Breaking News: Raising a Family Interferes with Pursuing a Career

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...

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

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.

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

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?

Du-uh!

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

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.

Quote of the Day

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.

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

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?)

A day of remembrance

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.

Indoctrination from the crib!

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.

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

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.

Just the right amount of freedom

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...

Withdrawals...

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)).

Not the good kind of retro...

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

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...

Show us the money!

A recent study sponsored by TD shows that wage equality for Canadian women is just around the corner, that is, in 30 years or so.

The study hails education as the “great equalizer” and stresses that if women these days are getting better and longer education than their predecessors, it’s partly because they either choose to postpone pregnancy, child-birth and child-rearing, or choose to have fewer children (or none at all).

This study also highlights that women in the workforce still tend to stick to traditionally “female” fields, such as education and services, and that women still shy away from traditionally “male” fields such as mathematics or science. The authors (thankfully) point out that these differences are attributable to cultural and environmental factors, a situation which, they claim, can and should be fixed.

Finally, the TD study shows that a major factor in the gender wage gap is due to the fact that women generally work fewer hours in order to perform the necessary housework and child-rearing tasks. Interestingly, the authors note that “when wives have an income of $100,000 or more, the division of paid labour and housework between partners [is] more likely to be split equally.”

Too bad men aren’t just interested in those powerful, emasculating, high-income women…

Bill Watch - Wacky Conservatives (and Liberals) Edition

Here is a brief list of wacky and/or anti-women Bills currently under consideration before the House of Commons or the Senate.

Enjoy.

• Bill C-206 (Liberals): A Bill to allow for 2 years of parental leave, under the Employment Insurance Act;
• Bill C-22 (Conservatives): This Bill would raise from 14 to 16 years old the age of consent to sexual contacts with an adult (while keeping a 5 year difference rule that will avoid criminalizing bona fide dating relationships between teenagers). Though I generally agree with this measure, there are a few details with this Bill that make me tick. First, it's called the Age of Protection Act. Give me a break. Please. Let's be honest: the real issue here is not to protect teenagers from themselves, but rather to criminalize the exploitative behaviour of adults who prey on vulnerable children. I know it's a shaky argument, but I can see a nuance here. Secondly, there is still a marriage exception. After all, I guess it's not as if marriage had been in and of itself an exploitative social structure for the few past thousand years or so... By the way, this Bill as yet to receive Royal assent;
• Bill C-338 (Liberals - surprise!): This Bill purports to make a criminal offence the fact of "procuring a miscarriage of a female person who he or she knows or ought to know is past her twentieth week of gestation." This offence would be punishable by a maximum term of five years' imprisonment or a $100,000 fine. Well. Ain't that swell. 'Seems now you can't trust the Liberals to protect women's right to choose. But it's not as if it was arbitrary or anything. There is a health exception. If you've been raped, you're still screwed, but they'll sure show you a little compassion if you're dying... *sigh* Don't we all love this great, grand "Americanization" of Canadian politics?

To be fair, here are the Bills that represent a laudable effort in the right direction:

• Bill C-235 (Conservatives): A Bill to amend s. 742.1 Criminal Code, so as to preclude a sentencing judge to impose a conditional sentence where the offender has committed an offence carrying a minimum term of imprisonment, an offence punishable by ten years or more of imprisonment, and/or a violent offence. That would mean, in practice, that offenders convicted of sexual assault would not be eligible to a sentence of "imprisonment" in the community. Now Bill C-9, it has just received Royal assent;
• Bill C-254 (Liberals): A Bill that would have the effect of including "women" in the definition of identifiable groups that can be targeted by hate propaganda. This Bill is apparently still in limbo;
• Bill C-326 (NDP): This Bill would add "gender identity" as a basis for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Batgirl Saves the Day!

A hilarious video, brought to you by Feministing.

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?"

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.