Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
In the news: Argentina's First Lady is elected as President
Next December, former lawyer Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner will make the transition from being Argentina's First Lady to being the country's first female President since Isabel Peron.
Aged 54, Ms. Fernandez defeated her opponent, Elisa Carrio, also a lawyer, by 10%.
Although there is quite a buzz in the media right now about female heads of state all over the world, it's always disappointing to notice that the media can't seem to be able to resist commenting about their appearance, style and behaviour instead of their personal background, beliefs and ideas.
Aged 54, Ms. Fernandez defeated her opponent, Elisa Carrio, also a lawyer, by 10%.
Although there is quite a buzz in the media right now about female heads of state all over the world, it's always disappointing to notice that the media can't seem to be able to resist commenting about their appearance, style and behaviour instead of their personal background, beliefs and ideas.
This is really fucked up...
... not to mention incredibly disturbing.
What more is there to say? Besides the fact that it's hateful and creepy? That it makes you want to kill the guy in the picture, the genius who came up with this brilliant concept, and every person on this earth who considers this funny and/or socially harmless?
What more is there to say? Besides the fact that it's hateful and creepy? That it makes you want to kill the guy in the picture, the genius who came up with this brilliant concept, and every person on this earth who considers this funny and/or socially harmless?More about creepy commercial uses of dismemberments of the female body here and here.
Friday, October 26, 2007
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:
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...
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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Feminist activism on screen
Apparently, there's this new film coming out soon South of the border, called Itty Bitty Titty Committee, about a group of teenaged lesbian feminist activists.
It sounds quite fun and interesting, compared to your average teen movie. However, I can't find any information its eventual release date in Canada...
It sounds quite fun and interesting, compared to your average teen movie. However, I can't find any information its eventual release date in Canada...
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Masculinism 101
Go read this hilarious (but to-the-point) FAQ about "men's rights activism", i.e. the delusion that White, Christian, males are an endangered species in North America.
Feminism 101 (Wacky Conservative Edition)
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:
***
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.
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...
***
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
