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

... 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

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.

Blog for Choice - Part Two

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.

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

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.

A little reminder...

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.

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.

More announcements...

... 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

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.

Campaign against female genital mutilation

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:

Party like it's 1988

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.

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

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

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.

Feminism 101 (Wacky Conservative Edition)

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.

They did NOT just do that...

I guess it was bound to happen, sooner or later. Brace yourselves folks, because there's apparently a Bratz movie coming up.

From the trailer, it looks and sounds pretty daunting. Four "best friends" who are separated by an evil classmate and equally evil high school cliques, but who ultimately get (1) revenge over their bitchy classmates and (2) the guy.

I mean, the trailer contains spoilers. Talk about an intellectually challenging films for girls...



***

For those who have been living on another, non-oversexed planet for the past fews years, the Bratz in question are a line of raunchy dolls, who wear too much make uk, strike porn-inspired poses, dress up as hookers, and yet are - du-uh! - marketed at grade-school girls.

Why the shock and outrage? After all, dolls have been used to dumb down little girls for ages and to indoctrinate them into accepting patriarchal norms of female sexual behaviour. (After all, Barbie's ancestor Lili was a pin-up cartoon character/sex toy.

But the Bratz go way beyond that. We live in a world where we are just starting to realize the adverse effect of an oversexed culture on children and teenagers - and particularly, girls. Yet, Bratz maker MGA Entertainment somehow figured that it was cool and advisable to sell, pornified toys to little girls, like say, a thong-wearing baby, or a doll sold with a "secret date", glasses and a bottle of champagne.

***

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?"

Stephen Colbert on Feminists

Another funny video...