a progressive way;
And please, what's with the name? Since when is suicide considered as sexy? Since when one's self-destruction gets people off? WTF.

A Call to Action! ONE PERSON, ONE BODY, ONE COUNT!

2008-02-25T22:11:00.003-05:00

Some Conservative wingnuts at the House of Commons want to restrict our right to choose whether and when to have children through the back door.

Bill C-484, which will be debated at the House of Commons this Friday, February 29th, aims at amending the Criminal Code so as to criminalize as murder the fact of causing the death of a foetus, notwithstanding its stage of development, upon hurting or killing pregnant woman.

These amendments - also known as "The Unborn Victims of Crime Act" - have been presented under the guise of "preventing violence against pregnant women" or even "protecting a woman's *cough* choice to bring her pregnancy to term."

The Bill would even characterize the foetus, no matter its stage of development, as a full-fledged person, which is the first step towards recriminalizing abortion.

So let's say no to this hypocrisy. Contact your MP. Spread the word among your friends, family and coworkers.

This Bill must not be enacted into law.

***

For more information about the issues regarding Bill C-484, and recent attacks on our freedom of choice, visit the folks at Birth Pangs.

***

If you own a blog, please take part in the One Person, One Body, One Count to oppose Bill C-484, hosted at Rose's Place.

Yet another rant on (or constructive criticism of) pornography...

2008-02-20T22:04:00.005-05:00

I've already said before that, at a purely personal level, I don't get it. I don't understand what people like about porn. I don't understand what people find arousing about it.

First, it's just so artificial. It's fake because it probably depicts people who are only doing it for money, not primarily because they enjoy it, or because it's so graifying. It's fake because it's also likely to depict - or evidence - non-consensual sexual activity.

The pleasure is fake, the desire is fake, the love (if any) is fake.

How can a person enjoy looking at images of fake pleasure? How can a person get off on people faking, on people pretending to find sex pleasurable?

The inevitable answer to this question seems to be: the people who get off at this type of stuff :

do not understand what pleasure is, and what it looks like in reality, OR
make themselves believe that the fake images are in fact real; OR
obviously don't care about other people's pleasure but their own when it comes to sex...

In any case, if that's how you think, there's something seriously wrong with you. Either because you've got a fucked up notion of what constitutes someone who genuinely willing to participate in sexual activity, or because you don't care about other people's enthusiasm, willingness or consent.

Which, of course, makes you a sicko and a wannabe rapist.

Most people accept the argument that, in child pornography, the minor participants are not *exactly* enjoying themselves, and that people who get off at this are would-be criminals who are sick enough to make themselves believe that this is for real.

Why don't people then also accept that the same is true with respect to "adult" pornography, and that the people who use it and get off on it are equally sick?

Updates...

2008-02-20T21:46:00.002-05:00

I've just realized that I've been writing this blog for a year. Cheers to me.

I was going to write about depressing matters.

(E.g. Michel Veillette who pleaded not guilty today to charges of stabbing his wife to death and of killing his four children by setting his house on fire, on account that he had a fight with his wife and that he was provoked. *vomits*)

However, I can't commit myself to write anything remotely thoughful, so here's some good old abstinence humour.

...

(This skit reminds me of the brilliant folks at Iron Hymen and their sister site, Sex is for Fags.)

On painful periods and sucking it up...

2008-02-04T22:15:00.000-05:00

I just came across an interesting post at The Curvature, on the pros and cons (but especially the pros) of the suppression of menstruation through the continuous use of birth control.

It also addresses the so-called debate about the "end" of menstruation and the myth that our monthly bleeding is a grand, spiritual, reassuring experience of female-bonding - or some hippie bullshit like that.

But what struck me the most was this comment to that post, which I thought accurately summed up the issues that most women encounter when it comes to their periods.

Before I went on continuous BCPs sometime around the late 90’s or early 00’s, my periods were consistantly so shitty that I had to take major painkillers and whatnot. Of course, in my case, it was because I have Endometriosis, and Superbad Periods are a symptom/result.

When I first started getting my period, I thought it was a tremendous pain in the ass (or uterus, as the case may be) and mentioned this to my mother. “This is annoying. At what point do you get used to this?” I asked. “I’ll let you know,” she said. “I never have.”

Frankly, the kumbaya/Have A Happy Period/women in tampax commercials prancing around in white pants approach to menstruation has always felt quite alienating to me, rather than being a source of bonding and camraderie, because it just made me feel like my superbad periods were all the more freakish.

I certainly wouldn’t want to deny a period to anyone who wants one, but at the same time, I think being a woman is about more than just whether or not you get a period every month and/or think it’s fun.

Menstruation is not exactly a spotted owl. It’s not like it’s being endangered by continuous birth control pills and must therefore be protected.

Another thing I appreciated about this comment is that it mentions endometriosis. Although it is a chronic condition that plagues approximately one woman out of ten and can ultimately cause infertility, endometriosis is rarely acknowledged or even spoken of.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that girls and women are conditioned to readily accept the idea that periods are supposed to be extremely painful and uncomfortable, or that sex is not that enjoyable after all, or simply that we really have nothing to complain of.

But why, in those modern times of wondrous medical advances, should women suffer debilitating symptoms every month? Why should women accept that their reproductive system should disturb their activities and dictate their schedule?

In my humble opinion, we should not. As a matter of fact, we women should, as a class of human beings, vindicate our right to not to be treated as cattle when it comes to our health.

Humour, bona fide work of art, or patriarchal provocation? You decide!

2008-02-04T21:38:00.000-05:00

It has recently come to my knowledge that a major law firm in a major French speaking city of some province in Eastern Canada has acquired, as many major law firms frequently do, a new work of art to ornate its corridors.

The sculpture in question portrays a woman wearing a pink suit. Above the woman is a transparent glass plaque, through which one of the woman's hands pierces.

Charming. Great way to cheer up the female lawyers who work their asses off all day and manage a husband and a few kids in addition, and still can't make partner.

Although it's supposed to be innovative and tongue-in-cheek, from what I know, the reaction to this purchase was kinda cool - among female lawyers, that is.

Any thoughts?

Blog for Choice - Part Two

2008-01-27T20:53:00.000-05:00

As you already know, tomorrow will mark the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada.

Today, a small group of pro-choicers proudly walked in downtown Montréal to remind their fellow citizens of this important date, and show that they want abortion in Canada to remain legal, safe, accessible and free.

Despite our numbers, the event was a success because the participants responded individually to this call for action. They walked in the cold, not because they're part of some group or organization that told them to be there, but because they believe in reproductive freedom.

Secondly, it was also a success because approximately one third of the participants were men who are equally concerned about the issue of freedom of choice, and who don't dismiss it as a "women's issue."

Finally, our little, spontaneous march received some excellent media coverage, thanks to our wonderful volunteer publicist, MJ.

***

However, I was disappointed by the abysmal apathy of the people that we had contacted over the last few months. Most of them either did not give us any answers, or told us that they were not interested in participating. In addition, some people who had said they would attend the event never actually showed up.

But above everything else, I was extremely disappointed by the blatant lack of support of women's organization (namely, the Fédération des femmes du Québec and the Fédération pour le planning des naissances du Québec), and of student associations.

Despite having been notified months ago that we wanted to organize an event to celebrate the anniversary of R. v. Morgentaler, it was only until recently that the FFQ contacted us to inquire into our actions.

To my knowledge, no FFQ member or representative attended the march today.

Although the FFQ, along with other Québec pro-choice and women's groups, is to hold a press conference tomorrow to commemorate this anniversary, this initiative suspiciously looks like a last minute attempt to show that they're still on top of their things and that they care about reproductive rights.

Well, big effing deal.

The FFQ had other plans, months in the making. As a matter of fact, they'd been planning another event for January 26th, 2008. That is, this protest for peace in the Middle East and the preservation of environment. Though these are important issues as well, I can't help to have the uneasy feeling that the FFQ somehow forgot to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Morgentaler ruling, or that they *just* thought that it was more important, this January 2008, to celebrate something else.

I can only wish that this administrative decision will be explained shortly, and that the people responsible will be held accountable.

Our freedom of choice is a right that can't afford being kept in the dark by the very people who should be upholding it.

Quote of the Day

2008-01-22T22:47:00.000-05:00

A Christian website on how to deal with porn-addicted Christians:

"The church needs to expose this snake and cut off its head before more lives are ruined. "

By "snake", they mean "penis", right?

Rant of the Day

2008-01-22T22:21:00.000-05:00

"If I had a cock..." - A rant on pornography by Oni Baba

It's no secret for those of you who read this blog that I'm deeply opposed to pornography.

From an ideological point of view, I think it's at odds with the egalitarian and non-exploitative values that feminism - in my opinion - stands for.

I also think that it is morally - and should be treated as legally - wrong. It's wrong because it's about making objects out of women - you know, those uppity female human beings. It's about using women, and trying to make them fit into the mold of unrealistic fantasies. It's also morally wrong because the goal of pornography is to use static interactions with representations of women as a way to reach sexual arousal/satisfaction. This necessarily entails that such arousal of satisfaction is not conditional to the male pornography consumer's negotiating the terms of the sexual act with the woman. The static nature of pornography make her consent entirely irrelevant. The women featured in pornography are always willing partners. We find the same attitude towards women in men who consume porn to get off, and those who rape women to achieve the same end.

And on a personal level, I really don't get it. Maybe it's just because I'm a woman.

Maybe my female upbringing didn't teach me that it was OK and socially acceptable to get off on unknown persons of the opposite sex because I want instant, easy sexual gratification, or just to boost my self-confidence.

Maybe it's just that I don't have a cock, where, as everybody knows, male self-confidence resides. If I had one, maybe I'd be tempted to exercise my god-given right to use women without their consent to satisfy my personal needs.

Maybe if I had a cock, I'd feel so lousy about myself that I'd rather play with myself and fantasizing about my virtual sexual performances than have real, consensual sex with an actual human being, with *gasp!* feelings, an *gasp!* intellect and even an *GASP!* ability to criticize my pathetic performances.

Maybe if I had a cock, no life and a fast Internet connection that allowed me to access loads of porn on demand, I'd do society a huge favour and I'd shoot myself.

Walk for Choice! - In Montréal, this Sunday!

2008-01-22T22:04:00.000-05:00

Closer to home, I'm proud to announce that there will be a walk next Sunday in downtown Montréal to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada.

The walk will start at 12:00 in front of the Palais de justice, on the corner of St-Laurent and St-Antoine. (For those who are interested, there is a parking lot right there so you can leave your car.)

We will march downtown for about 30-45 minutes until we arrive at the Place du Canada (on the corner of Peel and René-Lévesque).

Please bring banners and signs, with fun and thoughtful pro-choice slogans.

This is also a B.Y.O.B. event, i.e. Bring Your Own Boyfriend. (And make your guy carry a sign that says "If men could get pregnant, there'd be abortions at Wal-Mart.")

This event is organized by a handful of concerned women who wanted to let their fellow citizens know that reproductive freedom is relatively quite recent, and that Canadian women care deeply about the preservation of those rights.

For more information, please write to 28janvier2008@gmail.com.

Blog for Choice - Part One

2008-01-22T21:31:00.000-05:00

Today's the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That's 35 years of reproductive freedom for our fellow uterus owners South of the border - and as many years of fighting to preserve those hard-won rights, and of bitter losses to the hands of heinous conservative nutbags who think it's normal to force other people ('cause, you know, women are just people without penises) to suffer pregnancies and bring unwanted babies into this world.

So, cheers!

'Takes the words right out of my mouth...

2008-01-17T18:33:00.000-05:00

A - feminist and pro-choicer - friend of mine had this to say about the anti-abortion folks who hijack the mainstream media and use events such as January 28th to their own advantage.

I could not have said it better myself:

Le problème est que les pro-choix se taisent et se cachent. Les pro-vies se manifestent, manifestent, et crient. Ils utilisent les sentiments, les restants de religion, la pseudo-éthique. Hey, ils veulent jouer à ça : on peut jouer à ça. Ils veulent montrer des photos des fœtus en plastique? On peut montrer des photos de cadavres de femmes mortes lors d’accouchements illégaux. Ils veulent parler de choc post-avortement, parlons-en des conséquences d’une grossesse non-désirée portée à terme! Ils veulent pleurer sur le sort des hommes? Sortons leur ce pauvre homme de Daigle c. Tremblay: yé tellement fin et tellement à plaindre!!
Ils veulent pas avoir d’avortement. Qu’ils en aient pas et qu’ils se trouvent un autre truc à pas vouloir faire pour manifester.

I cannot stress it enough: it's up to us, the pro-choice, feminist crowd, to get in the spotlight for once and get our message across to our fellow citizens and to our governments.

So let's not waste this opportunity.

Pro-choicers must fight back!

2008-01-17T11:56:00.000-05:00

Just like in the UK, anti-choicers in Canada plan to hijack the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada (January 28th, 2008) by holding misleading, anti-feminist and borderline hateful events all over the country.

***

For instance, a new so-called "pro-life" groupe (as if we needed any more of those) called "ProWomanProLife" has been lauched to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1988 Morgentaler Supreme Court ruling.

This group seeks to convince the public that they're all "pro-choice," in the sense that they want Canadian women to choose to "eradicate abortion" and to "remove abortion from our cultural landscape". Ugh.

They also want to open and operate more "Crisis Pregnancy Centres", i.e. fake clinics where distressed pregnant women are tricked into going through unwanted pregnancies.

Predictably, those folks are liars...:

ProWomanProLife celebrates women, life and freedom, and is being launched to mark the Morgentaler decision of January 28, 1988, which removed all restrictions on abortion in Canada at any stage of a pregnancy.

(They make it sound like before January 28th, 1988, women could freely get legal abortions, under certain conditions. This is not the case, as those folks surely know. Terminating one's pregnancy was a crime before that date.)

... as well as bigots, for they are acquainted with such "pro-women" groups as Focus on the Family Canada and Family Canada.

"Pro-women". Yeah. Right.

***

On January 28th, 2008, another anti-abortion group has made an anti-choice short film called "1st Degree Morgentaler" that has been entered in a film competition called "Project Breakout".

The film in question a very doubtful account by a woman who claims to have undergone a forced abortion at the hands Dr. Henry Morgentaler himself.

Puh-lease.

(Well. At lease, they're stupid enough to publicize their acts of clear-cut defamation. I can't wait to see the lawsuits that will follow...Yay!)

The anti-choicers behind this are rejoincing because the results of the competition are to be released on January 28th.

***

Now, it's up to us, pro-choicers and feminists to hold our own events to let the public know that we don't accept that anti-choice, anti-women crap.

We need to unite our voices to tell the people of our communities that we support a woman's right to choose if and when she will have children.

We must take action to tell our fellow citizens and our governments that we want abortion in Canada to remain LEGAL, SAFE, ACCESSIBLE and FREE.

***

On Sunday, January 27th, there will be a walk in downtown Montréal to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion and to reaffirm our pro-choice values.

I will post more details of this events later on on this blog. You may also contact me by email at womenwithswords@gmail.com, or at 28janvier2008@gmail.com.

Du-uh!

2008-01-16T14:04:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail tells us that there are not many women in top executive jobs, and that their numbers have been decreasing over the past year.

No shit.

Left out in the cold

2008-01-16T12:56:00.000-05:00

Some aboriginal communities in Canada, like for instance, the Crees and Inuit of Northern Québec, are lucky enough to have strong land claims on vast territories that are rich in coveted natural resources. I say they're lucky because the riches of their ancestral lands provide them with they potent leverage they need when negotiating agreements with corporations and governments.

In 1994, the Innus of Uashat mak Mani Utenam (near Sept-Îles, in the Côte-Nord region in Québec), successfully stroke a deal with Hydro-Québec for the development of the SM-3 basin and plant on the Ste-Marguerite river, which is situated at the heart of their traditional hunting grounds.

The Innu obtained close to $20 millions from Hydro-Québec as compensation for the destruction of their lands, and as funding for the reconstruction and preservation of other areas. They also obtained $300,000 per year for 50 years to subsidize hunting, trapping and fishing.

But the major benefit of this deal for the Innu are spelled out in terms of short and long term employment opportunities with Hydro-Québec and its subcontractors.

However, many Innu women noted that the benefits for women were practically inexistant, as the bulk of the jobs created by the SM-3 project belong to traditionally male fields, such as construction, truck driving, electricity, etc... Moreover, they complained that most of these jobs had been created on a short term basis only, and that the male leaders of the community had favoured unsustainable development in an attempt to gain political support from the population:

Kathleen Saint-Onge, qui a été directrice adjointe de l’emploi, de la formation et du développement au Conseil de bande et qui, à ce titre, a participé aux travaux de la SOTRAC, s’est battue en vain pour obtenir un centre de formation professionnel, plutôt que de créer des emplois temporaires qui ne profitent qu’aux hommes. «La plupart des gens autour de la table étaient tous des hommes d’expérience. J’étais trop jeune pour leur faire face et le Conseil de bande voulait créer immédiatement des emplois». Kathleen déplore ce manque de vision à long terme. «On ne mise pas sur le développement durable dans la plupart des communautés... parce qu’il n’y a pas de capital politique à faire».

Hydro's response? Well, how could they have possibly known that women would not benefit from these jobs?

Ces commentaires étonnent Richard Laforest, représentant d’Hydro-Québec à la SOTRAC. Que les femmes aient éprouvé de la difficulté à se faire entendre ne lui a jamais effleuré l’esprit. «À ma connaissance, aucun projet pour les femmes ne nous a été présenté», dit-il, tout en reconnaissant que les critères pour les travaux rémédiateurs ou les activités traditionnelles ne les favorisent pas vraiment.

There you go. *sigh* It's so easy to hid you head in the sand, while patting yourself on the back for being to generous towards those poor Aboriginals...

***

The Innu of Uashat mak Mani Utenam are currently involved in negotiations with Consolidated Thomson with respect to the Bloom Lake iron mining project. Let's just hope that the interests of women will be taken into account this time, and that they'll be able to reap substantially equal benefits as the male half of the community.

When does catcalling become criminal harassment?

2008-01-16T12:33:00.000-05:00

Imagine you're walking down the street with your five year-old child. Some random guy starts following you, wolf-whistling at you, and repeatedly telling you - in a completely uninvited and unwanted fashion - that you've got a nice ass, or nice tits or whatever. He only stops when you get in your car and speed away from the scene.

Surely, most women would say that such behaviour constitutes "harassement" in the colloquial sense of the word. But would most women say feel "threatened" by such catcalls?

(For harassment to constitute criminal harassment in the eyes of our criminal law, it has to be objectively "threatening," that is, that the accused's conduct must "[rise] to the level of a 'tool of intimidation designed to instill a sense of fear'".)

Now, what if the catcaller was a police officer in full uniform?

In a recent case, the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal acquitted a police officer of harassment charges, on the ground that his actions did not objectively constitute a "threatening" conduct.

Some commentators have rightly pointed out that the Court failed to take into account that the power dynamic that necessarily kicks into gear when a person in authority is involved:

I would have liked the Court to say something more about the fact that the accusedmade these comments while in uniform.
To my mind this elevates the conduct, viewed objectively, beyond the merely inappropriate, and potentially makes it threatening and intimidating. This guy wasn’t a construction worker.

Any thoughts?

***

Update (as a - lenghty - response to Lilith's comment):

The problem is that under our criminal law, we're stuck with "objective" notions of what is threatening when it comes to such offences as criminal harassment and uttering threats. The rationale for this is that the law seeks to punish the offender who had the intention to cause the victim to feel threatened or in danger of death or bodily harm. The courts determine if this intention is present by asking themselves whether the accused's words or actions were designed to instill fear, from his point of view, and not from that of the victim.

This is why we're forced to trust our judges with taking into account the perspective of the women who are most often the victims of such crimes. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. For instance, in 1991, in the McCraw case, the Supreme Court of Canada had to explain why threatening a woman of rape, even when the guys says he finds her pretty or that he's infatuated with her, necessarily constitutes a threat of bodily harm...

The problem is that judges are most often men, who interpret objective legal norm from the vantage of a reasonable man, who unlike a reasonable woman, is usually not afraid to go out alone at night, and usually capable of fending off potential assailants...

I agree that is not the best way to interpret laws that, in practice, seek to punish acts of violence against women. In fact, many feminist legal scholars have demanded that courts turn to a standard of a "reasonable woman" in such cases.

However, I'm not too sure it's a good idea, because I fear it would only allow male judges to introduce sexist notions on how a "reasonable female" should behave in such and such situation into our jurisprudence.

The best solution, I think, would be to appoint more women to the Bench!

A side note: In my opinion, the offenders who harass women or who threaten them, on the other hand, usually understand too well what women find threatening. That's precisely why they harass or threaten them in the first place.

That's also something - unfortunately - they understand almost instinctively, something they understand better than the judges who are called to rule their case.

A little reminder...

2008-01-15T12:48:00.001-05:00

In less than two weeks, Canadians will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in our beautiful, so-progressive-I'm-hiding-my-head-in-the-sand country.

Here are two reading suggestions.

The first is an interview with Dr. Henry Morgentaler, to whose efforts and altruism we, Canadian women, mainly owe our reproductive freedom.

The second is an article from the Globe and Mail, by Judith Timson, where she criticizes the mainstream media for depicting abortion as negative, traumatizing or -worse - non-existent. Namely, she takes on the movies Knocked Up and Juno, which both deal with the topic of unwanted pregnancies, which both understate the physical and social impact of an unplanned pregnancy, and which respectively do not mention abortion and quickly dismiss it as an unthinkable option.

Ms. Timson's article makes two majors points. First, such films are at odds with reality. For instance, in Québec, one out of three pregnancies end up as abortions. So - get it? - abortions do exist, and they're not exceptional at all.

Secondly, the mainstream media dismisses the validity of the choice to terminate a pregnancy - as well as the importance of the mere fact that it is available at all. She rightly points out that, not so long ago, teenage girls who got pregnant had to illicitly travel to obtain abortions out of the country, or go through illegal and unsafe procedures.

Behind the veil

2008-01-14T14:01:00.000-05:00

I recently finished reading Persépolis, the wonderful graphic novel by Marjane Satrapi.

In the four tomes of Persépolis (now available in a consolidated format), Ms. Satrapi recalls her childhood in Iran during the fall of the Shah and the instauration of the Islamic Republic, her subsequent exile and coming of age in Vienna as a teenager, and her eventual return to Iran as a liberated and freedom-loving young woman.

Ms. Satrapi's story is simply and sincerely told and drawn in a sober, black and white fashion. As the story progresses, the author's tone evolves from that of a 10 year-old girl to that of a rebellious and educated young woman, and alternates between tenderness, despair and brutality.

Just as Maus, the acclaimed graphic novel by Art Spiegelman, was not just about the Holocaust but also dwelled on the themes of the family and memory (as in mémoire), Persépolis is not just about Iran's oppressive regime.

It is also a critique of middle-eastern politics in recent history, an assault on organized religion, the tale of a young woman who learns how to find her true self, and a story about love - of men, of one's family and friends and of one's country and culture.

Now I can't wait to see the film!

2008-01-14T13:53:00.000-05:00

Starting January 25th, A Creative Revolution will accept nominations for the first annual Canadian F-Word Blog Awards, which will salute the efforts and merits of Canadian blogs of feminist persuasion.

The categories are:

Best Canadian Feminist Blog
Best International Feminist Blog
Activist Blog
Environmental Blog
Entertainment Blog
Culture Blog
Group Blog
Individual Blog
WOC-centered Blog
Reproductive Liberty Blog
Family Blog
Political Blog
LBGT Blog
Humour blog
Best comment thread
The "why the fuck didn't I say that?" award for most poignant comment
Best Snark Comment
Most Regressive "Progressive"
The Support Bro - Best Post by a male in support of feminists/feminism

The winners will be announced on February 24th.

In the news: "Dead heart beats anew"

2008-01-14T13:47:00.000-05:00

... maybe there's hope after all for the Conservatives...

Fighting teh Porn around us

2008-01-09T13:19:00.000-05:00

A little while ago, I was shopping for birthdays cards at a Carlton store. I noticed a display of 2008 calendars near the entrance, and among them, many featured -Brazilian-style-bikini-clad-almost-naked bombshells, happily cavorting in the sand, or striking pouty poses.

Besides the obvious "why would Carlton be selling porn?" question, I was shocked by the fact that those calendars were in plain sight, and close to the ground, where small children can freely see them, pick them up and flip through their pictures.

As I paid my purchase, I told the cashier that it was, in my opinion, unacceptable that pornographic calendars be displayed in such way as to be easily accessible for children. She looked at me as if I was crazy. I then went on to explain that in most stores where pornographic magazines are sold, they are usually harder to see, and hidden at the back of the displays.

The cashier was still looking at me with a glazed, "does-not-compute" look in her eyes.

Her (female) colleague then intervened: "Those are not pornographic. It's just naked women."

I decided not to push the discussion any further and left the store.

***

A few days ago, I found myself at a calendar stand in the middle of a mall, trying to find something cute or funny enough to ornate my wall for a whole year.

I noticed - again - pornographic calendars on the lower shelf of the display, at the ground level, in plain sight. I looked around. The cashier, this time, was a young man.

There was no chance in hell, I decided, that he'd be more sensitive to my arguments. After all, he had made the business decision to order, display and sell such products...

So I opted to fight the sneaky fight. I picked up a few "Studs and Spurs" calendars and placed them in front of calendars that pictured naked women.

***

OK. Fighting porn that objectifies women (i.e. very popular porn) with porn that objectifies men (i.e. less popular porn) is arguably not the best way to eliminate it. But at the very least, it may help, for a few hours or even a day, decrease the sale of pornographic material.

Unhappy Valentines

2008-01-08T15:27:00.000-05:00

(Pun definitely intended.)

A Mississippi court awarded a man $754,500 in damages against his wife's lover for "stolen affections" and loss of consortium (i.e. his wife's sexual "services").

The ex-lover apparently attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the law, on the ground that it is based on the "medieval" notion that a woman is the property of her husband, but the law was upheld.

***

Update (2008/01/09):

For those who are not familiar with the term, consortium was one of the three heads under which a plaintiff could claim moral damages. (These categories of moral injury have lost their importance in Québec civil law.)

The others heads were solatium (i.e. grief) and servitium (i.e. the loss of the domestic services of the plaintiff's wife).

It is unclear whether women could claim damages for loss of consortium. In my humble opinion, it would have been unlikely, as married women, lacking legal capacity, could not sue on their own, and had to do so via their husband.

This reminds me of a Canadian civil liability case from the 50's. The plaintiff was a husband who was suing a hairdresser on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife. His wife had her scalp badly burnt by hair dye products, and had become bald as a result. The husband claimed damages on account of a loss of solatium, because his wife was so disfigured that he could not go out with her in public anymore, and for loss of consortium, because she had become so ugly that he couldn't bring himself to have intercourse with her...

*sigh* How tactful...

Picture of the day

2008-01-08T15:06:00.000-05:00

Via Feministe.

Cute (Irrelevant ) Picture of the Day

2007-12-14T09:59:00.000-05:00

(Yoshi the cat as Elizabeth I)

Yoshi also dresses up as 11 other famous women for her 2008 calendar (her impersonations range from Jane Goodall to Oprah and Jackie Kennedy). Yoshi's work is available online here. 100% of the benefits go to the BC SPCA.

From the same (brilliant) folks who brought you Kitty Wigs.

Walk for Choice!

2007-12-11T19:39:00.000-05:00

January 28th, 2008 will mark the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada.

To celebrate this day, and to voice our support for women's reproductive rights, there will be a walk in Montréal on or around January 28th.

If you wish to help us organize this event, or if you want to join us for the walk, please communicate with le Comité 28 janvier 2008 at 28janvier2008@gmail.com.

There is also a Facebook page for this event at: http://mcgill.facebook.com/p.php?i=13614773&k=4XC4Q5P4VYTAVJLAXK34 (see the details below).

Event: 28/01/2008
What: Rally
Host: Comité du 28 janvier
When: Sunday, January 27 at 12:00pm
Where: Palais de Justice/ Centre-ville/ Tout autre endroit suggéré

To see more details and RSVP, follow the link below:
http://mcgill.facebook.com/p.php?i=13614773&k=4XC4Q5P4VYTAVJLAXK34

Everyone can join Facebook.
To register, go to:http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=13614773&k=4XC4Q5P4VYTAVJLAXK34&r

I want to see this film

2007-12-10T21:43:00.000-05:00

(It will be released in January in Québec.)

Quote of the Day

2007-12-10T15:06:00.000-05:00

From Me Julie Latour, former Bâtonnière du Barreau de Montréal, on the assumption that career women necessarily favour motherhood and recognition at home over professional ambition, and that men are wired to do the opposite:

Le Blackberry a démontré que l’homme professionnel est doté d’un grand talent pour une petite chose difficile à manipuler, qui requiert une attention constante. Pourquoi pas un bébé?

Go read the whole of the speech Me Latour gave at the Barreau de Montréal's conference Pouvoir et Féminité: Oser prendre la première place.

Picture of the Day

2007-12-10T14:58:00.000-05:00

(This cartoon is hilarious, but the story next to which it was originally posted is not.)

In the News: Robert Pickton found guilty of the 2nd degree murder of six women

2007-12-10T14:52:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail has more on the verdict.

The six women disappeared from Vancouver's infamous Downtown Eastside between August 1997 and December 2001. Their names were Sereena Abotsway, Andrea Joesbury, Mona Wilson, Georgina Papin, Brenda Wolfe and Marnie Frey.

Robert Pickton has been charged with, and will be prosecuted for the murders of 20 other women.

More announcements...

2007-12-10T14:42:00.000-05:00

... this time with respect to the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada.

CÉLÉBRATIONS DU 20e ANNIVERSAIRE DE LA DÉCRIMINALISATION DE L’AVORTEMENT AU CANADA – AN ENGLISH VERSION WILL FOLLOW.

Montréal, le 6 décembre 2007

Le 28 janvier 2008, nous célébrerons le 20e anniversaire du jugement de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’affaire R. c. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 R.C.S. 30, qui a décriminalisé l’avortement au Canada.

En effet, c’est seulement depuis cette date que les Canadiennes jouissent réellement, et sans crainte de poursuites pénales, du droit à choisir si et quand elles auront des enfants, et à contrôler pleinement leurs capacités reproductives.

Il est donc d’une importance primordiale de s’organiser et de souligner cet anniversaire important comme il se doit, et de rappeler à nos concitoyens et concitoyennes que nous désirons que l’avortement au Canada demeure:

légal;
sécuritaire;
accessible; et
gratuit.

Nous sommes présentement à la recherche d’autres personnes qui, comme nous, croient qu’il est important de manifester, à l’occasion de cet anniversaire, notre support à la liberté de choisir, et nos craintes quant à la montée de courants politiques conservateurs et hostiles au droit à l’avortement et aux droits des femmes en général.

Le 27 octobre dernier a marqué le 40e anniversaire de la légalisation de l’avortement en Grande-Bretagne. Peu de groupes pro-choix ont souligné cet anniversaire, ce qui a alors laissé toute la place et la visibilité à des groupes anti-choix et soi-disant « pro-vie ». Ne laissons pas cette erreur se répéter chez nous !

Si vous êtes intéressé(e) à souligner de façon spéciale la journée du 28 janvier 2008, veuillez nous contacter par courriel à: 28janvier2008 (arobas) gmail (point) com.

Merci !

Comité 28 janvier 2008

*****

20th ANNIVERSARY OF THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION IN CANADA

Montréal, December 6th 2007

January 28, 2008 will mark the 20th anniversary of the judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, which officially decriminalized abortion in Canada.

As a matter of fact, it has only been 20 years since Canadian women can truly, and without fear of legal prosecution, exercise their right to choose if and when they will have children, as well as their right to fully control their reproductive capacities.

It is thus extremely of the greatest importance to get organized and celebrate this anniversary as it should, and to remind our fellow citizens that we want abortion in Canada to remain:

legal;
safe;
accessible; and
free.

We are currently looking for other like- minded people who believe that it is important, on this special day, that we publicly show our support for freedom of choice, and our fears with respect to the rise of conservative political movements that are hostile to the preservation of women’s right to abortion, and to the advancement of women’s rights in general.

October 27th, 2007 marked the 40th anniversary of the legalization of abortion in the United Kingdom. While few pro-choice organizations actually celebrated this anniversary, many anti-choice and so-called “pro-life” groups took the opportunity to feed their views to the media. We must not let that happen in Canada!

If you are interested in celebrating this anniversary on January 28, 2008, please contact us by email at 28janvier2008 (at) gmail (dot) com.

Thanks!

Comité 28 Janvier 2008

Call for Volunteers - Research Project on Radical Feminism

2007-12-10T14:12:00.000-05:00

I received the announcement below in my mailbox today and thought it would be helpful to post it here, as it might interest some of you:

December 7th 2007

PLEASE CIRCULATE IN YOUR NETWORKS

Hello there! Are you a radical feminist? Did you first get involved in radical feministactivism in the mid-1990s in Quebec? Do you want to share your experience and analyses with other feminists, the population in general and with the academic milieu? If you answered “yes” to these questions, I would like to meet with you!

My name is Jacinthe and I work with the CRAC – a research group oncollective autonomy – that is affiliated with the School of Community and Public Affairs at Concordia University (under the responsibility of Anna Kruzynski). The CRAC is an anti-authoritarian (pro)feminist affinity group that is working to document the diversity and complexity of our own movement. With the activists who choose to participate in our study, we are documenting anti-capitalist anti-authoritarian organizing that has emerged in Québec since the mid-1990s (see our repertoire that is underconstruction http://repertoire.crac-kebec.org/).

One part of this project aims to gain a better understanding of the workcarried out by anti-authoritarian activists specifically against the patriarchy or heteronormativity. We intend to document the three tendencies or cohorts identified so far: radical queer groups, women of colour feminism and radical materialist feminism. Three CRAC teams will work in parallel to carry out these tasks, which will lead, in 2010, to a week-end of reflection bringing together the three tendencies (and others should they emerge as the process unfolds).

I am working on case-study of the radical feminist cohort. In the next few months, I will be conducting individual interviews with radical feminists wanting to participate in our study. All women who self-identify as radical feminist – as defined in the call-out for the 2nd radical feminist meeting to be held in February 2008 (the definition is in appendix) – are encouraged to participate. We want to interview activists who first got involved in radical feminist organizing in Quebec sometime after 1995, be they active today or not and be they attached to anti-authoritarian, union, community, feminist, student or other movements.

If you want to participate, please let me know before January 31st 2008. If you have any questions or if you need more information, please don’t hesitate to contact me!

If you know of any other women who may be interested in this study, please forward the invitation to them.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Jacinthe Leblanc
For the Collectif de Recherche sur l’Autonomie Collective
jacinthe@crac-kebec.org
514-848-2424, extension 8709
Website: http://www.crak-kebec.org

What do we mean by radical feminism?

That aims to eradicate, at their roots, patriarchy, capitalism, hetero-centrism, racism and hierarchy.

The radical feminist movement is diverse and takes on many differentforms. Radical feminists, however, share a commitment to fight, on a dailybasis, for the elimination of patriarchy and all forms of domination without resorting to legislative or social changes that do not address the fundamental causes of patriarchal, capitalist, imperialist oppressions and all forms of authority and hierarchy. Moreover, radical feminists claimthat women have the right to organize autonomous women-only spaces. Below is a short definition of radical feminism. Of course, radical feminism emerges in many different spheres of life (love life, environment, fightagainst racism, maternity, struggle against hetero-centrism, etc.). One simple definition cannot do justice to the diversity of the movement, but it can act as a benchmark that can help us identify what unites us.

Radical: adj. Latin radicalis, from radix, root. The term radical refers to feminist organizing or analysis that goes to the root of women-specific oppression, patriarchy, and that seeks to eliminate it. Radical feminism posits that women are individually and collectively appropriated for the purpose of biological reproduction and economic production. This exploitation intersects with capitalism, racism, hetero-centrism and allother forms of hierarchy and domination.

Jack and Jill go to law school... (Jack should pay attention.)

2007-12-07T17:10:00.000-05:00

An argument, not too long ago:

- "The accused could not raise the defence of mistaken belief in consent because he had failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting.

- "The complainant did consent. She willingly followed him to his place...

- "BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHE WANTED TO SLEEP WITH HIM!

- "It was 2 in the morning...

- "It still doesn't mean anything!"

*sigh*

***

The argument above (which genuinely took place) is symptomatic of two problems with the application of the criminal law of sexual assault.

First, it shows a very frustrating lack of understanding, among lawpeople, of the distinction between the notion of "consent" to sexual activity, and of "mistaken belief in consent".

Secondly, it constitutes evidence that far too many people still entertain sexist attitudes towards sexual assault, sexual offenders and sexual assault victims. Such beliefs are sometimes, as we'll see later on, borderline delusional, and unfortunately, endorsed by law students, law professors, lawyers and *ugh* judges.

***

The argument excerpted above arose over a hypothetical about sexual assault and, more precisely, about the so-called defence of "mistaken belief in consent".

It involved a man (let's call him Jack) who meets a woman one night (we'll call her Jill). They have drinks and start chatting. The conversation quickly turns to sex, and both people describe various sexual acts. At about 2 am, Jack and Jill decide to go to Jack's place. When they get there, there's a second man (say, Joe) waiting for them. Jill feels uncomfortable and repeatedly asks Joe to leave. He refuses. Jill is scared and eventually submits to the sexual acts Jack and Joe ask her to perform. Jill files a complaint, and Jack and Joe are charged with sexually assaulting Jill.

The question is: Can the accused raise the defence of "mistaken belief in consent"?

***

First, a little legal background...

In order for a person charged with sexual assault to be found guilty, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt certain facts that constitute the material components of the culpable act (i.e. the actus reus) and the facts that constitute the intentional components of the crime (i.e. the mens rea).

Thus, the essential elements of the actus reus for the offence of sexual assault are the following:

The accused applied a force on the complainant (any type of touching, albeit very slight);
The force was applied in a sexual manner, or the touching had a sexual connotation (notwithstanding which part of the complainant's body was touched, or which part of the accused's body touched the victim);
The victim did not consent to the touching (i.e. she subjectively did not want the touching to happen).

The mens rea, or culpable intention, for sexual assault only has one element. Here, the Crown only needs to prove that the accused knew that the complainant was not consenting. (The Crown's burden will also be fulfilled if it is established that the accused was reckless or wilfully blind as to the possibility that the victim was not consenting.)

Once the Crown has proven all the elements of the actus reus and of the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused will be found guilty unless he can negate one of these essential elements.

That's what is meant in this case by "defence".

The two most common defences with respect to sexual assault (besides, of course, "I never touched her") are the defence of consent and the defence of mistaken belief in consent. In the former case, the accused will try to negate the victim's non-consent, by adducing evidence that she had in fact consented to the sexual activity. In the latter case, the accused will seek to demonstrate that he sincerely thought that he believed that the complainant had consented.

For the defence of mistaken belief in consent to be admissible, the accused's belief must be sincere, and based on reasonable grounds. Moreover, an accused can't invoke it when his belief arises from his voluntary intoxication, or when he did not take any reasonable steps to ascertain whether or not the complainant consented.

That's not too complicated, right?

Yet, many people who approach sexual assault cases similar to the hypothetical above tend to confuse the two defences. For instance, an accused will say "she was consenting, because she went to my place late at night, and earlier on we had talk about sex together".

This is often - mistakenly - labelled as a defence of consent. It's not.

Consent is a subjective notion. The only one who can testify as to whether the complainant had consented to the acts are the complainant herself. It's an inquiry into the complainant's mind. If the trier of facts finds her testimony to be credible, he must conclude that no consent was given.

As the late Lamer C.J.C. once clearly explained:

[T]he issue of mistaken belief in consent should also be submitted to the jury in all cases where the accused testifies attrial that the complainant consented. The accused's testimony that the complainant consented must be taken to mean that he believed that the complainant consented.

R. v. Bulmer, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782, at par. 24.

[Emphasis added.]

Thus, when the accused (or another witness for the defence) claims that the victim had consented to the acts because she followed him home, or she was drunk, and whatnot, we're not talking about what was going on in her mind at the time. We're going through the accused's own reasoning about what he perceived to be the complainant's mindset.

It might not seem to be of great importance at first glance, but if you were raped and your assailant got away with it, would you prefer that the judgment say that you had in fact consented, or that he was just stupid and made a mistake.

While I find the latter possibility appalling, I must acknowledge that stupidity is not - yet - a criminal offence. On the other hand, being told, despite your testimony to the contrary, and all the troubles you've gone through to bring your attacker to trial, that you had in fact consented is paternalistic and incredibly insulting.

***

The second thing that pisses me off regarding how (far too) many people discuss sexual assault is that they view it from a fundamentally patriarchal and heterosexist standpoint.

The current state of the law of sexual assault in Canada, when it comes to the issue of consent, is clear: consent is an essentially subjective notion, and, not only does "no means no", but "only yes means yes".

Therefore, even though, in a court of law, the Crown still has to establish the victim's non-consent (instead of the accused having to establish that the complainant had consented), the law does not assume that the default state of a woman's mind towards sexual activity is a big fat, unequivocal "yes".

In other words, the law does not treat women as if we were walking around in a state of perpetual consent - to anything, anytime, with anyone. *shrug* Thus, unless a woman expresses her consent to sexually activity (by unequivocal words or conduct), the iniator of the sexual activity in question must take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the woman actually consents.

Otherwise, if the woman was not, in fact, consenting, the initiator could not invoke the defence of mistaken belief in consent.

Still with me?

So this is how it works - well, in theory, that is...

But in practice, judgments tend to stray from this pro-feminist reasoning, and revert to the use of sexist premises to infer either consent or a mistaken belief.

For instance, my interlocutor, in the discussion excerpted above, readily assumed that the fact that a woman talks about sex with a man, and willingly follows him to his place late at night necessarily implies that she had thereby given him permission to engage in whatever sex acts he might think of.

This reasoning also implies that all women would want sex with any man, in any conditions, at all times, and that all women are heterosexual.

Well, uh um... *puts on white lab coat and nerdy glasses* Strong empirical data collected from millions of women around the globe for a gazillion years has shown that these premises are not true.

I know. What a shocker. The fact is that inferences such as this one are simply fundamentally sexist.

Take the same situation, but replace Jill with a Joe.

So Jack meets another guy, Joe. They have drinks. They talk about sex. Joe follows Jack to his place, at 2 in the morning. If Jack then sexually attacks Joe, will anyone really make the argument that it's obvious that Joe had consented, because he had a prior discussion about sex with his assailant, and had willingly followed him to his place at night?

No. Because our patriarcal society does not assume that men are sexually available to other men on a permanent basis. Patriarchy would intrepret the relationship between Jack and Joe as asexual and friendly, in a frat-boyish way.

Patriarchy, on the other hand, presupposes that men and women cannot interact in a way that is simply asexual and friendly. If a woman responds to the attention of a man by doing anything short of yelling at him to stay away from her, or slapping him, then she necessarily has some womanly sexual feelings for him.

Patriarchy does not take into account that women are not sex-bots, that we have free will and individual preferences. A patriarcal interpretation of the law of sexual assault on the first "Jack and Jill" hypothetical does not take into account, for instance, the fact that Jack had bad breath and greasy hair, that Jill was menstruating or that she had forgotten her pill that day.

Nor does it take into account the proven fact that women do often talk about sex in a sometimes quite frat-boyish sort of way, and that, being free of their movements and not submitted to a Gileadean curfiew, they are free to be out of their home at night and visit whomever they like.

And patriarchy being concerned about the preservation of male privilege, it does not place the onus on the male initiator to go beyond those sexist assumptions, challenge the myth of female sexual availability and simply make sure that she really agrees to engage in the sexual activity in question.

Is this really so much to ask?

(For the record - and before being labelled as a man-hater - there are plenty of men out there who are considerate and man enough to make sure their partner is as willing as they are, and who frown upon their fellow males who don't.)

***

I think it would be interesting to see how sexual assault cases involving a lesbian victim and a male accused, and where the defence of mistaken belief in consent was invoked, were treated by the courts.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any so far. (Help, anyone?)

Picture of the day

2007-12-06T17:22:00.001-05:00

A very good reason not to support the Ottawa Senators

2007-12-06T16:23:00.000-05:00

... they're raising money for an anti-abortion "crisis pregnancy center"...

***

For more information:

A day of remembrance

2007-12-06T14:44:00.000-05:00

18 years ago in Montréal, 14 young women were murdered because they were women.

In a letter he wrote shortly before he went on his deadly rampage at the École Polytechnique, the shooter, 25 year-old Marc Lépine, blamed feminists and women who "usurp" the place and advantages of men in society for his troubles, and for the crimes he was about to commit.

Before he started shooting, he cried "I hate feminists."

Feminism has little to do with Lépine's actions. It's probable that many of the women - and men - he shot did not identify as such. He killed them because they were women.

***

These events are infinitely sad and shocking and disgusting in and of themselves.

But it's all the more disheartening to think that, almost 20 years after this tragedy, most people just don't seem to give a damn about what happened then, or about gender violence in general.

This anniversary has received little to no news coverage so far today - from what I know.

Meanwhile, gender-based violence is still an endemic social problem in Canada and little is being done to eradicate it.

Many people - local politicians, "men's rights activists" and even women's magazines editors - still trivialize justify violence against women.

People like them still maintain that men who murder their female partners do it because of a lack of control, out of passion/jealousy/anger/love, in the spur of the moment, or because they were provoked.

They will blame rape/attempted murder survivors for what happened to them, and call them "cows" and "little bitches."

They will label blatant instances of extreme violence against women as "feminist myths."

They will blame female victims of crime for their "lifestyle choices," and play down any act of violence against women, from a street fight to gruesome serial killings, as a normal and justifiable "occupational hazard", if the victim belongs to an untouchable group.

They will you straight-faced that Marc Lépine was misunderstood, that he didn't really hate all women, that he just wanted to slay those evil feminists.

***

It's completely unacceptable that this sort of attitude and behaviour is still tolerated in 21st century Canada. It has to stop. This is why feminism exists. This is why women's fight to be treated as equals both under the law and in our day-to-day dealings with one another, must continue until the day women will really be respected and valued - and not despised, feared or hated - by men.

***

For more information about the events at the École Polytechnique:

Contemporary clips of the media coverage of the events, in French and English;
A Wikipedia article on the shooting.

"The Greatest Medical Discovery Ever Known" - Curing women from being women

2007-12-04T17:13:00.000-05:00

When I came across this vintage ad a few days ago, I thought it was absolutely hilarious.

I can't help but think that the device in question must have been invented by some uptight victorian physicians who had had enough of "cure" hysterical or frigid women by manipulating them to orgasm. I can just picture the utterly awkward and uncomfortable look on their prudish faces: "Gross! Women experiencing sexual pleasure! Eeeeew!"

It seems unreal that, back in the early 20th century, physicians and psychiatrists genuine believed that women were either hysterical or frigid, depending on whether they enjoyed sex too much or not enough. (And by "enjoying sex," what they really meant was the ability to have a so-called vaginal orgasm.)

A woman's lack of ability to enjoy sex on exclusivity male terms, i.e. via penetration alone, was then, as evidence by the ad above, a "disease" that had to be "cured."

Such attitudes were mistakenly and largely based on androcentric perspectives on sexuality and the female body, and fueled, namely, by Freud's psycho-analytic theories.

The problem is that they still persist today. It still seems to me that, to a certain extent, women are inherently abnormal. As a matter of fact, women are constantly being reminded that, at their natural, basic state, they necessarily either (1) grossly depart from the acceptable model of womanhood and femininity, or (2) constitute abnormal variants of the normal human, i.e. the human male.

Many people still refer to women who don't/can't experience "vaginal" orgasms as being frigid, or as being plagued by arousal problems. Hence drugs that can supposedly enhance a woman's abnormally low sexual desires, or procedures purported to enhance a woman's elusive "G-spot" so as to increase the probabilities that she will reach orgasm during penetrative sex.

Would such remedies exist at all if our society adopted a female perspective of sexuality, or at the very least, if we collectively acknowledged once and for all that sex is something that is physically and physiologically experienced differently in men and women?

Imagine if society adopted a female outlook on sexuality. Would men who don't/can't reach climax solely by manipulating their female's partner's clitoris deemed "frigid"? Would male orgasms obtained via vaginal penetration considered inferior or "immature" by medical and psychiatric literature?

***

The idea that women, simply because they are women, need to be cured of some form of inherent and congenital female disease related to one's femaleness, often takes a psychiatric twist.

Not only are women physically deficient, but there's also apparently something wrong with the way we're wired.

For years, medical textbooks and publications aimed at a female audience have urged women to seek psychiatric attention and/or treatment should they experience feelings of uneasiness, discomfort or frustration towards their bodies, marriage, men, sex, pregnancy, and whatever else was traditionally expected from women.

The following is an excerpt from a book aimed at a female teenaged audience:

Au temps de l'ovulation, quelques jours avant ou après la menstruation, certaines adolescentes sentent un besoin sexuel intense qui les rend excessivement nerveuses. Ces jeunes filles ont beaucoup de difficultés à contrôler leurs sens, durant ces courtes périodes.

Vous connaissez bien vos jours de faiblesse? Alors, n'allez pas vous exposer ces jours-là! Si vous devenez trop tendues, certains tranquilisants vous aideraient à adoucir ces orages.

- Lionel Gendron, L'adolescente veut savoir (Éditions de l'Homme: Montréal, 1964), at 51.

Dr Gendron also recommends that young girls take sedatives and tranquilizers to treat "nervous" symptoms related to menstruation, fatigue, headaches, lack of self-confidence, not feeling appreciated by your husband, and love.

As if, women needed constant medical attention. As if the mere fact of being female required medical intervention.

Vous pratiquerez ce test de fécondité pendant au moins dix mois consécutifs. Avec ce tableau, vous verrez votre médecin au moment de votre mariage et il établira avec vous votre calendrier sexuel conjugal.

- Ibid., at 103.

Seriously.

***

This is still going on today. A little while ago, I saw an ad on an American TV channel (I forgot which) for a new oral contraceptive, Yaz, that also purports to "treat" or "suppress" the psychological symptoms associated with menstruations.

On the one hand, I think it's great that there is finally an alternative to "hard" medications, such as anti-depressants, for women who experience regular bouts of anxiety and depression-like symptoms at some point of their menstrual cycle.

On the other hand however, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of "treating" menstruation as if it were a disease. It's not. It's unpleasant for many, but it's not a disease.

***

On a related topic, many women's rights groups in Québec - including la Fédération québécoise pour le planning des naissances - have required a moratorium on the mass vaccination of teenaged girls against HPV, on the ground that there are still many things we don't know about how safe the Gardasil vaccine actually is, and have raised questions about the adequacy of suppressing menstruation via various contraceptive medications.

As much as I loathe the systematic "medicalization" of women and of conditions associated with being one, I don't think it's appropriate to ban a technology or a medically approved practiced for fear that it be unnecessary or that it become systematically imposed on women.

Whether a woman should be vaccinated against HPV, or whether she should opt for a medical contraceptive that will - temporarily - stop her menstruations, is matter of personal choice. Find an OB-GYN who is knowledgeable in those areas and whom you trust, discuss these issues and make a choice that suits your beliefs and your personal needs.

Campaign against female genital mutilation

2007-12-04T16:44:00.000-05:00

The new ads for Amnesty International's campaign are beautiful and horrible at the same time, as they show with great sensitivity and aesthetics - and yet, quite graphically - exactly what female genital mutilation entails.

Here is one of them:

The Village where Men are Forbidden

2007-12-04T16:33:00.000-05:00

The video below is an excerpt of Umoja, le village interdit aux hommes. This film is a document about a village in Kenya founded by women who have been repudiated by their husbands or cast out of their community because theyr have been raped.

Almost "Dateline" - Incestuous quote of the day

2007-12-04T15:44:00.000-05:00

Picture this. A fifty-something man takes a teenaged girl out on a date to a formal event.

Feels awkward, doesn't it? (Not to mention blatantly illegal if the girl is under 14...)

What if the man is the girl's father? And what if he says things like this:

"This was a great event to teach your daughter how a gentleman conducts himself with a young lady."

Eewww... Doesn't that scream "incest" or what?

***

The statement above was made by one of the thousands of Conservative Christian American fathers who took a daughter to a "Purity Ball" over the last few years.

For those who are not familiar with the concept, it's a formal, high school prom-style of gathering where girls as young as 7 pledge their virginity to their fathers until the day they marry, and where fathers pledge to "war" for the hearts, purity and honour of their daughters.

Yuck. Many things ire me about purity balls.

First and foremost is the fact that it basically indoctrinates very young girls with the idea that she will never own her sexuality. These events effectively tell girls and young women that their sexuality is something that first belongs to their fathers, and that will be, upon marriage, passed on to their husbands.

The older girls at the Broadmoor tonight are themselves curvaceous and sexy in backless dresses and artful makeup; next to their fathers, some look disconcertingly like wives. In fact, in the parlance of the purity ball folks, one-on-one time with dad is a “date,” and the only sanctioned one a girl can have until she is “courted” by a man. The roles are clear: Dad is the only man in a girl’s life until her husband arrives, a lifestyle straight out of biblical times. “In patriarchy, a father owns a girl’s sexuality,” notes psychologist and feminist author Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. “And like any other property, he guards it, protects it, even loves it.”

...

“When you sign a pledge to your father to preserve your virginity, your sexuality is basically being taken away from you until you sign yet another contract, a marital one,” worries Eve Ensler, the writer and activist. “It makes you feel like you’re the least important person in the whole equation. It makes you feel invisible.”

Secondly, Purity Balls in particular, and abstinence-only sex ed in general convey the message that virginity has a material value. They speak in terms of "value," "treasure," and "gift." When you think about it, this is not so far from such backward practices of being sold into marriage, or of arranged marriages.

And guess what? That's exactly what those wackos do.

When I point out to Christy Parcha’s father, Mike, that experience with relationships, bumps and all, can help young women mature emotionally and become ready for sex and marriage, he warily concedes that’s true. “But there can be damage, too,” he says. “I guess we’d rather err on the side of avoiding these things. The girl can learn after marriage.”

...

“I am not worried about that. She is not even going to come close to those situations. She believes, and I do too, that her husband will come through our family connections or through me before her heart even gets involved.”

[Emphasis added.]

Again: yuck...

***

(Thanks to MJ for the links!)

The opposite end of the sexual objectification spectrum

2007-12-04T15:30:00.000-05:00

Like many other things in life, the degree and kind of the sexual objectification of women varies along a spectrum of behaviours and attitudes.

At one extremity of the spectrum, it could fairly be said that you'd find pornography and prostitution. At the other end, you'll find very repressive and proprietary attitudes towards women based on women's purported sexual nature.

In a very interesting piece, Holly at Feministe, writes about a ultra-orthodox Jewish group in Israel, who take religious teachings concerning modesty to an extreme and ask that women wear Taliban-style burqas.

“The whole of a woman is genitalia. It is forbidden for a man, other than your husband to see you.”

Go read it.

Indoctrination from the crib!

2007-11-30T15:56:00.000-05:00

La Presse, on how to pick an appropriate Christmas present for a girl aged 0 to 4 years old:

Les fillettes apprécient en général les items féminins et empruntés à la mode pour adultes, comme le boléro, le poncho, la jupe paysanne et la minijupe plissée. La collection Oiseaux d'amour de Souris Mini propose des vêtements chics et coquets tels que des jupes de laine bouillie, la blouse-boléro et son pantalon à frisons assortis. Les fillettes adoreront aussi les collants et les accessoires.

I'm sure girls as young as this really do prefer "feminine grown-up fashion." Yeah, right. I'm sure they do.

(As opposed to, say, capitalism and patriarchy.)

*sigh*

***

I guess I just never really understood the social pressure to clearly identify the gender of infants and very young children, by dressing them up in stereotyped uniforms.

Baby boy in a baby blue outfit with boats and cars... Baby girl in a light pink ensemble with lace/fur/frizzy stuff, with kittens, shoes, little purses and whatnot...

Is it just easier for people to interact with other human beings who are so categorized and identified, when there are clear assumptions about how people who belong to a given category are expected to behave?

If, at that age, it's impossible to tell apart a boy from a girl, but for the way they're dress or the length of their hair, why bother dressing them differently? The only plausible answer to this question is: so as to make sure that people will treat them differently.

Different "but equal," of course.

***

Click here to read a very good post by a feminist mother-to-be, who's trying to sort this all out.

Ode to creepy men in lingerie stores

2007-11-26T21:40:00.000-05:00

Let's face it: our collective lingerie/pyjama shopping experience would not be complete without them...

***

A man was paying his purchase, a pink peignoir, and asked the (female) clerk to gift wrap it. He then notice a Christmas lingerie catalogue on the counter, and asked the clerk that she put one inside the folded garnment. (Quite a classy way to drop a hint, don't you think?)

A really interesting thing is that the man made the following lapsus: he asked for a calendar instead of a catalogue.

(At this point, you start to see a clearer picture of the type of man in question.)

He then went on rambling about the Christmas decorations in the store, pointing how appropriate it was to decorate a lingerie store with "plein de belles boules." He also found wise to add: "moi j'aime ben ça, des petites boules."

Then, nodding towards a table covered with panties, the man said to the clerk: "There are a lot of things in here that would suit you well."

She kind of smiled back at him, with a noticeably annoyed look in her eyes.

*sigh*

***

Lingerie saleswoman #1 to lingerie saleswoman #2: "I used to work at La Senza on Ste-Catherine, but I couldn't stand the drunken men who would come into the store just to touch the clothes and the mannequins, and harass the female personnel."

(I find it really sad to think that we live a society where some men seem incapable to distinguish between an underwear store and a sex shop/strip club/porn booth.)

Violent Porn: Now in a Lingerie Store Near You

2007-11-26T18:55:00.000-05:00

The British lingerie retailer Agent Provocateur has recently opened a store in Vancouver, and is apparently planning to open new locations in Toronto and Montréal.

Well, this can only mean one thing, ladies: Get your torches and pitchforks ready.

But what, you might be wondering is so wrong about Agent Provocateur? Or is it just me, you know, the no-fun anti-sex, ever-frustrated feminist?

If you don't know the company yet, let's just say that it sells very expensive (i.e. between $140 and $160 for bras, and between $70 and $90 for thongs and panties) "exotic" lingerie. And by "exotic", we're talking porn/escort services-grade underwear.

Like, for instance, bras with no cups that expose the breasts, nipple pasties and tassles, and the like.

You know, the kind of delicate and impossibly uncomfortable stuff that are not made to be worn all day by real women, and that are solely designed to be put on shortly before coming into the bedroom, only to be removed and thrown on the floor by one's drooling partner seconds after.

***

(Side note: Do men really know the difference anyway between average female underwear and the really expensive kind? That is, when they're not buying it as "presents" for their girlfriends?)

***

I know, I know... Isn't that just precisely what the business of any lingerie retailer consists of?

Maybe it is, although it's not my personal opinion. But in any case, what differentiates Agent Provocateur from other lingerie brands is its absolutely disgusting attitude towards women.

First, it uses porn as a form of publicity. If you go on their website (at your own risks - it might trigger very upsetting feelings), the first thing you'll see is three naked females bathing together and lascively posing for the camera. If you enter the website and actually check out the products, you'll notice that they can't just show you the picture of a bra, or even the picture of a fashion model wearing said bra. No, Ma'am. Every single product is displayed via pictures of models shot in soft porn postures or attitudes.

As a woman, I find the suggestion that I can't distinguish between bona fide lingerie advertisements and gratuituous online porn incredibly insulting.

The further you go, the worst it gets. The misogyny is extreme, and its everywhere. On the website, you'll find shoes that will suit you from the "boardroom to the bedroom" (seriously: WTF?!?) and, in the "jewellery" section, you'll find that the only proposed item is a metallic dog collar, complete with a fancy leash and matching (optional) handcuffs. There's even a blindfold with the phrase "Treat me like the whore that I am" written across it.

Classy, I know.

***

As a matter of fact, violent sex and sexual domination/submission seem to be a recurrent theme in the Agent Provocateur imagery. The website namely features "Adventures", i.e. pornographic stories illustrated by pictures and videos, in which L.A. debutantes and 1920's French maids are confined, exploited (in terms of the work they do and in terms of the sex acts they have to perform), disciplined and "taught" to "enjoy" sex.

Yuck. (And this is just a mild one, from the few that I've seen. Yet, it sends a chill down my spine.)

My point is not to make an argument against "rough" sex, certain types of fantasies or erotic scenarios, or even S&M practices.

I just don't like sexual violence against women and the sexual exploitation of women being used in a pornographic manner as part of an advertisement.

Even though there's not a hint of penetration of any kind, and that Agent Provocateur's pornographic advertisements are - mostly - confined to (fake*) lesbian sex, it's not just "soft" porn to me. It's violent and degrading porn, where women are humiliated, hurt, thrown to the ground, and whipped like beasts.

To a certain extent, I can tolerate the ambient sexism and misogyny of our culture, for the simple reason that otherwise, I'd probably shoot myself. But I can't tolerate the mere suggestion that violence against women generally is acceptable, and that sexual violence in particular can be branded as sexy for base mercantile purposes, turned into incredibly violent and degrading - yet easily available - porn and marketed towards women as "luxury" or "empowerment."

For these reasons, I will boycott the Agent Provocateur brand, and will protest by all means (legally) available to me the opening of a Montréal location.

***

* Fake as in "not just some guy's wacky patriarchical, sexist, androcentric view of lesbian sex..."

"Reasonable Accommodation: A Feminist Response"

2007-11-26T18:45:00.000-05:00

A statement from the Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University, challenging the moral legitimacy of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission:

As anti-racist, anti-colonial, feminists in Québec, we have serious misgivings about the Commission de Consultation sur les pratiques d'accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles. The Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec (CSF) has proposed that the Québec Charter be changed so as to accord the right of gender equality relative priority over the right to religious expression and to ban the wearing of "ostentatious" religious symbols in public institutions by public employees. Our concern is that the Commission and the CSF's subsequent intervention pave the way for legislation that will restrict rather than enhance the rights of women. We invite you to join us in questioning the exclusionary structure of the Commission, the assumptions it supports, and the negative impact it is likely to have on women's lives.

So, why call into question the legitimacy and the effects of the Commission?

1. because although we see the urgent need for dialogue about racism and sexism in Québec society, we object to how this consultation process has been undertaken. Listening to people "air out" their racism is not conducive to promoting critical reflection and dialogue, but instead creates a climate of fear-mongering and moral panic. Furthermore, in asking whether or not "difference" and "minorities" should be accommodated the commission assumes and perpetuates "commonsense" racist understandings of some "cultures" as homogeneous, backward and inferior. In addition, the Commission's reliance on the notion of "reason" must also be critically examined. Historically, white men have been positioned as the exclusive bearers of reason, and the Commission runs the risk of reproducing this in a context of ongoing social inequality.

2. because the design of the Commission and the language of "accommodation" assumes and perpetuates a system of power whereby western "hosts" act as gatekeepers for non-western "guests." A better consultative process would start with the recognition that Canada is a white-settler state, and that its history is one of colonial and patriarchal violence against Indigenous people.

3. because the public debates that the Commission has sparked construct certain ethno-cultural communities as perpetual outsiders and as threats to Québec identity rather than as integral to it. Concerns about ethno-cultural others as socially regressive obscure the everyday homophobia, sexism and racism that pervade Québec society.

4. because the ways that the Commission has been represented in mainstream English media promotes the idea that racism is a feature exclusive to Québec society and is not a problem -- or is less of a problem -- in the rest of Canada.

5. because the preoccupation with veiled women serves to deflect from the sexism and racism that has historically pervaded Québec and Canadian society. As feminists, we must challenge our complicity with the state's violence against women both in its colonial relations with Indigenous people and in its use of the figure of the veiled woman as an alibi for imperialist war and occupation in Afghanistan.

6. because appeals to secularism as a guarantor of gender equality effectively function to promote Christian culture as the norm and to scapegoat Muslims as inherently sexist, erasing secular forms of sexism.

7. because although it is still underway, the Commission has already prompted the proposal of laws that could restrict, regulate, and otherwise impede the lives of immigrant and racialized people in Québec.

8. because regulating women's public religious expression is gender discrimination insofar as it takes away women's freedom and inhibits their civic participation.

9. because the CSF is failing to meet its mandate of "defending the interests of women." The CSF would better serve the interests of women in Québec by focusing on the conditions of poverty, violence, criminalization and racism that many of us face, and not on what women wear.

Signed: The Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University, November 2007

***

Please go to the Institute's website (above) to read the full version of the statement.

To personally endorse this statement, kindly write to: acarastathis@gmail.com.

***

For another view on the matter, please go to Little Miss Brightside's blog.

Former Chief Justice of Canada dies

2007-11-26T18:27:00.001-05:00

(The late Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, C.J.C.)

The Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, died last Saturday.

The Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, formerly a justice and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, passed away in Ottawa on November 24, 2007 after a prolonged illness. Born in Montreal, Quebec, Chief Justice Lamer served in the Royal Canadian Artillery and in the Canadian Intelligence Corps. In 1956, he graduated in law from the Université de Montréal. The following year, he was called to the Bar of Quebec. He practised law at the firm of Cutler, Lamer, Bellemare and Associates and was a full professor in the Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal. In 1969, Chief Justice Lamer was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court. In 1978, he was elevated to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1980, Antonio Lamer was named the 16th Chief Justice of Canada in 1990. He retired from the Court in 2000.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, on behalf of the members of the Supreme Court of Canada, mourned Chief Justice Lamer's passing, "Antonio Lamer was an eminent jurist, and a fierce defender of the independence of the judiciary. He served as a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and as Chief Justice of Canada during an important period of Canadian history. He was a forceful advocate for the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His decisions left an indelible mark on both the law and Canadian society. His presence and passion for the law will be sorely missed. Members and employees of the Court extend their deepest condolences to Chief Justice Lamer's wife, the Honourable Danièle Tremblay-Lamer, and his family."

Former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer will lie in repose in the Grand Hall of the Supreme Court of Canada on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 from 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the public to pay their respects.

A religious ceremony will be held at the Marie-Reine-du-Monde Cathedral in Montreal on Friday, November 30, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. The family will receive visitors from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 29, 2007, and from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday, November 30, 2007, at the Centre funéraire Côte-des-Neiges, 4525 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, in Montreal.

A private memorial ceremony by invitation only will be held at the Supreme Court of Canada on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:00 p.m.

***

One of my all-time favourite quotes from Lamer C.J.C.:

"[I]n my view the issue of mistaken belief in consent should also be submitted to the jury in all cases where the accused testifies attrial that the complainant consented. The accused's testimony that the complainant consented must be taken to mean that he believed that the complainant consented."

[Emphasis added.]

R. v. Bulmer, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782, at par. 24.

***

For more information on Lamer C.J.C.'s life and legacy:

- Official SCC bio;
- Wikipedia bio.

Meanwhile, in France...

2007-11-26T18:19:00.000-05:00

A recent French study showed that only 8% of victims of domestic violence eventually complain to the authorities.

In reaction to this finding, French lawmakers enacted new measures to curb domestic violence and encourage women to report it to the police.

But guess what? They're totally useless...

As a matter of fact, some genius came up with this great idea: when a woman report an incident of domestic violence to the police, the perpetrator is given the choice between being prosecuted before a criminal court, or attending 10 hours of conjugal therapy.

*rolls eyes in disbelief*

There's no way such measures can curb domestic violence, when it doesn't even address its genuine roots, and when it's being dismissed as a conjugal and private matter...

16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence

2007-11-26T18:05:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, November 25th, marked the beginning of the annual 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence. During this period, organizations and individuals are encouraged to speak up against gender violence, to reflect on the causes of this problem and to propose solutions.

A 16 Days "action kit" is available online here. You can also wear the traditional white ribbon as a sign of support for this cause, and as a sign of remembrance for the victims of the École Polytechnique massacre.

Le Ministère de la Condition féminine du Québec has also launched a publicity campaign about domestic violence, in order to remind people that acts of violence, even where they occur within a relationship, are still criminal acts.

(Click here to watch the video.)

Pro-Choice Contest

2007-11-23T22:48:00.000-05:00

Brought to you by Canadians for Choice. For more details, or to participate, visit their website here.

Bill Watch - Fetus fetishizers edition

2007-11-23T13:49:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Conservative MP Ken Epp brought forward a private bill that seek to create a "Laci Peterson"-type of criminal offence. This offence would punish those who cause the "death" of an unborn child during an act of violence against a pregnant woman.

The worst thing about this Bill is that it purports to protect "a mother's choice to give birth."

As the Unrepentant Old Hippie explains:

"The latest jeans-creaming dream come true for Gileadean fetus-fanatics is a private member's bill tabled today by Alberta MP Ken Epp, the 'Unborn Victims of Crime' bill. The UVOC bill would 'protect a mother's choice to give birth', making it a crime to cause the injury or death of a fetus in the commission of violence against the mother.

"Don't get excited. Nothing 'anti-abortion' to see here, noooooo, just move along. Why, the UVOC bill is just about protecting 'choice' -- the mother's choice to carry a pregnancy to term and have it culminate on Day 273 as a baked-to-perfection babycake. And anyone who wields a knife or baseball bat (or scalpel?) and stops that from happening would be committing murder, as surely as it would be murder to kill the mother. Fetus? Hell, never mind that, this bill would protect embryos... zygotes, even. 'At any stage of development before birth.'"

...

Predictably, Ken Epp identifies as pro-life, and opposes gay marriage. But he "advocate[s] fairness and equality of all Canadians."

Yeah, right. Straight, White, male, middle-class (and preferably unborn) Canadians, that is...

Being the Catholic Church is never having to say you're sorry...

2007-11-22T18:57:00.000-05:00

After making clumsy and insensitive remarks recently at the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Québec City wrote a letter to French-language newspapers in Québec, as an apology for the past wrongs of the Catholic Church against, namely, members of other religions, homosexuals and women.

The jist of Mgr Ouellet is contained in those two paragraphs:

"Comme archevêque de Québec et primat du Canada, je reconnais que des attitudes étroites de certains catholiques, avant 1960, ont favorisé l’antisémitisme, le racisme, l’indifférence envers les premières nations et la discrimination à l’égard des femmes et des homosexuels. Le comportement des catholiques et de certaines autorités épiscopales relativement au droit de vote, à l’accès au travail et à la promotion de la femme n’a pas toujours été à la hauteur des besoins de la société ni même conforme à la doctrine sociale de l’Église.

...

"Je reconnais aussi que des abus de pouvoir et des contre-témoignages ont terni chez plusieurs l’image du clergé, et nui à son autorité morale : des mères de famille ont été rabrouées par des curés sans égard pour les obligations familiales qu’elles avaient déjà assumées ; des jeunes ont subi des agressions sexuelles par des prêtres et des religieux, leur causant de graves dommages et traumatismes qui ont brisé leur vie ! Ces scandales ont ébranlé la confiance du peuple envers les autorités religieuses, et nous le comprenons ! Pardon pour tout ce mal !"

[Emphasis added.]

To me, not only is this so-called mea culpa blatantly insufficient, it also strikes me as being insincere and hypocritical.

First of all, Mgr Ouellet is speaking for himself, and not as a voice for the Catholic Church.

Secondly, he's not really apologizing for anything. In fact, he doesn't even come close to fully taking the blame for the Church oppression of women and homosexuals. He merely admits that some Catholics, before 1960, might have had attitudes that may have fostered discrimination against women and gays.

Seriously, I fail to see an apology in there. As if the whole Catholic doctrine wasn't hostile to women and gays in the first place. As if such "attitudes" had miraculously stopped after 1960.

Thirdly, while Mgr Ouellet seems to be acknowledging the historically common pratice of priests who would either deny communion to women who illegally used contraception or remained abstinent in order to prevent further pregnancies, or visit them at home to sermon them, it can hardly be said that he's showing more understanding.

In fact, his words even suggest that it would have been OK to do so with respect to women who had not had children yet.

***

However, I am please to see that most politicians, journalists and feminist leaders in Québec are not buying this bullshit.

Christine St-Pierre, Ministre de la Condition féminine, while she acknowledged Mgr Ouellet's "effort", stressed that the Catholic Church must still review its position regarding contraception, homosexuality and the equality between men and women.

La Fédération des femmes du Québec also expressed similar feelings.

Elizabethan Match-Making

2007-11-22T18:47:00.000-05:00

"European Queen, single, still capable of child-bearing, red head, youthful look, seeks blue-blooded bachelor, to stabilize her country and produce a male heir. Love is optional."

***

A rare contemporary portrait of Queen Elizabeth I was sold today for 5,3 million $ in England. It is believed that this portrait was ordered by Elizabeth as a form of publicity to help her find a royal husband.

Isn't it absolutely beautiful?

Happy Sexual Harassment Season!

2007-11-22T15:47:00.000-05:00

It's snowing outside and it can only mean one thing: the Holiday Season is coming, and along with it, the traditional office parties, where co-workers have fun and exchange mundane presents.

So, you ask, what's an appropriate present to give to a co-worker/your boss/a subordinate?

What about something sexy and fun? Like, for example, lingerie or lubricant?

I notice the ad below in today's Metro.

In this ad, Boutique Séduction, a Montréal sex shop, is suggesting upfront that its merchandize constitute appropriate gift ideas for office parties, and that such "sexy" gifts are just fun and playful.

You know, because somehow, being given lingerie by your boss or one of your coworkers is not sexual harassment around Christmas time, when everybody's drunk and happy.

The picture on the ad is pretty disgusting in and of itself. All the people picture look drunk, and all the men are either looking down someone's décolleté or grabbing a female coworker. The mere fact that it suggests that this sort of behaviour is acceptable in a work environment is unacceptable.

***

If you want to complain to Boutique Séduction, please do so at the following number: (514) 593-1169, or by mail, at:

Boutique Séduction
5220, boulevard Métropolitain Est
Montréal (Québec)
H1S 1A4

Make sure to CC your letter to Metro... :

625 Avenue du Président-Kennedy
Suite 700
Montréal (Québec)
H3A 1K2
Phone: (514) 286-1066

... and to la Commission des normes du travail:

Commission des normes du travail
26e étage
500, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest
Montréal (Québec)
H2Z 2A5

You can also write an opinion letter to Metro, at: opinions@metronouvelles.com.

***

A recent Canadian study, sarcastically called "The Sexual Harassment of Uppity Women", shows that women who don't conform to feminine stereotypes in the workplace are twice as much likely to be sexually harassed than their "traditional" counterparts.

As left-clicked, at F-email Fightback, explains:

"[S]exual harassment is motivated by a wish to punish women who blur gender distinctions. Women coming up through the ranks or entering a traditionally male work environment may threaten some men's sense of security and status. The dynamic is similar to harassment of minorities who threaten a majority group's dominant position in the workplace.

"Jennifer Berdahl, at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, found that women who behaved independently and assertively and spoke out were more likely to be sexually harassed than women who fit feminine ideals of deference, modesty and warmth. Ms. Berdahl noted this was especially true in male-dominated workplaces."

Feminine instincts and personal safety

2007-11-21T14:08:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I was in a café with a friend, standing in line. After she got her order, I moved away from the line and a male staff member bump into me from behind.

Instead of just apologizing, he grabbed me from behind, firmly holding my waist with his arm. He maintained his hold of me for two or three seconds, and said something like "Shall we dance?"

As the place was noisy, I had not seen or heard him coming, and was completely caught by surprise. He was holding me and speaking to me from behind, and I couldn't even see his face.

When he let go of me, I caught up with my friend. I told her what had just happened. I was angry, but more than anything else, I was really upset, as the incident has triggered old fears and feelings of inadequacy.

I wish I had had the instinct to defend myself, to push him away, to yell at him, to claw his eyes out. But I did not do any of those things. I didn't even say anything, not even a hushed complain.

Of course, I fell incredibly outraged and angry at this asshole. But I can't help to feel angrier at myself, for being so inadequate and useless in defending myself. I also feel sad that I can't do what I preach, what I have learned and what I believe is the right thing to do.

I couldn't apply the basic rules I've learned: attack his eyes, pull his hair, kick his groin... It didn't even cross my mind. I was paralyzed by surprise and fear.

It wasn't an attack per se, although this guy didn't have the right to touch me - let alone seize me - like that without my consent. (Assault simpliciter, anyone?) Maybe the guy acted in good faith, or without thinking - which, while it clears him of being a predator, doesn't change anything to his being a complete idiot. It happened in a public place, and I guess that another person might have reacted differently than I did.

My point is just that, had this been a full-fledged attack, I'm not sure I would have been able to adequately defend myself.

Wake up call

2007-11-21T13:53:00.000-05:00

Britain celebrated the 40th anniversary of the legalization of abortion, and apparently, nobody cared.

(Except of course, the so-called "pro-life" folks.)

***

It seems it can't be stressed often enough. January 28th, 2008, will mark the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada.

Pro-choice people must do something about it. Just so that anti-choicers won't have this special day all to themselves to complain about how many "babies" have been "murdered" in Canada over the past 20 years.

The End of Real Women

2007-11-21T13:11:00.000-05:00

I'm not making this up. The signs are everywhere. Real women - of the thinking, feeling, natural kind - are facing extinction.

We are being replaced. We are being replaced by pictural and mechanical versions of ourselves that are better than we'll ever be. The pornography industry is more powerful than ever on its own. In addition, it is fueled by the creativity of misogynistic inventors from all over the world, and by the fierce marketing of products that target to women.

Slowly but surely, real women are being replaced. The notion of genuine womanhood is being replaced, with a more aggressively marketed, manufactured femininity ideal, that is impossible for real women to compete with, let alone attain.

Real women are facing a choice: they can either try to run with it and try to commit to the rules of this pornified femininity, or disappear.

Or rather, the notion that it is acceptable to call ourselves women when we cannot or do not want to conform to these norms will disappear.

***

After all, the utility and likeability of rea women is so limited. We don't come anywhere close to being acceptable, porn-grade women.

Real women think, feel and express themselves. We are not silent, passive and cannot be shut down at will by our male owner.

Real women are complex sexual beings. We do not orgasm at the mere push of a button, and we don't have knobs and switches that make us moan.

All real women don't moan.

Real women don't always want to have sex with their partners. Nor can they follow their husbands wherever they go just so they will be sexually available if and when he feels like getting off.

Real women have a mind of their own, a life and a history, with which their life partner necessarily has to cope.

Real women don't have "perfect," plastic bodies. Real women have hair, wrinkles, and uneven skin. Real women don't wake up in the morning with their hair done and their make-up on. Real women don't perpetually look like they're 14. Real women age.

March in support for the Rule of Law in Pakistan

2007-11-21T13:05:00.000-05:00

"The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) is joining legal organizations around the world in a show of support for the lawyers and judges of Pakistan, calling for the restoration of the rule of law in that country.

"On Sunday, November 25 in Ottawa, the CBA will be holding a march in solidarity with the defenders of the rule of law in Pakistan. CBA President Bernard Amyot will lead the procession of CBA Bar Leaders, lawyers, law students and other members of the legal community from across Canada. The County of Carleton Law Association is also giving its full support to the march to the steps of the Supreme Court of Canada. Bar Leaders will address the marchers and participants will have the opportunity to sign a petition of support for Pakistan lawyers, judges and the rule of law."

Click here for the details.

Finally, an intelligent film with ... um... bite?

2007-11-20T15:59:00.000-05:00

There's a new film coming up called Teeth, that sounds really interesting and that I'd really like to see (that is, if and when it's released in Canada).

It's the story of Dawn, an introverted high school student, who, as a typical female teenager, feels awkward about boys, dating, sex and her own body. Dawn tries to deal with her contradictory feelings by being part of some abstinence club, and keepings things platonic with her boyfriend.

The twist is that, when he attempts to sexually assault her, she discovers that her vagina actually has teeth, which leaves her boyfriend in a sorry state and herself in possession of an unexpected weapon against male violence.

From the reviews I have read so far, this "horror comedy" is a pretty good commentary on sexual education politics, male attitudes towards female sexuality, and women's relation with their bodies:

"If you get over the rather distasteful subject matter and focus on what's beneath the surface, you'll find a flick that's got a whole lot to say about young women and their fear of burgeoning sexuality, society's general distaste (and, let's face it, fear) of the female sex organ, and the ways in which men do a serious disservice to womankind by treating their "naughty bits" as if they're something to be ashamed of. Teeth covers all this ground (and a whole lot more), and I suspect it's more open-minded and honest than most of what passes for "sex ed" these days. This movie offers enough meaty subtext to fill three semesters and it does so in a shocking, humorous and strangely compassionate fashion.

...

"I'm of the opinion that audacity is something to be admired in today's cinematic world, and Teeth has audacity to spare. Fortunately for the brave movie-watcher, the film is also very smart, slick and entirely unashamed to throw a few nasty shocks into the equation ... if that's what it takes to get the point across. As Dawn begins to realize that her privates possess a decidedly unsavory set of dental features, the phrase "sex as a weapon" begins to take on a whole new meaning. Lichtenstein bravely refuses to shy away from the sticky questions and icky repercussions, which elevates Teeth beyond the label of "interesting curiosity" and right into the realm of 'brazen brilliance.'"

(Click here for the full review.)

Teeth was shown at the Berlin Film Festival 2007, and at the Sundance Film Festival 2007, where actress Jess Weixler (who plays the lead role) won the Special Dramatic Jury Prize for Acting.

***

Here is the trailer:

The only thing that makes me tick with this film is the fact that its trailer calls it a "cautionary tale for men."

Why would it be? Because hurting women is OK? Because our ladyparts are, indeed, weird and dangerous? *sigh*

Bad analogies

2007-11-19T17:13:00.000-05:00

Bad pro-life analogy #1 - Women as broodmares:

"Carl Gunter Jr. (deceased) - 'Inbreeding is how we get championship horses'.
"Louisianna state representative, explaining why he was fighting a proposed anti-abortion bill that allowed abortion in cases of incest."

***

Bad pro-life analogy #2 - Women as cardboard boxes:

... *sigh*

"Snow White"

2007-11-19T16:58:00.000-05:00

Below is a very moving excerpt from a post at Marginal Notes:

"I used to love reading fairy tales when I was little...didn't everyone?

"Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella...

"All suffered at the hands of other women and were saved by the fairy-tale love of a man.

"How different real life is from the fairy tales...

"Most of us suffered at the hands of men. At least, I did.

"Once I lay unconscious in an emergency room, hooked up to a heart monitor. A nurse asked my mother, "Has your daughter been raped?" My mother was shocked, but answered, "Yes...but why do you think that?" The nurse told her that every time a male doctor went near me, my heartbeat changed.

"How do you undo wounds that leave you vigilant even when unconscious?"

Go read the whole thing.

The WTF Highlight of the Day

2007-11-18T18:31:00.000-05:00

Don't tell me we don't live in a pornified society.

This toy stripper pole (below) - yes, you've read correctly: a toy stripper pole - was available in the UK up until recently.

Seriously: Who are you supposed to play this "game" with? In what outfit - let alone the garter thing - are the little kids supposed to "dance"?

"The Tesco Direct site advertises the kit with the words, 'Unleash the sex kitten inside...simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!

"'Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars'.

The £49.97 kit comprises a chrome pole extendible to 8ft 6ins, a 'sexy dance garter' and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves."

(If, after reading the above, you still think that the Peekaboo stripping pole is just good, harmless, tongue-in-cheek fun, and that it's suitable for your 10 year-old, click here.)

This "toy" was removed from the shelves after Tesco received numerous complains of outraged parents and health profesionals.

Predictably, Tesco attempted to justify itself:

"Tesco last night denied the pole dancing kit was sexually oriented and said it was clearly marked for "adult use".

"A spokesman added: 'Pole dancing is an increasing exercise craze. This item is for people who want to improve their fitness and have fun at the same time.'"

"Exercise," eh?... Yeah, right... *rolls eyes*

Is it just me or that statement doesn't really convince me that they weren't trying to market sex work to grade-school kids?

Tesco's attitude is an insult to the intelligence of the parents who complained and of the members of the general public who are offended by this toy. Do they actually expect us to believe that a toy, called "Peekaboo" was "clearly marked for adult use"?

Opposite perspectives on sexual assault

2007-11-18T17:56:00.000-05:00

Recently in the UK, Conservative MP David Cameron called for more support for sexual assault victims, both at the pre-trial and trial stages, and for "proportionate", i.e. harsher, sentences for rapists. He also requested that the government enact measures to purge society of its "rape culture", so that attitudes and behaviours that trivialize or legitimize sexual assault and the objectification of women be clearly identified as wrong and, to a certain extent, against the law.

Mr Cameron also asked "that the government ... fund public service announcements against rape and cover sexual consent in sex-ed classes."

As Mr Cameron explained:

"It is important that we talk to children, so that years later when they become jurors, they no longer believe the myths of sexual assault: that women and girls are asking for it if they wear particular clothes, or are out late, or are drinking, that it's all their fault."

***

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, a 19 year-old rape victim was sentenced to 90 lashes. Her crime? Being in a secluded place with a man who was not her husband or a relative.

"The young woman’s offense was in meeting a former boyfriend, whom she had asked to return pictures he had of her because she was about to marry another man. The couple was sitting in a car when a group of seven men kidnapped them and raped them both, lawyers in the case told Arab News, a Saudi newspaper.

"The woman and the former boyfriend were originally sentenced to 90 lashes each for being together in private, while the attackers received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison, and 80 to 1,000 lashes each."

The woman's lawyer appealed her sentence, on the ground that it was unusually harsh (the usual sentence for "adultery" being 60 to 80 lashes), and publicly denounced the ruling. As a result, "the court increased the victim’s sentence to 200 lashes and six months in jail", and her lawyer's license was suspended. (He is now facing disciplinary procedures.)

More on crazy cat ladies...uh... over-achieving, single feminists

2007-11-18T17:49:00.000-05:00

Picture of the day

2007-11-18T17:37:00.000-05:00

(This cat is probably a feminist, because, you know, we feminists eat babies and, well, we share our miserable, lonely, and unfulfilled lives with our kitties and everything...)

Party like it's 1988

2007-11-16T15:45:00.000-05:00

And now for something completely different, I'll post something in French for once.

Depuis plusieurs mois, la chanson Dégénérations du groupe folklorique Mes Aïeux tourne à plein régime sur les ondes radiophoniques québécoises. Récemment, cette chanson a même remporté le prix de la Chanson populaire de l'année au gala de l'ADISQ.

Toutefois, je déteste personnellement cette chanson. Ce n'est pas de la mauvaise musique. Le rythme est entraînant, et le son folklorique épuré n'est pas désagréable en soi.En fait, c'est son message rétrograde envers les femmes qui m'horripile.

En effet, le deuxième couplet se lit comme suit:

"Ton arrière-arrière-grand-mère, elle a eu 14 enfants
Ton arrière-grand-mère en a eu quasiment autant
Et pis ta grand-mère en voulait trois c'était suffisant
Pis ta mère en voulait pas, toi t'étais un accident

"Et pis toi, ma p'tite fille, tu changes de partenaire tout le temps
Quand tu fais des conneries, tu t'en sors en avortant
Mais y'a des matins, tu te réveilles en pleurant
Quand tu rêves la nuit d'une grande table entourée d'enfants"

(Cliquez ici pour les paroles complètes.)

Bleh. Quelle horreur.

Je rêve où les masses adorent une chanson où l'on idéalise une époque où la femme était la simple propriété de son mari, où le divorce était sinon illégal, sinon socialement impossible, et où elle n'avait pas accès - ni même le droit - à la contraception?

Oui, les Québécoises d'il y a deux ou trois générations avaient des familles de 10, 12 ou 14 enfants. Mais combien de ces grossesses étaient désirées, ou même encore issues de rapports sexuels égalitaires et consentants? Combien de ces grossesses pouvaient réellement être supportées par les ressources physiques de la mère et les ressources financières du ménage?

C'était l'époque où les filles les plus âgées dans la maisonnée (comme ma propre grand-mère, qui était l'aînée d'une famille modeste de 14 enfants) devaient se passer d'une éducation de niveau primaire pour aider leurs mères à s'occuper des frères et soeurs plus jeunes et des diverses corvées domestiques.

Et oui, beaucoup de personnes de notre génération sont nés de grossesses non désirées. Réveillez-vous: la contraception n'a été légalisée au Canada que depuis 1969, et l'avortement n'a été décriminalisé qu'en 1988.

Si vous êtes nés avant 1988, rappelez-vous que votre mère n'a peut-être pas eu le choix de vous mettre au monde, avec tous les sacrifices physiques, mentaux et matériels que ça implique.

D'autre part, la chanson parle de "conneries" que les "pauvres" filles d'aujourd'hui font.

De quelle "connerie" parle-t-on? Avoir des relations sexuelles? Avoir des relations sexuelles non protégées? Avoir des relations sexuelles pour le plaisir, sans désir qu'il en résulte une grossesse?
Avoir des relations sexuelles avec des partenaires différents? Est-ce qu'il faut traiter de cons tous celles et ceux - pourquoi la gent masculine serait-elle exemptée du jugement moral de Mes Aïeux? - qui ont déjà eu des relations sexuelles dans de telles circonstances? Ou qui ont déjà fait eu des relations sexuelles tout court? Ou avec plus d'un partenaire?

Avoir une vie sexuelle libre, sans contrainte, non limitée au mariage, et non assujettie à la possibilité de devenir mère? On devrait plutôt célébrer les 20 ans de cette réalité.

Enfin, l'avortement n'est ni - j'en conviens - un moyen de contraception en tant que tel au même titre que le condom ou la Pilule. Toutefois, c'est un choix légitime, et non, comme cette chanson le suggère, qu'une façon d'éviter les conséquences d'une "connerie".

C'est un choix légitime de choisir si, quand, et avec qui on veut avoir des enfants. C'est un choix légitime de décider que non, on n'est pas physiquement, mentalement ou financière prête à créer, porter, accoucher, entretenir et élever un enfant.

Toutes les femmes n'ont pas envie, contrairement à ce que le suggère la chanson, d'avoir des tas enfants. Ou même un seul. Toutes les femmes n'ont pas besoin, pour s'épanouir pleinement dans la vie, de devenir mère.

Je suis déçue de l'engouement que les gens de ma génération (gens de la vingtaine) semblent avoir pour cette chanson rétrograde, moralisatrice, simpliste et avant-tout misogyne.

Young Feminists Unite!

2007-11-14T18:31:00.000-05:00

In october 2008, on Thanksgiving weekend, young feminists from all over the country will flock to Montréal to attend the first Rassemblement pancanadien des jeunes féministes.

If you would like to attend this event, or if you'd like to get involved in its organization, please contact Barbara Legault, from la Fédération des femmes du Québec, at blegault@ffq.qc.ca, or by phone: (514) 876-0166.

For more information, you can also contact le Comité des jeunes féministes du Y des femmes de Montréal, at info@ydesfemmesmtl.org .

Please tell me this isn't for real...

2007-11-14T17:26:00.000-05:00

The name speaks for itself: "Monopoly Pink Boutique Edition"... i.e. a game on how to handle money for girls.

You know, because the fact that it's pink makes it easier for our tiny, mathematically-challenged lady brains.

Bleh.

Give the taxman a hug...

2007-11-14T17:12:00.000-05:00

... because he deserves it for not taking this anti-choice bullshit.

"November 10, 2007

"Fredericton -- A New Brunswick man who refuses to file tax returns as a protest against abortion has been found guilty and ordered to file the returns and pay $3,000 in fines.

"David Little, 62, of Fredericton says he won't comply with the order because he maintains the religious belief that abortion is murder and the federal government funds abortions.

"Judge Leslie Jackson has given Mr. Little until March 31 to file his tax returns and must return to court April 4 if he hasn't paid the fines."

Of course, the CRA just really enjoys collecting our hard-earned money, but I'm relieved that nobody is buying into this guy's civil disobedience argument.

I also hope that the next guy this guy shows up in an emergency room, or takes his kids to school, somebody will kindly (or not) remind him that individual taxpayers can't pick and choose where our tax dollars go.

It's called society...

***

More comments on this case from the Unrepentant Old Hippie and Feministe.

***

More information on the difficulties of access to abortion services in New Brunswick.

This is what happens when you legalize gay marriage...

2007-11-14T16:30:00.000-05:00

Stephen Harper, Peter McKay, and their little conservative/crazy religious right friends must be so happy right now. Here's proof they were right all along about gay marriage. You know, the slippery slope argument? If we allow gays to marry, then we'll have to let people tie the knot with multiple partners, and even animals...

Well, guess what?

It just happened.

Some man in India - you know, a country where gays have been widely accepted for, like, ages- just married a bitch (of the canine kind), apparently as an attempt to break a curse that had plagued him ever since he killed two dogs some 15 years ago.

Here's a picture of the newlyweds.

The dog is actually really cute, but she doesn't seem to be enjoying herself very much... As the good people from CuteOverload would say, she's all "baroo?"

***

So why again are gay rights in general and the issue of gay marriage relevant from a feminist perspective?

Because the concept of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution is based on a reductive view of women's place in society, as well as gender-based stereotypes, which feminists abhor and seek to eradicate. Such premises include:

The sole purpose of marriage is procreation (So if you're gay, sterile, menopaused or if you simply don't want to reproduce, screw you. This one also presupposes that men would normally not enter into long-term, committed relationships with women if it were not to have sex with them and impregnate them.);
Only heterosexual, i.e. "complete" couples are able to parent (uh... did Britney get the memo?);
Children cannot be raised in the absence of a mother and a father (but especially in the absence of a mother, so get back to the kitchen, you selfish, ambitious career girls);
There is nothing wrong in the heterosexual, patriarchical model of society, as a matter of fact, it has worked just fine for the last thousand years, so why change our good old traditions? (Like treating women, children and icky foreigners as chattels that can be bought, sold and destroyed at will?)

A very romantic bloodbath

2007-11-02T14:42:00.000-05:00

Lately, there has been much comment on this Russian promotional article about hymenoplasty, that is, the surgical procedure by which a woman's virginity can be "restored". The procedure basically involves sewing back together the remaining pieces of a woman's hymen. Since is it performed with absorbable ("melting") sutures, it necessarily implies that the patient will "lose" her virginity, once again, within approximately 2 weeks.

The article lists 5 reasons why a non-virgin would like to go through (1) a surgery and (2) the wholesome fun of being in pain and covered in blood once again in her life. They range from "you can deceived your husband on your wedding night" to "men will pay more to have sex with you if you're a virgin" to the heinous "it's the nicest thing a girl can do for her emotionally-challenged boyfriend":

"Hymen repair surgery aims to enable a patient’s sexual partner to have “that thrilling conquest” normally associated with the wedding night. As a rule, patients are warned straightaway that they are likely to bleed more and feel greater pain during the subsequent intercourse, compared to blood loss and pain caused by the original act of deflowering.

"Indeed, Marina’s second “wedding” night was a rather painful experience for her. On the contrary, her boyfriend enjoyed every minute if it."

[Emphasis added]

Yuck. I find this whole thing really disturbing, not to mention extremely physically hazardous.

As Lauredhel puts it:

"Say, is anyone making virgin-porn? Cos you could just shove a pint-bag of pig-blood up there and have at it. The special effects guys could have a ball.

"'Though the risks of infection and fever are minimal, a patient must pay special attention to personal hygiene for at least two weeks after the operation. She must refrain from having a bath, visiting a sauna. Swimming is under a temporary ban too, especially in the outdoor bodies of water or a swimming pool.'

"But feel free to have some rape-deprived asshat ejaculate all over it."

***

What sort of psycho gets off on seeing his "loved" one suffer like this? What sort of psycho gets off in circumstances where he is aware that his partner is in pain and definitely not enjoying herself?

Surely not someone who cares about his partner's sexual and bodily integrity. I think Cara has it right when she suggests a link between this very literal form of parthenophilia and the rape culture:

"This is absolutely one of those things that we can file under rape culture. Not because a woman losing her virginity to a man is akin to rape, or because purposely breaking a hymen is the same as rape. First penetrative sex can certainly be painful (whether or not you have a hymen in tact, which in fact many if not most women these days do not). But your sexual partner (in this case, your husband, of course) is supposed to care when you’re in pain, slow down, be gentle, ask if you’re okay, ask if you want to continue, and STOP if you don’t. He is not supposed to see that you’re in pain and then pound it in harder, or get off on the fact that his oh-so-impressive erection is making you bleed. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have sex with such a man, and I don’t want to.

...

"What the fuck? I don’t care what kind of kinky fetish you’re into, getting off on the fact that you are actually hurting your girlfriend during sex is wrong. This is, in fact about rape. It’s our rape culture that tells us women feeling pain during sex isn’t something to avoid, it’s something to get off on. It’s rape culture telling men that they have a right to the bodies of their female significant others — apparently extending to the right to cause her physical pain. It’s the rape culture that tells us men’s sexual pleasure comes first, at the expense of female sexual pleasure, in spite of female sexual pain and the expense of the female right to sexual autonomy — and that a “good” woman will accept this happily. Without rape culture, the kinds of views espoused in this article (as though they’re benign!) would not even exist.

"Encouraging men to look forward to breaking their sexual partner’s hymen, not only in spite of her pain, but in fact very much because of it, is promoting violence against women. Period."

[Emphasis added]

I couldn't agree more. If you're a male whose kink is to painfully and bloodily tear up one's hymen, then you're a sexual psychopath. On the other hand, if you're a male with a virgin fetish who limits himself to (fake) virgin porn or who likes to pretend play with his (non-virgin) female partners, then you're a budding pedophile.

Quite a charming picture.

***

Some of the people who have posted comments here and there about that promotional article have rightly pointed out that the mere fact of having an intact hymen does not in itself make you a virgin.

For a thorough discussion on how to define virginity and on the medical and cultural treatment of virgins and virginity through the ages, I encourage you to read Virgin - The Untouched History, by Hanne Blank.

It covers just about you ever wanted to know about virginity, from centuries-old methods to fake it, to season 2 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Is America ready for a Woman President?

2007-10-31T12:16:00.000-05:00

This Sex and the City spoof has the answer...

In the news: Argentina's First Lady is elected as President

2007-10-29T15:08:00.000-05:00

Next December, former lawyer Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will make the transition from being Argentina's First Lady to being the country's first female President since Isabel Peron.

Aged 54, Ms. Fernandez defeated her opponent, Elisa Carrio, also a lawyer, by 10%.

Although there is quite a buzz in the media right now about female heads of state all over the world, it's always disappointing to notice that the media can't seem to be able to resist commenting about their appearance, style and behaviour instead of their personal background, beliefs and ideas.

This is really fucked up...

2007-10-29T14:40:00.000-05:00

... not to mention incredibly disturbing.

What more is there to say? Besides the fact that it's hateful and creepy? That it makes you want to kill the guy in the picture, the genius who came up with this brilliant concept, and every person on this earth who considers this funny and/or socially harmless?

More about creepy commercial uses of dismemberments of the female body here and here.

The Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Accommodation Practices: When racism and misogyny go hand in hand...

2007-10-26T22:55:00.000-05:00

It's no secret that the Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d'accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles (aka la Commission Bouchard-Taylor) is nothing but a gross, useless and costly farce, which, instead of fostering genuine and thorough consultation of the Québec population and meaningful debate, serves as a soap box on which xenophobic urbanites and hateful small-town folks alike can bash "immigrants" and "foreigners" (i.e. those among us who are not White, Catholic and French-speaking) in total impunity.

I must acknowledge that, hopefully, a few reasonable people have also taken the stand, either to denounce the ridiculousness of it all, the incompetence and arrogance of the Commissioners, and the ignorance and hypocrisy underlying extremist point of views, or to express their support for a liberal, secular, egalitarian, feminist and culturally inclusive society.

On the other hand, I was quite surprised by the number of people who took the stand to say that they missed the good old days when the Catholic Church effectively ruled la Belle Province. In other words, those people only want a secular state as long as other religions are concerned; and if it were up to them, they would reinstate Catholicism as Québec's official religion.

For instance, Jean Tremblay, mayor of Saguenay, went to the Commission to read out a mémoire in which he argued that the Québec government should consult the Catholic Church before making any decision having to do with "moral matters", and that abortion is murder and should be legally considered as such.

(Subsequently, Mayor Tremblay was publicly criticized by city councillors for presenting his personal opinion as the official position of the municipal council. Many citizens also asked for his resignation, because of his extreme religious views.)

Another trend among the intervenors at the Commission was to blame - uh hum... guess who's to blame again? - Québec women for the so-called "accommodation problems". Basically, the reasoning is as follows:

Québec women selfishly work and have a life of their own instead of making babies by the dozen;
Québec's birthrate has plummeted for the few past decades;
Québec has allegedly been welcoming more immigrants lately to compensate for the gap that this lower birthrate has created in the workforce;
immigrants are more noticeable these days because there are much more of them than before;
since immigrants, who are not necessarily White, Catholic and French-speaking, have formed new minority communities all over Québec, the Québecois majority naturally feels threatened by them (not to mention ripped of its oppressed minority victim ideology);
thus, if Québec women had more babies of their own, that is, good, Catholic, White and French-speaking babies, we would not need that many immigrants around.

Consequently, many people have suggested before the Commission - on national TV - that the Québec government implement new measures in order to boost the birthrate of its Québécois citizens.

If you've thought of tax credits for new families, better parental leave policies, or a better and cheap daycare and education system, you're wrong.

The good answer was: strip everybody of their right to vote. Then redistribute it only to Québecois who have married an procreated. (Oh, and the more babies you have, the more votes you get to cast...)

Seriously. I'm not making this up. Watch the Commission's tour and see for yourself.

Or not. It gets really depressing with time...

Why the US need to change the legal definition of "consent" to sexual activity

2007-10-26T17:01:00.000-05:00

The Georgia Supreme Court recently declared that a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for sexual assault on a child was unconstitutional, as it was so harsh as to amount to "cruel and unusual punishment".

This case has received more than its share of publicity over the past few months.

The accused in this case was Genarlow Wilson, aged 17 at the time of the events. Mr. Wilson and a few of (adult) friends of his were having a New Year's Eve party in a motel room. They had invited over a number of underaged girls, including the victim, who was then 15 years old. It was reported that the lot had consumed more than their fair share of booze and drugs.

The girls were then sollicited to perform various sex acts on many of the young men present, while their buddies would film the scene. A video showed Mr. Wilson receiving oral sex from the 15 year old girl, so there was no debate about whether or not the sexual activity happened . (Oh, and apparently, the accused subsequently bragged about what had happened at the party at school.)

The video also showed Mr. Wilson having sex on a bathroom floor with another girl, who looked sleepy and was visibly seriously intoxicated at the time. On the video, she did not ask Mr. Wilson to stop (but then again, the video didn't show any verbal interaction between the two.) The 17 year-old girl, who had waken up naked and confused the next morning, immediately reported the events to the police, and claimed that she had been raped.

Eventually, Mr. Wilson was charged with aggravated child molestation, found guilty and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. Now, the big debate in the media was about the fact that this offence, in its legal definition, did not take into account the fact that the 15 year-old victim was "consenting", that the victim and the accused were so close in age, that it was "just" a fellatio, and that the accused was a promising athlete and a "good boy".

(The State of Georgia, subsequent to the outcome of this case, changed the formulation of the offence so as to take the victim's "consent" into account.)

I have a few issues with the media treatment of this case, and with the recent quashing of Mr. Wilson's sentence.

First, I would just like to clarify that, although I agree with the Conservatives' proposition that the age of consent to sexual contact with adults be raised from 14 to 16, I also think it's stupid to seek to criminalize sexual contacts among (consenting) teenagers. Let's face it: when you're 16, horny and a just typically rebellious, you're gonna have sex if you want to, whether your parents, the local clergyman, your teachers or the law say otherwise.

However, sexual contacts, even among teenagers, must always be consensual.

Secondly, some people seem to be labouring under the delusion that when there's no penetration, when it's "just" a fellatio, it's really not that bad, and the situation should not give rise to criminal charges. Well, if that's your opinion, you're wrong. If you can't understand why having some drunken guy's cock shoved down your throat is morally wrong enough to be criminalized, then quit reading now.

Thirdly, it's no secret that most American jurisdictions have fucked-up definitions of what constitutes "consent" to sexual activity. While the notion of "consent" colloquially refers to something that a person genuinely wants, or to a free and enlightened decision (such as in health or contractual matters, for instance), "consent" to sexual activity in most American criminal statutes (as well as under the old, i.e. pre-1985, version of our own Criminal Code) is equated to passivity, lack of resistance, and the absence of the use (additional) physical force or the threat thereof.

This way of thinking is stupid and unrealistic. Basically, it means that unless you're beaten or threatened and you attempt to (physically) resist the assault, you will be deemed to have consented to having sex inflicted upon you. It completely disregards the fact that, as in this case, a person will not protest or resist because she is smaller than her assailants, outnumbered, confined, scared, or intoxicated. In situations such as those involved in the Wilson case, most females would not be foolish enough to think they can simply walk away or refuse to perform the acts, so that most criminally-inclined males would not have to resort to additional physical violence anyways.

St. Maria Goretti might have become a saint for choosing the opposite route, but most women do not envy her fate.

(Why to I keep saying "additional" physical violence? Um... It might have to do with the fact that having someone madly thrust inside you against your will is already violent and painful enough in and of itself.)

In my opinion, even if Mr. Wilson had been charged under the new version of the offence and that the victim's consent had been part of the equation, he might as well have been found guilty anyways, because it's very likely that the young woman's consent was viciated by the coercitive nature of the circustances.

Finally, even if the prosecution had not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Wilson's 15 year-old victim had given her free and enlightened consent, he and his buddies should still have been convicted for production, distribution and possession of child pornography.

I say 10 years' imprisonment was not too harsh. It sounds just right to me.

Super cute irrelevant picture of the day

2007-10-26T15:12:00.000-05:00

Feminist activism on screen

2007-10-22T21:58:00.000-05:00

Apparently, there's this new film coming out soon South of the border, called Itty Bitty Titty Committee, about a group of teenaged lesbian feminist activists.

It sounds quite fun and interesting, compared to your average teen movie. However, I can't find any information its eventual release date in Canada...

What every girl should know...

2007-10-22T18:14:00.000-05:00

Sing along and laugh...

Masculinism 101

2007-10-16T17:51:00.000-05:00

Go read this hilarious (but to-the-point) FAQ about "men's rights activism", i.e. the delusion that White, Christian, males are an endangered species in North America.

Feminism 101 (Wacky Conservative Edition)

2007-10-16T17:08:00.000-05:00

A few fun facts about feminism, brought to you by the good editors at Conservapedia:

Did you know?

"Feminism is originally an acknowledged medical condition where men take on female physical characteristics."

Distinguishing feminism as it is nowadays from its Suffragette debuts:

"This was at a time when neither men nor women could vote unless they owned property."

Paraphrasing the famous phrase "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice":

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice."

And last but not least, my all-time favourite:

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

***

Conservapedia was created as a response to Wikipedia which was apparently criticized in conservative circles for its "liberal" bias, which is evidence by such horrific practices as:

Featuring an entry on Richard Dawkins;
Featuring entries on legal cases favourable to gay rights;
Featuring "nearly irrelevant information", such as the fact that the president of Harvard University had to resign because of his comments on the abilities of women at math and science;
"Supporting" abortion and gun control;
Featuring articles about punk music;
"Promoting" suicide (the "pro-life" folks at Conservapedia assure us that they don't have a single entry on this "depravity";
Criticizing Fox News;
"Wikpedia's (sic) entry on liberal former Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son" (don't be fooled: this is absolutely relevant);
A survey of Wikipedia editors show that they identify as liberal six times more than the average American public;
Not giving Jesus any credit for the Renaissance;
Featuring pictures of naked people or body partws;
Using British (or Canadian, for that matter!) idioms and spellings...

*sigh*

***

Just to give you a glimpse of how outrageously liberal Wikipedia is, let's compare both Websites' entries on "women."

Conservapedia's article about women starts as follows: "Women are the female of the human species, with the biological role of bearing offspring (pregnancy and childbirth)."

It later (i.e. almost immediately) goes on to say that: "relatively few women have had impact on history as leaders in diverse fields". So, get it? Women are baby-making machines. They should not be distracted from their biological function by unnatural activities, such as, well, anything that has to do with public life.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, simply states, as an introduction, that "A woman is a female human." Simple, accurate, and it doesn't make you sound like your having a vagina makes you some kind of animal, sub-human form of life.

***

I fully acknowledge that Wikipedia is an easily corruptible source of information. But at least it's not complete bullshit nor borderline hate-speech.

Halloween!

2007-10-16T14:11:00.000-05:00

Hilarious video mocking "sexy" Halloween costumes for women...

Just the right amount of freedom

2007-10-15T19:55:00.000-05:00

Have you heard the shocking news?

Cecilia Sarkozy is rumoured to be about to divorce her husband and President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy.

But what signs are there of the imminent break up?

Well, apparently, she did not attend an official barbeque at the Bushes while she was vacationing in the U.S. AND she is apparently not planning to follow her husband to Morrocco next week. See?

You know, when a woman does not sheepishly follow her husband around like she's his lap dog, it's got to be because she wants to selfishly dump him like an old rag.

Not say, because she has a life of her own, and maybe she just doesn't care that much about politics and grilling steaks with George W. and Laura.

***

A reporter from Radio-Canada commented these "events" on this morning's news report, and noted that Ms. Sarkozy acted with a great deal of freedom, but that this "freedom" was not always approved of.

I think this reporter unwittingly made a very interesting point: the freedom enjoyed by women today is, to a certain extent, illusory, in the sense that our degree of freedom, and the matters in which this amount of freedom can be exercized still depends on the approval of our patriarchical society.

A woman is not completely free to have a life of her own and to attend to her own affairs if her husband's career is deemed to be more valuable than hers. On the other hand, women are "free" to become porn stars, or to "choose" to stay at home with the children instead of sending them to daycare...

One step forward, one step back...

2007-10-15T14:59:00.000-05:00

On the one hand, a post on the omnipresence in pornography of degrading and violent behaviour.

On the other hand, a case digest titled "degrading and rude behaviour not necessarily sexual harassment."

***

So, if a judge says to a female defence lawyer, in open court, that she has a "nice butt", does that constitute sexual harassment? Or is it just "degrading and rude behaviour"?

***

On a related topic, here is an article discussing recent sexual harassment cases in the U.S. and arguing that the fact that the complainants won in those cases is attributable to a "change of climate" in the workplace, in that corporate milieus in the U.S. are becoming increasingly less tolerant towards such behaviour.

The article also includes a list of things you can do if you are sexually harassed in a professional setting.

This is a fine and thorough list, but when you're confronted with someone who physically threatens you, who touches you without your consent, who makes you feel like you're there for his personal (sexual) enjoyment, and when this person is a position of authority or power vis-à-vis you, such that you might lose your job or get dragged in the mud for complaining about the unwanted behaviour, it begs the question: to report or not to report?

As with many other things, it is easier said than done. Not that women lack reasons to come forward. But still... Having to balance the shame, embarrassment and personal risk to one's reputation, with the guilt that the perpetrator might strike again, and prey on another victim, is an unbearable exercise.

***

"See, I don't know what to do.

"I keep having fantasies about leaving her dictaphone under the pillow. Or following her when she goes to work.

"I've been lying about where I'm going, just in case I can bump into her..."

What would you do it was the case? What if your weren't sure it was so? Would you risk everything you have, everything you have become, for the (potentially remote) possibility that someone you don't know might suffer the same fate?

***

In a class discussion on the difficulties created by our legal system that deterred women from reporting sexual assault (among others, the fact that in many circumstances, evidence of a complainant's sexual history will be considered relevant in court, which allows for the victim to be cross-examined on her past sexual behaviour), one of my professors (an older man) boldly stated that reporting sexual assault did not depend on such legal hurdles, but rather on a victim's individual bravery.

He then went on to say that people in Iraq had gone out to vote, even though they were risking their lives in the process. He said that if the Iraqi people who had chosen to vote could be so brave, then why wouldn't sexual assault victims be able to come forward. After all, it is not, he said, as if their lives were at risk.

When I heard that comment, my heart sank. I felt as if he had just called one in four women in the classroom cowards.

Reporting is an individual decision. Not reporting is not an act of cowardice, but rather an attempt at self-preservation.

"The heart and stomach of a King..."

2007-10-12T16:21:00.000-05:00

A new film on the life of Queen Elizabeth I, called Elizabeth: The Golden Age, was released today theaters today. Starring Cate Blanchett as the Virgin Queen, this "sequel" to the 1998 Elizabeth (with Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes) focuses on the struggles of the Queen with continental political powers (namely, Spain) and with her adversarial cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots.

Although the critics were disappointing so far (namely because of the numerous and egregious historical inaccuracies of the script), it is apparently as visually breathtaking as the first movie.

Even though this new movie will probably not be as accurate and beautifully rendered as the HBO mini-series on the same topic featuring Helen Mirren in the title role, I am definitely going to see it, just because Queen Elizabeth is such a fascinating historical figure - not to mention a savvy ruler and a groundbreaking woman.

***

I have just finished a great book titled Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens, by Jane Dunn. This book is a thoroughly researched and beautifully written comparative biography of Queen Elizabeth I and her cousin and contemporary, Mary, Queen of Scots. The lives of the two Queens are compared from the (politcal) circumstances of their birth, through their childhood, education and accession to the throne, up to their deadly rivalry and Mary's demise.

Among the main themes of this book, two strike me as being of a particular interest for the feminist reader. First, the author dissects at length Elizabeth's obstinate refusal to marry, and her desire to "keep her options open" by remaining single (which is quite an unusual feat for a 16th century woman and monarch).

Secondly, Dunn attribute the political success of Elizabeth and the political failures of Mary to gender expectations: while Mary was raised as a quiet and loveable princess at the French court, Elizabeth's childhood and education were more masculine, in the sense that she was raised primarily as an intellectual, almost asexual, person, and was taught from a very early age that political survival depends on such "manly" virtues as rationality, courage and occasional ruthlessness. Dunn also details Elizabeth's eagerness to show that a woman could be a dispassionate, just and successful monarch, and her lifelong struggle to show her court, her people, her enemies and the whole world, that, although she was physically a woman, she was, above all, a Queen.

Queen Elizabeth I, in her coronation robes

It's too late when you're dead...

2007-10-12T15:23:00.000-05:00

A recent StatsCan study reports that "[t]he slaying of a spouse is often the first time authorities are notified of a domestic violence problem in a home".

Because domestic abusers are just "nice guys" after all, right?

This is so depressing... *sigh*

How porn (and fashion) feeds paedophilic double standards

2007-10-11T22:23:00.000-05:00

One of the sexist double standard I hate the most has to do with the practice of shaving one's pubic hair.

The porn, fashion and cosmetic surgery industries like to pretend that it's something natural, that all normal, reasonable and self-conscious women do. Women are constantly bombarded with images of hairless, child-like women.

We are told that having a hairy pubic area is abnormal and ugly. That a hairy vagina is unattractive to men, that it looks old and "unfresh".

The subtitle to these messages is clear, however. Adult, grown-up, full-fledge women are expected to look, as far as their genitals are concerned, as prepubescent girls.

In short, this "trend" is no less than the acceptation by our society of paedophilic sexual preferences, and the assertion that it is acceptable for men to be sexually attracted by the physical features of female children.

***

When it comes to men, however, this reality is not denied at all.

For instance, when the media reported that the infamous recidivist paedophile Peter Whitmore had forced one of his last victims, a 14 year-old boy, to shave his pubic hair, they did not deny that Whitmore's purpose was to make his victim look younger, like a prepubescent child.

Nobody had the nerves to suggest that the gesture was not paedophilic in itself, but that it was just a way for a non-paedophilic, garden-variety, relapse sexual offender to make his victim look more attractive, or "cleaner" to him.

***

Why then is it so hard to acknowledge that the same practice is as unhealthy when it comes to women?

You say you prefer women who are well "groomed" down there? I say fuck you, you paedophile.

***

"But is it a surprise that men who never thought they would do so end up using child pornography? 'Teen porn' Web sites, videos, and magazines abound, showcasing 'barely legal' young women, fully shaved of pubic hair, cavorting in schoolgirl outfits and pigtails. Many of the sites and films are voyeuristic, featuring peepholes intol girls' locker rooms and showers, slumber parties and schoolhouse toilet stalls. In sex scenes, these 'girls' are typically depicted having sex with much older men. And that's assuming the 'teens' are actually eighteen or nineteen years old.

[...]

"The supply exists to serve the demand. There's an illicit, voyeuristic pleasure to the enterprise. There is also a tinge of revenge.

[...]

"The gazer longs for what he could not have long ago and what he certainly cannot have - at least, legally - today. These girls may not actually be underage, and therefore no 'harm' was done to an actual child in creating the pornographic image. But the desire for a child and the desire for a childlike woman blur and overlap."

[Emphasis added]

- Pamela Paul, Pornified: How Pornography is Damaging our Lives, our Relationships, and our Families (New York: Owl Books, 2006), at 198-199.

Withdrawals...

2007-10-10T17:33:00.000-05:00

In 2006, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals answered 'no' to the question "If a female consents to sex initially, and, during the course of the sex act to which she consented, for whatever reason, she changes her mind, and the man continues until climax, does the result constitute rape?"

The incident at issue involved an 18 year-old woman who was taken by car, at night, to a secluded location by two vague male acquaintances (both aged 16 at the time). She was first raped by the other accused Wilson (who was eventually found guilty of rape) on the back seat of the car. The accused in this case, Baby, then asked his friend "Will you let me hit it?", referring to the young woman. He then told the victim that he "wouldn't want to rape her." (Baby admitted to making both utterances.) The victim then said "yes" to sexual intercourse with him, on the condition that he pull out if it hurt her (logically: upon her saying so).

Baby then proceeded to vaginally penetrating the woman, thrusting inside her. She then said 'no' and told him to stop, because it hurt. It was admitted in this case, that, at this point, the accused continued thrusting inside her for 10 seconds before he ejaculated and pulled out.

Although Baby was convicted of rape at trial and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, his conviction was overturned by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The appeal judgment not only rejected the prosecution's argument that the circumstances (e.g. the victim having been raped for a first time moments before, the secluded location, the victim being outnumbered by her assailants, her subjective fear, Baby's veiled threat of additional physical violence) in themselves were coercitive enough to nullify the woman's "consent."

Relying on the Battle case, it went on to say that, when it comes to rape, common law tells us that it's really about the vindication of the loss of a woman's value, as a chattel, to her legal owner, that is to say, her father or husband.

(Uh hum... 'Rings a bell, anyone?)

Thus, the fact that a woman withdraws her consent to sexual intercourse once it has started is irrelevant to whether or not the intercourse amounts to rape, because beyond the initial penetration, once the woman has been deflowered, there is nothing more to lose, and therefore nothing to be further punished.

Pretty depressing, eh?

The good news is that this Middle-Ages ruling has been heard on appeal last week.

Let's just hope that the Court of Appeals will yield to 21st century concepts (such as "women are people too and have their say on the terms and conditions under which they engage in sexual activity") and restore Baby's conviction and sentence.

On the other hand, I'm disappointed that the prosecution's argument seems limited to the assertion that the intercourse constituted rape because "[y]ou clearly have the element of force, you have the resistance by the victim, the victim was quite clear that it was hurting, that she wanted him to stop."

By raising this argument, the prosecution emphasizes the importance of physical coercion and legitimize the requirement that the victim attempted to resist the rape, as legal markers for the victim's lack of consent, rather than focusing on what really matters in sexual assault cases, i.e. the victim's actual, subjective feelings towards the sexual activity.

Sexual assault, as defined under Maryland law, and as acknowledged by the prosecution's argument, is not about punishing the accused's disregard for another person's subjective preference about whether or not she wants to have sex. When the law defines a woman's consent to sexual activity as something else than her own subjective state of mind, for instance, by defining "consent" as lack of "adequate" (read: from a male point of view) resistance, or as passivity or submission, it obviously does not give a damn about whether or not the woman being penetrated is actually willing or not.

In that context, it does not even make sense to be talking about a woman's withdrawing her consent.

What I would have appreciated from the prosecution in the current Baby appeal is a genuine argument to the effect that women, as human beings, deserve the right to decide of the conditions under which they will engage in any type of sexual activity. Men do. (Obviously.) The right to the legal recognition of women's sexual agency is nothing short of a fundamental equality requirement.

For such recognition to be possible, the laws of Maryland must be amended so as to make the legality of sexual acts absolutely conditional to both partners' subjective consent. Therefore, the definition of "consent" as the absence of extrinsic physical violence, lack of sufficient physical resistance, submission, or passivity must be thrown out, and replaced by a notion of "actual consent", which consists of one's own subjective feelings.

***

The Baltimore Sun published an article about the Baby appeal. It's not really informative for those who are not already familiar with the case, given that it considerably distorts the facts of the case.

What is most disturbing though are the comments to the article. They reveal a shocking resistance to the idea that a woman has the right to withdraw her consent to sexual activity, and that doing so does not make her a whore or a liar, nor does it strip her of her rights to vindicate the attempt on her bodily integrity. They also provide a thorough - and disheartening - summary of rape myths and prejudices about women who file complains for sexual assault. (Including the suggestion that the victim is the one who should have been prosecuted for rape, given that she had "lure" two underaged males into sex.)

"Either you want it or you don't. If there is a question mark, say no up front. Or wait. After penetration, unless under violent circumstances, it is just not valid. Bad performance is not rapeor 3/4 of the population would be in jail. And not the providence of 16 year olds. Strangers, sex and liquor are a very poor combination."

"It is asking alot to even think of accusing someone of rape when you let him enter your body and get within five seconds of climax. By the way they should accuse her of raping him because he was 16 and she was 18."

"Anyone who says yes during sex is in a position where they must consent until it is over. Anyone who says yes then no has less sexual credibility. Those with little to no sexual credibility should be barred from the right to file rape charges period. There are real rapes, the West Virginia torture, a woman who is jumped and kidnapped by three men, and similar such situations where the real rapists need to be thrown into prison so that they themselves can be punished severly. Any case however involving a person who cannot make up their mind should automatically be thrown out because whats to stop them from filing a charge of rape over the decision that it was simply bad sex. Real rapes only in the courtroom, no drunks who said yes at one point during the intercourse and no one who engages in other such acts should be given the right to file charges. Rather they need to punish the accusors who go between yes and no during sex with perjury as they are filing false charges for something they allowed to happen."

***

Many people who commented the Baltimore Sun's article seem to share the view that once a man has penetrated a woman, especially if he is approaching climax, loses his capacity to acknowledge her demands that he stops and to pull out immediately. Such people also seem think that a delay of 10 seconds between the moment when a woman, who is being penetrated, says "no, stop, it hurts" and the moment when the man actually pulls out, is actually quite reasonable, and can be easily justified by the handy "getting-near-climax-has-become-unresponsive-jelly-of-lust-can't-hear-you-until-I-get-off" theory.

But it's not only retrograde, misogynistc jerks who adhere to this view. I have had a serious - and quite awkward - discussion about this issue (as it arises in a sexual assault context) with one of my professors, a brilliant mind and a kind man, who sincerely seem to think that sometimes, even 10 seconds are not enough.

In all fairness, being a woman, I obviously don't have a first hand experience of this, but I remain extremely sceptical about the "I-can't-hear-you-I'm-gonna-come" excuse.

What is certain though is that 10 seconds can seem like a lifetime in certain circumstances. Those who have been raped or sexually assaulted very well know this. (For those who have been lucky enough to have never experienced such a situation, here's a thought: paper sheets, an unknown OB-GYN and a metallic, cold speculum.)

10 seconds of unwanted sex certainly qualifies as full-fledged sexual assault.

***

Since the mid-80's, Canada has - in theory, as least - left the Middle-Ages of sexual assault legislation by (1) replacing the gendered offence of "rape" with the neutral one of "sexual assault", and (2) ditching the unrealistic "objective" notion of "consent" (which was similar, under the common law, to the notion of "consent" as it applies in Maryland) with a subjective view of consent that corresponds to the person's subjective state of mind at the relevant time.

Moreover, the Criminal Code now explicitly provides that there is no consent when someone's, having validly given it earlier on, chooses to withdraw it (s. 273.1(2)(e)).

Picture of the Day

2007-10-09T18:30:00.000-05:00

Not the good kind of retro...

2007-10-09T17:55:00.000-05:00

There's the good kind of retro (e.g. kitten heels, polka dots, cupcakes), and then there's the bad kind of retro.

Like, for instance, asking your girlfriend's father's permission to marry her.

Feministing gathered a couple of interesting pieces on what is apparently a (creepy) trend, including this gem, which explains the seven steps of asking a man for permission to buy/marry his daughter. (The editors highlight that "[a]sking [a father] permission to marry his daughter demonstrates your respect for her family and their feelings". It's quite telling that they don't mention the daughter's own feelings and preferences at all - not to mention the fact that women are not considered as chattels anymore...)

Here's another article by Ellie Levenson on the same topic, where she describes her surprise that her self-proclaimed feminist friends not only decide to tie the knot, but give in to retrograde practices such as having their hand asked in marriage.

"But I thought you didn't believe in marriage?" - I have spluttered, "Well, at least he didn't ask your dad for his permission!" In each case, I have expected my friends to laugh along, before being shocked by the mumbled admission that, yes, their boyfriend did ask their father, and, worse, they were very pleased he had.

*sigh* I acknowledge that, under certain circumstances and with certain people, it may sound like a sweet and tactful thing to do. However, it remains that this tradition is really about discussing an eventual exchange of wealth between two families, not about love and sincere family connections.

I really liked the conclusion of Levenson's article:

My dad is lovely. He is a kind, intelligent man, and I am sure we have the same outlook on most things. But the idea that he would have any say whatsoever in my major life decisions distresses me. I rang him for permission to quote him in this article. This aside, we couldn't remember me asking him permission for anything since I was about 14. "I would refuse permission to any bloke who is wimpish enough to feel he has to ask me," he says. "And if he took any notice of me I'd think even worse of him."

Now, that is a sweet thing to do!

The WTF highlight of the day

2007-10-08T16:41:00.000-05:00

A European DVD rental company recently went under fire because a publicity campaign that involved a hoax "rent-a-wife" service, complete with disgusting TV ads (see below) and fake webpage.

The website was disabled following a court order, but the ads are still running on the Internet, from what I gather.

Just as if it wasn't already bad enough that some people seem to find the idea sex trafficking - and slavery in general - funny, you turn around and find - in your owbn backyard - the actual thing.

Rent-A-Wife Home Services is a Toronto-based compangy that offers cleaning, home repairs, decoration and "hospitality" services.

Honestly, I first thought it was a joke, or some kind of sarcastic hoax. But it's not. It's every bit of the contrary.

But, you'll wonder, just because one pretends to rent actual human beings for housework purposes and refers to its employees as "wives" is not necessarily a misogynistc insult, is it?

Hey, just hold your horses if you think that Rent-A-Wife is antifeminist. First of all, it's employees are gender-mixed; second, conjugal services are not supplied. This organization wants you to know that the whole point of the name is to legitimize work traditionally done by women in the home.

Uh hum... Let's see... So because you employ people of both genders and do not offer sexual services to clients for cash somehow prevents you from being considered sexist. Well, why not? It's not as if, say, the law obligated you to do the former and abstain from the latter, right?

And you've really got to love the "retrograde, patriarchical practices are acceptable and even post-feminist when women 'reappropriate' it" junk reasoning...

Then and Now...

2007-10-08T16:02:00.000-05:00

Many of us - including myself - don't remember living in a world where abortion was outlawed.

Those days, when once you got pregnant, no matter in what circumstances you may have found yourself, you had to go through the hard path of forced pregnancy, labour, birthing and motherhood, were not that far behind us. In fact, for Canadian women, this dark period only dates back to before January 28th, 1988.

For those of us who were born - or, for some, conceived - before that date, it means that our mothers never had the choice to give birth to us. We are a generation of people to whom, when we were teenagers and yelled at our moms that we have never asked to be born, they could have fairly replied that they, too, have never ask to get pregnant and become a mother.

But still, how come is it that many women - and men! - of our generation don't seem to care much about the protection of reproductive rights, and despite the recent rise of the political (i.e. religious) right are not willing to show much interest - let alone support - in the defense of Canadian women's constitutional freedom to choose and right to sexual liberty?

***

On January 28th, 2008, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada. If you want to share ideas about what to do, or just get in touch with other people who want to mark this special day, please go to 28janvier2008 or write to 28janvier2008@gmail.com.

***

In the mean time, please check out the CBC/SRC archives where you'll find audio and video clips from the 80's on the dangers of illegal, back-alley abortions in Canada (remember Canada, "le plus meilleur pays du monde"?), Dr. Henry Morgentaler's work in helping women in need and challenging Canada's abortion laws and anti-choice violence in Canada.

And if you find yourself in Montréal on October 26th, go see Four months, three weeks, 2 days, a film about a young woman trying to obtain an illegal abortion in 1987 Romania. This film won the Palme d'Or at the 2007 Festival du film de Cannes.

(Here's the trailer.)

Uteri can be cute!

2007-10-04T21:38:00.000-05:00

And cuddly. And fashionable.

Well, that's what some people seem to think. I might not actually want to wear some of that stuff, but I certainly acknowledge the effort to make our wombs more loveable.

Knitted womb (pattern by Knitty)

Uteri stuffed toys

Uteri cameo pins

Check out this link for more - cute!- uteri-related fashion...

***

Some people, on the other hand, apparently hate our guts - literally. Or they at least seem to think that "uterus" is a dirty word... *sigh*

Sexual assault is not about the loss of virginity

2007-09-27T18:02:00.000-05:00

This is a sad story.

A few weeks ago, a female student was sexually assaulted when she was working late at night in a lab at Carleton University. Her assailant also severely beat her up, leaving her injured and unconscious, and fled with some of her clothes.

The saddest part of the story is that the victim of this heinous assault has contacted the media in order to "set the record straight" on the fact that she was "not raped". As a matter of fact, the young woman, who is Muslim, wants to make clear that her sexual assault did not involve penetration and that she is still a virgin.

"As part of her culture, being a virgin is very important, and, if, all of a sudden, everybody looks at her and says she's not a virgin, she's a lot less desirable as a wife," said Christine Baker, a sexual-assault examiner at the Ottawa Hospital who has been keeping in touch with the victim.
*

I find it hard to believe that in Canada, women are still feeling that ultimate value as human being depends on their being a virgin until marriage, and on their "marriagebility". I am also deeply troubled by the fact that this woman's declaration suggests that she should have to bear any guilt or uncarable shame because she was sexually "accessed" by a man without her consent.

In addition, her concerns for her reputation as a virgin sadly highlight that no matter how heinous and twisted this crime was, and despite the fact that is no question whatsoever as to her complete and obvious lack of consent (having been beaten to the point of unconsciousness before being assaulted), there are people out there who somehow feel that she should feel responsible for her own "depreciation".

The mere fact that this is happening in Canada, in 2007, shows us that we still have a very long way to go in terms of changing people's attitude towards sexual violence and its female victims. I can't believe that we still seem to be grappling with the concept that women are not chattels, to be sold, exchanged or taken.

***

On another note, it should be noted that the young woman in this case is dead right about one thing: just because a penis did not enter your vagina when you were attacked doesn't mean you have not been sexually assaulted, nor does it make things any "better" for you.

Many people - including, I am sad to say, far too many judges who hear sexual assault cases - are still under the impression that "sexual assault" is a lesser, non-penetrative form of rape, and therefore, a lighter criminal offence. It is not.

Sexual assault consists of any type of sexual touching conducted without the person's consent, when the assailant is aware of the other person's lack of consent. Period. One's bodily integrity is not, in the eyes of the law, ultimately linked to one's virginity.

***

However, a distinction between sexual assault and the abrogated offence of rape has to be drawn. While sexual assault simpliciter is punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment (if prosecuted by way of indictment) or by a maximum of 18 months' imprisonment (if prosecuted by way of summary conviction), the old offence of rape carried a maximum punishment of life's imprisonment (along, in the good old days, with 50 lashes).

When I hear about extremely violent and wanton sexual attacks such as this one, I'm tempted to say: bring back the lash...