Batgirl Saves the Day!

A hilarious video, brought to you by Feministing.

Lingerie ads should not have to look like porn

Corporations that try and sell their products by using sex/women's bodies piss me off. Seriously. I fail to see how a naked woman, or a woman wearing lingerie, in a sexual posture is relevant to a watch, perfume or pair of jeans. In such cases, it's just plain exploitation.

Because of that "relevance" criterion, I feel more comfortable about lingerie ads featuring - most appropriately - women wearing lingerie, except of course, when the photograph connotes sexual submission, or otherwise seems degrading to its subject.

I noticed an ad on a bus today, for Calvin Klein's "Perfect Fit" line of women's underwear. The ad was composed of three pictures of a skinny woman, with a sad face, and coaly, tired eyes, who was twisting herself on some sort of furry carpet, in a white, blank, dimly-lit room. It reminded me of those awful American Apparel ads, and of the Marc Jacobs series featuring a scared-looking - and 12 year-old - Dakota Fanning.

The ad didn't say much about the products, but it urged its audience to visit a website called "Natalia's room".

Yuck. It really sounded like a "designer" version of your garden variety of mail-order Western Europe brides webcam porn.

When I got home, I checked out the website for Calvin Klein Underwear. I wanted to know more about this publicity campaign and "Natalia". Naturally, I looked into the women's section, but to my surprise, "Natalia's room" was nowhere to be found.

But then I checked in the men's section. And there it was.

Isn't it funny? You'd think men wouldn't be interested in the advantages of a well-fitted bra.

Or could it be that they are in fact interested in looking at dozens of grim, sleazy pictures of a "struggling" Russian girl, in pornographic poses, in downloading larger versions of those pictures, and even watching Natalia's video?

But then again. What do I know? After all, I'm *just* a frustrated radical feminist who sees porn and sexual exploitation of women everywhere.

I should not be disgusted by the rampant racist stereotypes of that publicity campaign (the Russian girl, her "struggling" background, the sleazy decor in the pictures, the cheap-looking satin sheets, the blend, prison-like background). Nor should I feel uncomfortable with the fact that while the product is marketed to women exclusively, it's men who are marketed Natalia's image and "sexuality".

I'm sick of this. I'm off to watch America's Next Top Model.

***

On a related topic, check out Charlie's Blog of Feminist Activism Against Porn, about her crusade in the UK against so-called "Lad's Mags".

Bertha Wilson (1923-2007)

(1923-2007)

Bertha Wilson, the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, passed away on April 28:


OTTAWA, April 30, 2007 – The Supreme Court of Canada issued the following press release today:

The Honourable Bertha Wilson, formerly a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, passed away in Ottawa on April 28, 2007 after a prolonged illness. Justice Wilson attended the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and graduated with an M.A. in 1944. She continued her education at the Training College for Teachers in Aberdeen, obtaining her diploma in 1945. She married the Reverend John Wilson in December 1945 and they emigrated to Canada in 1949. In 1955, Bertha Wilson enrolled at Dalhousie University to study law, and in 1957 she completed her LL.B. and was called to the bar of Nova Scotia. In 1959 she was called to the bar of Ontario. She practised law in Toronto with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt for 17 years.


Bertha Wilson broke ground in 1975 as the first woman appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and again in 1982 when she became the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. She retired from the Court in 1991.


Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, on behalf of the members of the Supreme Court of Canada, lamented Justice Wilson’s passing, “Bertha Wilson was known for her generosity of spirit and originality of thought. She was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada the same year the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted. As a member of this Court, she was a pioneer in Charter jurisprudence and made an outstanding contribution to the administration of justice. She will be sorely missed by all who were privileged to know her.”


A memorial service will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Wellington and Kent Streets, Ottawa.


Wilson J.’s most famous opinions include R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, the decision that decriminalized abortion in Canada, and R. v. Lavallée, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, which allowed the defence of self-defence in a case where the accused, a young woman who had been abused by her partner for a number of years, was suffering from the “battered wife syndrome”.

Wilson J. was also criticized for a speech about the role and influence of women in legal professions and the judiciary, aptly titled “Will Women Judges Really Make a Difference?”



***

See also: “Bertha Wilson: Law as Large as Life” by Eileen Anderson.



Official Supreme Court bio



Wikipedia bio


***

UPDATE (2007-05-03):

More on Wilson J.'s work and legacy:

• "Madam Justice", by zuzu at Feministe;
• "Bertha Wilson (1923-2007)", by Scott Lemieux at Lawyers Guns and Money;
• "Bertha Wilson 1923-2007", by Pithlord at Pith and Substance;
• "First Woman Named to the Supreme Court was a 'Lawyer's Lawyer'", by Sandra Martin, from the Globe and Mail.

Tell your MP to Support Bill C-254

On April 19, Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre, introduced a motion in the House of Commons, requesting that the House unanimously supports Bill C-254, which would provide protection to women under hate speech laws.

As our criminal law currently stands, subsections 318(4) and 319(7) Criminal Code only prohibit hate propaganda and public incitement of hatred that is based on the colour, race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation of a particular group of persons. Thus, it is still not a criminal offence in Canada to public assert that “all women – or men, for that matter – must die”.

Bill C-254 must be enacted into law, so that Canadians can be protected from the most heinous forms of gender-based discrimination and violence, and that their dignity can be enhanced and preserved.

Yes, folks! The time has come to contact your MP to tell him/her that it will be a cold day in hell before you vote for him/her if he/she doesn’t support his Bill.

Here is a suggestion of what you can do:

1) Find your MP here;
2) Write him/her an email telling him/her to support Bill C-254 (should you lack inspiration, just copy/paste the models reproduced below);
3) Either CC your email to the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Justice, or directly write to them;
4) Tell your friends/family/coworkers/random acquaintances about it. That stuff is important.


***

The Right Hon. Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

The Hon. Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson: Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca


***

In English:


Dear [Your MP/Minister of Justice/Prime Minister],


I am writing to you as a resident of your riding, [your riding].

I have recently learned that Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, MP for Etobicoke Centre, had introduced a motion to request that the House of Commons unanimously supports Bill C-254, which adds women to the groups protected by the Criminal Code against incitement of hatred, as per subsections 318(4) and 319(7) Criminal Code.

I believe that this measure is a necessary step towards the elimination of all violence against women, the achievement of substantial equality between the sexes, and, generally, the respect of the fundamental human dignity of Canadian women.

Therefore, as a woman, a voter and a Canadian citizen, I am asking you to support Mr. Wrzesnewskyj’s initiative, and demand that you do everything in your power, as [MP for …/Minister of Justice/Prime minister], to ensure that Bill C-254 becomes the law of the land.


I thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Signature]


***

En français :


[Monsieur/Madame - votre député ici],


Je vous écris en tant que résidente de votre comté, [votre comté ici].

J’ai récemment appris que M. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, député d’Etobicoke Centre, avait déposé une motion devant la Chambre des communes demandant l’appui unanime au Bill C-254, qui vise à englober « les femmes » dans la définition des groupes identifiables pouvant faire l’objet de propagande haineuse et d’incitation publique à la haine au sens des paragraphes 318(4) et 319(7) du Code criminel.

Je crois que cette mesure est un pas essentiel vers l’éradication de la violence faite aux femmes, de la promotion de l’égalité substantielle entre les sexes, et tout simplement, du respect de la dignité fondamentale des Canadiennes.

En tant que femme, électrice et citoyenne canadienne, je vous demande d’appuyer cette initiative, et de faire tout ce qui est en votre pouvoir, en tant que [député de mon comté/ministre de…], pour vous assurer que cette proposition ait prochainement force de loi.


Je vous remercie à l’avance de votre considération et vous prie d’agréer, Monsieur le [député/ministre], mes sincères salutations.


[Signature]

News Flash: Women Are Not Rodents!

I should stop reading the Globe and Mail. This paper constantly surprises me by reaching new lows of misogyny.

Today's paper featured an article, called "Sluts and Vermin", about the findings of Ms. Nafissa Ismail, a graduate student at Concordia University's Centre for Studies in Behavioural Neurobiology, who recently completed a research on the reproductive behaviour of rats. Her experiments namely involved allowing a male rat to have sexual access to two females, the first on an occasional basis, and the second, on a regular basis. She concluded that male rats, when in presence of both females, preferred the former female.

Now, I'm no rat expert, but I'd tend to say that rats are quite different from human beings. However, Globe reporter Siri Agrell, apparently figured that the conclusions of this study were significant for women (by which I mean, human, non-rodent females).

As a matter of fact, this is how she summarized the results of the experiment: “Girl lab rats know the rules: Play hard to get or your man won't respect you."

OK, I thought. That was a bit of a shocker. But are they really comparing the behaviour of rats (I repeat: rats) with that of mentally competent, presumably responsible, 21st century adult women?

Oh yes they are! *sing song voice*:

"Left in a room with both sexual partners, he found himself instantly drawn to the one who had been playing hard to get.
This story will not surprise most women, who have undoubtedly been told - either by peers or pop culture - not to put out too early in a relationship, lest the man lose interest.

Ms. Ismail added:

"I don't know if it will reinforce behaviours, but I think it should definitely give women something to think about on being too easy with men… Especially if it's one that they care about and want to develop a bond with." [emphasis added]

So just in case you were still scratching your head in total incomprehension, they are indeed implying that female who have "give in" too "easily" to sex, or who have multiple partners, are sluts, just like those nasty, promiscuous rodents.

But wait! The fun doesn't end there! Not only does this research on rats (how many times do I have to point it out?) entails that men have no respect whatsoever for women who choose not to entirely devote their sexuality to one of them, but it also explains why women are "wired" to despise "promiscuity":

"When the three animals were put in an enclosure together, [Ms. Ismail] said, the favoured or 'prudish' female rat displayed contemptuous behaviour toward her 'slutty' competitor."

Forget everything I've said so far. Despite the slut-bashing and the comparing women who *gasp* sleep with more than one partner with f***ing rats, there must be some truth in there. I mean, it's got to be a serious, well-researched article. I mean, otherwise, why would they be referring to Louann Brizendine's anachronistic masterpiece The Female Brain all over the place?

For those who haven't heard of it yet, Dr. Brizendine's book is about how hormonal and genetic differences between men and women condition us to behave in a feminine way(from childhood's girly games, to preferring to have children over pursuing a career and one's personal interests).

This book has been severely criticized, both in feminist and medical circles. For example:

"Yet, despite the author’s extensive academic credentials, The Female Brain disappointingly fails to meet even the most basic standards of scientific accuracy and balance. The book is riddled with scientific errors and is misleading about the processes of brain development, the neuroendocrine system, and the nature of sex differences in general. At the ‘big picture’ level, three errors stand out. First, human sex differences are elevated almost to the point of creating different species, yet virtually all differences in brain structure, and most differences in behaviour, are characterized by small average differences and a great deal of male– female overlap at the individual level. Second, data on structural and functional differences in the brain are routinely framed as if they must precede all sex differences in behaviour. Finally, the focus on hormone levels to the virtual exclusion of the systems that interpret them (and the mutual regulatory interactions between receptor and secretion systems) is especially lamentable, given the book’s clinical emphasis on hormone therapies. »

…

“The emphasis on myth-busting turns into a vehicle for dressing the myth up in new clothes — such as Simon Baron-Cohen’s recent hypothesis that the ‘male brain’ is hard-wired for ‘systematizing’, and the ‘female brain’ is hard-wired for ‘empathizing’ — there is no shortage of pseudo-scientific ways of saying ‘thinkers’ and ‘feelers’. The problem with such explanations of sex differences is not that they are overly biological, but that they are fundamentally non-biological and explain nothing.”

"Look at that slut... Did you see what she's wearing?"

News posts coming soon

Coming soon on this blog:

• Violent girls and warrior women;
• Men on the "Mill";
• Virginia Tech Tragedy: Echoes of the École Polytechnique Massacre, victim blaming, and the trivilization of relational violence in the media;
• André Picard on breastfeeding: Call me back when you grow breasts...;
• US Supreme Court ruling on "partial birth abortions" - A (tentative) comparative analysis in Canadian constitutional law;
• Gender parity achieved at last at the Québec National Assembly.

***

For now, please check out Sisyphe.org, a fabulous goldmine of information on women's issues and feminist resources (includes materials in both French and English).

Earth to Conservatives: Women have a life, too...

In the wake of past efforts to improve childcare measures, the Conservative government had already made clear to the Canadian population that such measures would be at the expense of moms in the workforce.

Remember when they made those budgets cuts in federal funding for public daycare programs, and substituted “childcare allocations” of $1,200 per annum for families with children under 6? WOW. What a bargain. You really have to applaud those geniuses who did the math and figured that families did not incur any daycare expenses when their children turn 6. I’m just so impressed.

But that’s not all! The Conservative have just come up with yet another wacky proposition to keep women where they should be, that is, at home, making babies, lactating, and picking up after their offspring. A Cabinet-appointed panel, the Ministerial Advisory Committee on the Government of Canada's Child Care Spaces Initiative, recently released the result of a study that was supposed to find solutions to the problem of the lack of spaces in daycare facilities.

The solution? Extending Employment Insurance benefits for parents from 50 weeks to 2 ½ years (which would allow stay-at-home parents to receive the equivalent of 55% of their salary), so as to provide an incentive to parents to stay at home to care for their children as long as possible.

Besides the obvious question of the tax increase that will be necessary to fund this measure, you’ve got to admire the reasoning behind this:

1) Women rely on daycare facilities to care for their children so that they can work ;
2) All women can’t work because there is a shortage of daycare spaces for their children ;
3) The Harper government appoints a Committee to find solutions to increase the number of available daycare spaces in order to allow women to work;
4) The Committee finds out that women who do not work and stay at home to care for their children because they can’t put them in daycares instead, don’t send their children in daycare.
5) The Committee recommends that if women stay home to care for their children, there will be more available daycare spaces.

Seriously : WTF ?!? Am I missing on something ?

If you can forget the blatant lack of logic of this plan for a minute, and look at the substance of it, it strikes you with its hypocrisy.

On the one hand, while this recommendation purports to benefit *parents*, its actual effect, if and when it is implemented, will be to remove women from the workforce on a long term basis. Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that EI benefits, when they are available to either or both parents, are close to essential to child-rearing. But they should not constitute an impediment to reintegrate the workforce, nor a disguised incentive for women to assume traditional roles and abandon their lives and careers outside the home.
Do the math. Suppose you’re a women in your mid-20s, and you have three children, 3 years apart. That’s a 7.5 year period out of the workplace, during which you have presumably not acquired additional professional skills, education or experience. Just try and find a job after that…

On the other hand, the rationale behind giving EI benefits on such a long period of time is either (1) that it is a social imperative that women stay at home to care for their young children, otherwise those kids will grow up to become delinquents and that will be the end of modern society as we know it, or (2) that women just work because they need the money, they would rather stay at home doing womanly things if they had a husband or the State to support them.

Either way, it is insulting and demeaning not only to mothers, but also to all the women in the workforce.

This information could save your life.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a very informative website about relationship violence that provides, among other helpful information about this problem, lists of warning signs and indicators that a person is stuck in an abusive relationship.

It also provides safety tips for people who want to escape such situations, in a realistic and non-judgmental manner.

A must-read for anyone who is in a relationship.

In the News: Belinda Stronach is leaving federal politics

Last Wednesday, April 11, Newmarket-Aurora M.P. and former Liberal minister, Belinda Stronach announced that she was leaving federal politics to resume employment with auto parts giant Magna International Inc.

She had left the family business in 2004 to run for the Conservative leadership, which she lost to now PM Stephen Harper. As a Conservative MP, Ms. Stronach embodied dissent in the party by supporting reproductive rights and same-sex marriage. In 2005, she unexpectedly crossed the floor and joined the Liberals, who offered her a position as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Her bold move was vigourously criticized, both by the media (the National Post called her a "blonde bombshell" and many Conservative MPs publicly called her a whore and a prostitute), while Stephen Harper's lieutenant, Peter MacKay, whom Ms. Stronach was dating at the time, made various distasteful comments that (unfavourably) compared her to his dog.

(Recently, Mr. MacKay, who apparently still can get over the fact that Ms. Stronach dumped both his political convictions and himself, despite his new fling with Condi, called her a "dog" in te House of Commons.)

***

Canadians will miss Ms. Stronach's presence in federal politics. (Well, the non-mysogynistic portion of us.) For once, we were blessed with a female politician who did not seem to be apologizing constantly for being wealthy, professionally successful, young, physically attractive, unmarried, and – yes! – ambitious and opportunistic.

From a very young age, girls and women are indoctrinated into thinking that competitiveness, assertiveness and power are male attributes, and that women in positions of authority rather lead their people by being maternal, by seeking to make compromises between competing interests, and so on and so forth. Female leaders who do not conform to this model are considered cold, “bitchy”, ruthless and manly.

Women who work in traditionally male fields understand only too well that the latter – “feminine” - approach will not make them a better litigator, for instance, or get them promoted. Nor will being nice and low-key all the time. At the same time, however, they are often aware that they could be criticized and shunned by their peers and superiors should they rather choose to conform to the former – “masculine” – model.

Too often, we see female politicians bowing to the pressure, and apologizing for having a life of their own, for wearing too manly – or too feminine – clothing, or for being “visibly” wealthy or “opinionated”.

Girls and young women drastically lack assertive and self-confident female role models, both on the political scene and in the workplace. They need to be told that despite what the whole world might say, despite the unfair, uncalled for and degrading treatment that they may face one day, they are allowed to be ambitious and opportunistic in the pursuit of their personal goals and desires.

I am saddened by Ms. Stronach's leaving federal politics, but I rejoice at the thought of another strong woman leading a large corporation on the path to prosperity.

***

To learn more about Belinda Stronach's professional and political background, have a look at this article.

***

You can want to write to Ms. Stronach (free of charge!) at:

The Hon. Belinda Stronach, M.P.

House of Commons

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A6

or by email at:

stronach.b@parl.gc.ca.

"The Conjugal Rights Guide"

A funny sketch by Harry Enfield, on everything you've always wanted to know but never dared to ask about... uh... Paddington?