In case you're wondering, "Who is David Warren?" he is the intellectual gopher behind this piece of tripe. It has been a while since I wrote something about feminism; well, Mr. Warren has certainly given me ample to discuss today.
This "opinion piece" is derived from the same ill-founded, ignorant, and ridiculous caricature that most misogynist men have of feminism and feminists. Relying upon the false premise that all feminists believe that all men are inherently evil, and building from there using all the cliched catchphrases that misogynist men use to villify feminism (it is a "social and political campaign, nay melodrama," the third wave is comprised of "blather," and the target of feminism's scorn is, of course, "the heterosexual white male"), you've spoken much and said little. I am astonished that such vague and useless descriptions of feminism was allowed to get past your editorial board--that is, I would be if it weren't for the basic fact that bashing feminism in a long-running pasttime in this country.
Let us begin with the ridiculous notion that all feminists believe that all men are inherently evil. I'm sure that there are some feminists out there who believe this is true. I'm equally sure that they have experienced enough violence, harrassment, and hatred from men in their lives to justify it. Yet even if we assume that there are some feminists who believe this, how does that so easily become all feminists? There are some conservatives out there who believe that the West should bring back the Crusades and re-Christianize the Middle East; nobody of sane mind would transpose that idea into the belief that all conservatives want to do same, would they? And yet look at how easily you have transformed all feminists into blathering fools who look for ways to villify the patriarchal paradigm. However, consider this, the viewpoint of the second wave of feminism's strongest guiding force, Andrea Dworkin: "Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence." ("I Want a Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There is No Rape," http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html) If even the strongest force in 20th century feminism believes that man's nature is not one of inherent evil, and capable of being redeemed, why is it so hard for you to believe anything beyond the caricature which has been constructed? If men were inherently evil, why would feminists even bother? As Dworkin said, it's because of a belief that we are capable of being more than violent brutes that degrade women through the multitude of venues that we currently do.
Which leads me to the most horrifying part of your piece: its conclusion. You blithely accept that there is a need for 500 shelters for women in this country. That's accepted by you, and then it is mocked and you find yourself wondering at the audacity that there aren't any for abused men. This is where your lack of compassion for humanity shines strongest. Instead of being outraged at the reality that there is a need in this country to have 500 places where men cannot hurt women, that there has to be that many shelters where women can go so that they can feel safe, that these shelters are needed in every town, city, and village in this country because in every town, city, and village in this country men are abusing women, you want to know where a man can go when his wife has had enough and fights back. Here's a very basic fact: 92% of domestic violence in this country is committed by men against women. That's 23 out of 25 cases. Ninety-two percent. We're at a point in this country where nearly half of Canadian women will experience some sort of violence from men in their lives. That runs the gamut from murder, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, domestic abuse, uttering threats, and much more. 1 in 2 women, Mr. Warren, and you have the unmitigated gall to ask where men are supposed to go to feel safe. Shame on you.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
09 June 2008
12 December 2007
Stream of Consciousness
Boredom is reigning supreme today, and after having entered "110753" and "31.5" into a computer a couple hundred times this morning I'm finding myself thinking that there has got to be more to life than this. So to help alleviate this, I'm going to keep this window open for a good chunk of the morning and pop in whatever pops into my head that may be discussion-worthy and press "Publish Post" at the end of the day and see what comes of it.
* I was glad to read last week that Iran gave up uranium enrichment for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon in 2003. So that means the Iraq War is now responsible for: getting rid of Saddam Hussein, compelling Qaddafi to forsake terrorism, establishing a democratic bridgehead in the Middle East, and getting Tehran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. These are 4 very strong positives. It's unfortunate that there have been as many negatives to emerge as a consequence as well.
* Pursuant to my recent post on US Presidential 2008, I'm pretty much certain that if it's not Giuliani or McCain I'll be supporting the Democrats.
* Canada fancies itself a progressive country, and Halifax embodies that attitude. If that's true, why are Canadians and Haligonians seemingly very supportive of one of the following two tracks regarding prostitution: legalization or maintainig the status quo in which women are criminalized for being used as a thing? Seems to me that the real progressive countries, ones that are genuinely dedicated to equality, are taking the approach that regarding women as things to be purchased and then disposed of is an act of violence against them and is a criminal offence. You don't see Sweden, ranked #1 in the world in terms of gender equality, undertaking sting operations to throw prostituted women in jail. Progressive means moving away from failed policies towards new ones that positively affect citizens, does it not?
* Christmas shopping has been a lot more fun this year. I'm still glad I'm done, though.
* Environmental activists are mad at John Baird because he went back to a meeting that would potentially get results for the environment rather than stick around to take a browbeating from them. You just can't win, eh?
* I saw a trade rumour that had Saku Koivu and Michael Ryder being shipped to San Jose in exchange for Patrick Marleau and Jonathan Bernier. If Marleau and Bernier can score and avoid taking selfish penalties, it might not be a bad idea.
* I was glad to read last week that Iran gave up uranium enrichment for the purpose of producing a nuclear weapon in 2003. So that means the Iraq War is now responsible for: getting rid of Saddam Hussein, compelling Qaddafi to forsake terrorism, establishing a democratic bridgehead in the Middle East, and getting Tehran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. These are 4 very strong positives. It's unfortunate that there have been as many negatives to emerge as a consequence as well.
* Pursuant to my recent post on US Presidential 2008, I'm pretty much certain that if it's not Giuliani or McCain I'll be supporting the Democrats.
* Canada fancies itself a progressive country, and Halifax embodies that attitude. If that's true, why are Canadians and Haligonians seemingly very supportive of one of the following two tracks regarding prostitution: legalization or maintainig the status quo in which women are criminalized for being used as a thing? Seems to me that the real progressive countries, ones that are genuinely dedicated to equality, are taking the approach that regarding women as things to be purchased and then disposed of is an act of violence against them and is a criminal offence. You don't see Sweden, ranked #1 in the world in terms of gender equality, undertaking sting operations to throw prostituted women in jail. Progressive means moving away from failed policies towards new ones that positively affect citizens, does it not?
* Christmas shopping has been a lot more fun this year. I'm still glad I'm done, though.
* Environmental activists are mad at John Baird because he went back to a meeting that would potentially get results for the environment rather than stick around to take a browbeating from them. You just can't win, eh?
* I saw a trade rumour that had Saku Koivu and Michael Ryder being shipped to San Jose in exchange for Patrick Marleau and Jonathan Bernier. If Marleau and Bernier can score and avoid taking selfish penalties, it might not be a bad idea.
23 November 2007
Two Days
From the latest issue of the White Ribbon Campaign Newsletter . . .
Two Days
November 25th marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. In Canada, December 6th is a National Day of Remembrance and Action for Violence Against Women. Two days in a year. Two days.
That leaves 363 other days where 51% of Canadian women over the age of 16 will still experience an act of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. 363 days where the global toll of violence against women will exceed the harm inflicted on women by traffic accidents and malaria – combined.
363 days where one of the most tragic, harmful, and preventable human rights atrocities on the planet will go largely forgotten. 363 days where the White Ribbon Campaign will continue its efforts to work with men and boys on the prevention of gender based violence against women and girls.
This year, the White Ribbon Campaign challenges you to do something, anything, to help realize a future that has no violence against women.
You can start by wearing a White Ribbon and making the pledge to never commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women. Explore your own attitude, behaviours and beliefs about gender based violence. Make a change that starts within.
You can make time in your life to listen to, learn from, and try to understand the experience of the important women in your lives. You can inform yourself through any number of vast resources that are available out there.
You can make a financial contribution to a women’s shelter, to a crisis line, or to a support program for women who have been victims of violence. These resources are chronically under-funded.
If you also think men and boys have a role to play, and violence prevention is a necessary part of the solution – you can get involved with the White Ribbon Campaign. Sign our online pledge [insert link] visit our Blog [insert link] or make a donation [insert link].
Talk to young people, challenge your peers, spread the message, talk to politicians, organize an event, share your stories with us. There are 363 days left, and there is lots that can be done. Have a look at our resource “What Every Man Can Do” [link].
Every little effort adds to the momentum, inspires others, and adds to the growing movement of hundreds of thousands of people in Canada and around the world who think it is time we solved this fundamental human rights issue, and create a safer world for all women and girls. Whatever you do, do something. This is our challenge to you this year.
To borrow a phrase from a colleague;
Until the violence stops.
Two Days
November 25th marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. In Canada, December 6th is a National Day of Remembrance and Action for Violence Against Women. Two days in a year. Two days.
That leaves 363 other days where 51% of Canadian women over the age of 16 will still experience an act of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. 363 days where the global toll of violence against women will exceed the harm inflicted on women by traffic accidents and malaria – combined.
363 days where one of the most tragic, harmful, and preventable human rights atrocities on the planet will go largely forgotten. 363 days where the White Ribbon Campaign will continue its efforts to work with men and boys on the prevention of gender based violence against women and girls.
This year, the White Ribbon Campaign challenges you to do something, anything, to help realize a future that has no violence against women.
You can start by wearing a White Ribbon and making the pledge to never commit, condone, or remain silent about violence against women. Explore your own attitude, behaviours and beliefs about gender based violence. Make a change that starts within.
You can make time in your life to listen to, learn from, and try to understand the experience of the important women in your lives. You can inform yourself through any number of vast resources that are available out there.
You can make a financial contribution to a women’s shelter, to a crisis line, or to a support program for women who have been victims of violence. These resources are chronically under-funded.
If you also think men and boys have a role to play, and violence prevention is a necessary part of the solution – you can get involved with the White Ribbon Campaign. Sign our online pledge [insert link] visit our Blog [insert link] or make a donation [insert link].
Talk to young people, challenge your peers, spread the message, talk to politicians, organize an event, share your stories with us. There are 363 days left, and there is lots that can be done. Have a look at our resource “What Every Man Can Do” [link].
Every little effort adds to the momentum, inspires others, and adds to the growing movement of hundreds of thousands of people in Canada and around the world who think it is time we solved this fundamental human rights issue, and create a safer world for all women and girls. Whatever you do, do something. This is our challenge to you this year.
To borrow a phrase from a colleague;
Until the violence stops.
19 November 2007
SMU Journal to Print Apology
I received word last night from the editor of the Saint Mary's University Journal that the student-run paper will be printing an apology for their Halloween cartoon in their next issue. As you might imagine, this news helped brighten my day yesterday. The editor noted that they hadn't considered how bad it looked to have Batman punching out Britney Spears in the larger context of violence against women, and that she felt very bad about having such a thing appear. I'm glad that there has been a lesson learned, and commend the editor for responding positively. Change can be effected, we all just have to do our part.
16 November 2007
SMU Journal Thinks Beating Up Women is Funny
I glimpsed a copy of the Saint Mary's University student newspaper, The Journal, this morning. The "cover story" was a comic-book styled Halloween skit starring a cat, Batman, and Britney Spears. It begins innocuously enough, with "Britney" starting up an impromptu concert until "Batman" "senses danger," at which time he punches Britney out, inviting her to "suck knuckles" in the process.
Brilliant and original, the paper thinks that knocking out Britney Spears is comic gold. This is yet another example of a university newspaper making light of violence against women. See a separate example, which also contains links to still more recent examples, about a Central CT State story entitled "Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It" here. No doubt the SMU editorial staff will throw up their hands and say that it was "all in good fun" and not "something to be taken seriously." Of course, in the context of a patriarchy in which violence against women is all-pervasive, it is never acceptable to portray violence against women.
I'd like to encourage everyone to send a letter to the SMU Journal to let them know that their "comic story" was decidedly not funny and contributes to the problem. You can reach the Journal's editor, Amanda Wenek, at: thesmujournal@gmail.com
I sent the following:
To the Editor:
This morning I happened to pick up a discarded copy of a recent issue of The Journal. Imagine my disappointment and outrage when I saw that the Halloween story on the front page climaxed with Batman knocking out Britney Spears and winning the applause of everyone around him for doing so. With that, the SMU paper has joined a long list of university newspapers that portray and make light of violence against women. In this past year, university newspapers have treated rape, sexual assault, and men's violence against women as a joke, something used to generate comedy and sell extra copies while making legitimate and acceptable a major problem in our society.
Let me be clear: there is no acceptable situation that portrays violence against women. I don't care if you think you were being cute, or flip, or tongue-in-cheek; when the problem of violence against women is at such a high rate that Status of Women Canada estimates that between 1-in-3 and 2-in-5 women will experience male violence in their lives, the context of that violence is always prevalent. In any format or media, real or stylized, actual or acted, violence against women is something that we should never condone, promote, encourage, or portray in a quasi-positive light. I hope that, in a future issues, the SMU Journal will print an apology for promoting violence against women, and exercise better judgment at the editorial level in the future so that this outrageous incident will not be repeated.
RGM
WRC-H
Brilliant and original, the paper thinks that knocking out Britney Spears is comic gold. This is yet another example of a university newspaper making light of violence against women. See a separate example, which also contains links to still more recent examples, about a Central CT State story entitled "Rape Only Hurts If You Fight It" here. No doubt the SMU editorial staff will throw up their hands and say that it was "all in good fun" and not "something to be taken seriously." Of course, in the context of a patriarchy in which violence against women is all-pervasive, it is never acceptable to portray violence against women.
I'd like to encourage everyone to send a letter to the SMU Journal to let them know that their "comic story" was decidedly not funny and contributes to the problem. You can reach the Journal's editor, Amanda Wenek, at: thesmujournal@gmail.com
I sent the following:
To the Editor:
This morning I happened to pick up a discarded copy of a recent issue of The Journal. Imagine my disappointment and outrage when I saw that the Halloween story on the front page climaxed with Batman knocking out Britney Spears and winning the applause of everyone around him for doing so. With that, the SMU paper has joined a long list of university newspapers that portray and make light of violence against women. In this past year, university newspapers have treated rape, sexual assault, and men's violence against women as a joke, something used to generate comedy and sell extra copies while making legitimate and acceptable a major problem in our society.
Let me be clear: there is no acceptable situation that portrays violence against women. I don't care if you think you were being cute, or flip, or tongue-in-cheek; when the problem of violence against women is at such a high rate that Status of Women Canada estimates that between 1-in-3 and 2-in-5 women will experience male violence in their lives, the context of that violence is always prevalent. In any format or media, real or stylized, actual or acted, violence against women is something that we should never condone, promote, encourage, or portray in a quasi-positive light. I hope that, in a future issues, the SMU Journal will print an apology for promoting violence against women, and exercise better judgment at the editorial level in the future so that this outrageous incident will not be repeated.
RGM
WRC-H
13 November 2007
More Links
Here are some more resources for people to learn more about December 6th, what it means, and what we can all do to help eliminate all forms of violence against women:
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Canada and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
YWCA of/du Canada: A Week without Violence
Nova Scotia's Purple Ribbon Campaign
Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)
Remember also to start wearing those white ribbons!
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Canada and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
YWCA of/du Canada: A Week without Violence
Nova Scotia's Purple Ribbon Campaign
Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)
Remember also to start wearing those white ribbons!
10 November 2007
Links
It's getting to be the time of the year that the White Ribbon Campaign begins its major efforts leading up to the commemoration of the Montreal Massacre on December 6th. Here are some links for everybody to read and get informed on what the day means, and the motivation behind the cause to end violence against women:
Status of Women Canada's Official Site for December 6th
The White Ribbon Campaign and its Official Blog
Men Can Stop Rape
Facebook Cause for The White Ribbon Campaign
Facebook Group for the White Ribbon Campaign
Andrea Dworkin's Official Web Page
There are many, many more sites out there for people to learn more about ending violence against women, and I encourage everybody to check them out. I'll be posting more on the subject throughout the month.
Status of Women Canada's Official Site for December 6th
The White Ribbon Campaign and its Official Blog
Men Can Stop Rape
Facebook Cause for The White Ribbon Campaign
Facebook Group for the White Ribbon Campaign
Andrea Dworkin's Official Web Page
There are many, many more sites out there for people to learn more about ending violence against women, and I encourage everybody to check them out. I'll be posting more on the subject throughout the month.
21 September 2007
Take Back the Night Halifax
Next Friday, September 28th, there will be a Take Back the Night March organized by the Dalhousie Women's Centre. Women and male allies will be meeting at 7pm at Victoria Park, across from the Public Gardens, at the intersection of Spring Garden Rd. and South Park St.
All those who support a woman's right to walk alone at any time in any place free from the threat of violence and intimidation are welcome to attend, and I encourage people to get in touch with the Dalhousie Women's Centre to find out how they can participate in the organization of the March. Their website is: http://www.dalwomenscentre.ca/
All those who support a woman's right to walk alone at any time in any place free from the threat of violence and intimidation are welcome to attend, and I encourage people to get in touch with the Dalhousie Women's Centre to find out how they can participate in the organization of the March. Their website is: http://www.dalwomenscentre.ca/
18 September 2007
Why The White Ribbon Campaign Exists
Every so often someone will ask me why I'm a feminist--some of the more nefarious folks will ask why I'm a "gender traitor"--I saw the video below today via Feministing. It is truly horrible to watch the manner in which this man treats his wife, how he manipulates her in every way, and how he turned her children against her. It is this case, and the countless undocumented others just like it, that make me a feminist. This is the reason that I am proud to be part of the White Ribbon Campaign.
It contains graphic language and violence, so watch at your own discretion. I would also suggest avoiding the comments in the thread, as the usual band of misogynists on YouTube have appeared.
It contains graphic language and violence, so watch at your own discretion. I would also suggest avoiding the comments in the thread, as the usual band of misogynists on YouTube have appeared.
07 September 2007
Manufacturing Interest in Stripping
Human trafficking. Murder. Rape. Assault. Drug addiction. Coercion. Intimidation. Degradation. These are but some of the most severe traumas women endure when they are entangled in prostitution. It is the oldest form of male violence against women, and because it has proven to be so enduring, many assume that it is inevitable, something that will always be a part of society. Fatalism and acceptance of the unacceptable are two of the mitigating factors in the struggle to end male violence against women.
Many of those traumas apply also to women who work as strippers. Many young women are abducted and forcibly relocated to work in this segment of the "sex industry." Many will end up becoming prostituted women. Many will experience the same forms of male violence that prostituted women do. They have to endure endless vile comments from male patrons of strip clubs, people who don't regard them as human beings telling them the things they would like to do to these young women and then throwing a five-dollar bill at them. Many of these men claim that strippers hold a "power" over them that "makes" them give up their money, but how many of them have a conscience about the terrible things they say or even do to these young women? Further, how ludicrous do those claims of "power" sound to a woman that is naked and vulnerable in an audience of drunk, aggressive men who are all fully clothed and already demonstrating a contempt for her humanity, her life, her existence? What does it say about men that they relish these temples of misogyny and the opportunity to go leer at a bunch of naked teenagers with their friends?
Further, what does it say when that behaviour carries on outside the walls of the strip club? We know what the men themselves say: they say that women could/should be strippers, too. They portray this as a "compliment," as if a woman's highest calling is to take her clothes off for male approval and gaze. A woman in a dress shirt can have a future either as a business executive or a stripper. Which does the male prefer, the former or the latter? When there's a sense of entitlement, that any woman should be available to him at any time for his pleasure, obviously he would prefer her to be standing up on a stage and denied her agency and have her feel completely vulnerable. After all, if she's in a boardroom delivering the quarterly report, she's unavailable.
Could this be the motivation behind the campaign to glamorize stripping? I would suggest yes. By shoving the ugly realities under the rug and hiding them from view, men have created a false impression of what stripping truly entails. Look at music videos or television shows that feature trips to the strip club: they never feature the comments from drunken dishevelled men, they never show the women breaking down into tears after realizing the loss of their dignity, the backstage drug use, the rapes in the alley behind the club, they only show everybody having a wonderful time--the happy hooker myth. Anybody that's ever read commentaries from women who have been involved in stripping know the truth, and that's what causes so much frustration surrounding the ignorance of the great majority of the population.
It is this ignorance that fuels marketing stripping to white, middle-class women. I am not a class warrior, by any stretch of anybody's imagination, but this is so obvious in its attempt and so potentially harmful in its purpose that one would have to be blind to not notice some simple facts. Wealthy, educated, privileged women don't take off their clothes for strangers. Poor, uneducated, hungry, lower-class, and quite often women of colour, do. Yet the established beauty standard is a white blond woman. It is no wonder that men are seeking to enhance the scope of women pushed into the sexploitation class. They read Playboy and then wonder why they don't see that at their local strip club, and demand it. Hence Playboy being mass-marketed and sold in the Wish Book next to kids' stuff. Hence Carmen Electra and her Strip-Aerobics videos. Hence stripper poles you can install in your own bedroom.
The "democratization" of prostitution has made it something to be desired by a woman with recourse to education and a decent wage-paying job. It is no doubt insulting and humiliating for many women who are utterly trapped in the prostitution industry to know that university graduates "want" to take their clothes off in front of an audience (or, in some cases, would, "if only [they] had the body")--not because they fear losing out on money, but because these middle-class women think it's something fun, sexy, and empowering to do. For women trapped in prostitution, it is not a fantasy or some facade, it is a vicious, hurtful, and trauma-inducing existence. I have heard far too many women who should know better say that they would love to go and strip. They can have their illusion, go out, drop their attire, and them go home. For far too many women, that simple escapism is not an option. The "fantasy" of the middle-class wannabe-stripper is the perpetuation of the ongoing humiliation and oppression of the real woman who has to take off her clothes to make the 20 bucks she needs to survive for another miserable week.
I do not blame women for this failure of empathy, this enthusiasm to live out a male fantasy, this twisted sense of what is "empowering," this bizarre desire to attain all the illusory glamour of stripping while avoiding the far-too-painful reality. The daily onslaught of images, movies, words, and and any other medium is overwhelming, and emanates largely from the men that control them. It is taken as natural for men to hire a stripper or two for a bachelor party, for a group of guys to spend their Friday evening at the strip club, and there's not a consistent prevailing message from the media that says that these activities result in harm to women. They're presented as glorious, fun, wonderful, and of course, empowering, with no mainstream media outlets raising a red flag or serious opposition. It is also, of course, male demand for women to be readily available to them that fuels this prostitution. Demand is not created by supply. The simple existence of a woman does not create the demand for her to be naked; it is the male demand for women to be naked that creates the existence of strippers and prostituted women.
So, in the end, it comes down to a need for men to adjust their attitudes and demand change. Individual men can influence those around them by telling them about the harm caused by stripping and prostitution. Those men who believe that they have a right to have sex with any woman, or that women should become strippers, are not beyond redemption, but they must be confronted on their misogyny or else their practice will continue unabated.
Many of those traumas apply also to women who work as strippers. Many young women are abducted and forcibly relocated to work in this segment of the "sex industry." Many will end up becoming prostituted women. Many will experience the same forms of male violence that prostituted women do. They have to endure endless vile comments from male patrons of strip clubs, people who don't regard them as human beings telling them the things they would like to do to these young women and then throwing a five-dollar bill at them. Many of these men claim that strippers hold a "power" over them that "makes" them give up their money, but how many of them have a conscience about the terrible things they say or even do to these young women? Further, how ludicrous do those claims of "power" sound to a woman that is naked and vulnerable in an audience of drunk, aggressive men who are all fully clothed and already demonstrating a contempt for her humanity, her life, her existence? What does it say about men that they relish these temples of misogyny and the opportunity to go leer at a bunch of naked teenagers with their friends?
Further, what does it say when that behaviour carries on outside the walls of the strip club? We know what the men themselves say: they say that women could/should be strippers, too. They portray this as a "compliment," as if a woman's highest calling is to take her clothes off for male approval and gaze. A woman in a dress shirt can have a future either as a business executive or a stripper. Which does the male prefer, the former or the latter? When there's a sense of entitlement, that any woman should be available to him at any time for his pleasure, obviously he would prefer her to be standing up on a stage and denied her agency and have her feel completely vulnerable. After all, if she's in a boardroom delivering the quarterly report, she's unavailable.
Could this be the motivation behind the campaign to glamorize stripping? I would suggest yes. By shoving the ugly realities under the rug and hiding them from view, men have created a false impression of what stripping truly entails. Look at music videos or television shows that feature trips to the strip club: they never feature the comments from drunken dishevelled men, they never show the women breaking down into tears after realizing the loss of their dignity, the backstage drug use, the rapes in the alley behind the club, they only show everybody having a wonderful time--the happy hooker myth. Anybody that's ever read commentaries from women who have been involved in stripping know the truth, and that's what causes so much frustration surrounding the ignorance of the great majority of the population.
It is this ignorance that fuels marketing stripping to white, middle-class women. I am not a class warrior, by any stretch of anybody's imagination, but this is so obvious in its attempt and so potentially harmful in its purpose that one would have to be blind to not notice some simple facts. Wealthy, educated, privileged women don't take off their clothes for strangers. Poor, uneducated, hungry, lower-class, and quite often women of colour, do. Yet the established beauty standard is a white blond woman. It is no wonder that men are seeking to enhance the scope of women pushed into the sexploitation class. They read Playboy and then wonder why they don't see that at their local strip club, and demand it. Hence Playboy being mass-marketed and sold in the Wish Book next to kids' stuff. Hence Carmen Electra and her Strip-Aerobics videos. Hence stripper poles you can install in your own bedroom.
The "democratization" of prostitution has made it something to be desired by a woman with recourse to education and a decent wage-paying job. It is no doubt insulting and humiliating for many women who are utterly trapped in the prostitution industry to know that university graduates "want" to take their clothes off in front of an audience (or, in some cases, would, "if only [they] had the body")--not because they fear losing out on money, but because these middle-class women think it's something fun, sexy, and empowering to do. For women trapped in prostitution, it is not a fantasy or some facade, it is a vicious, hurtful, and trauma-inducing existence. I have heard far too many women who should know better say that they would love to go and strip. They can have their illusion, go out, drop their attire, and them go home. For far too many women, that simple escapism is not an option. The "fantasy" of the middle-class wannabe-stripper is the perpetuation of the ongoing humiliation and oppression of the real woman who has to take off her clothes to make the 20 bucks she needs to survive for another miserable week.
I do not blame women for this failure of empathy, this enthusiasm to live out a male fantasy, this twisted sense of what is "empowering," this bizarre desire to attain all the illusory glamour of stripping while avoiding the far-too-painful reality. The daily onslaught of images, movies, words, and and any other medium is overwhelming, and emanates largely from the men that control them. It is taken as natural for men to hire a stripper or two for a bachelor party, for a group of guys to spend their Friday evening at the strip club, and there's not a consistent prevailing message from the media that says that these activities result in harm to women. They're presented as glorious, fun, wonderful, and of course, empowering, with no mainstream media outlets raising a red flag or serious opposition. It is also, of course, male demand for women to be readily available to them that fuels this prostitution. Demand is not created by supply. The simple existence of a woman does not create the demand for her to be naked; it is the male demand for women to be naked that creates the existence of strippers and prostituted women.
So, in the end, it comes down to a need for men to adjust their attitudes and demand change. Individual men can influence those around them by telling them about the harm caused by stripping and prostitution. Those men who believe that they have a right to have sex with any woman, or that women should become strippers, are not beyond redemption, but they must be confronted on their misogyny or else their practice will continue unabated.
02 September 2007
"Gray Rape" Theory = Bunk
A number of venues around the Internet have commented on an article in the latest issue of Cosmo magazine that puts forward the idea of "gray rape," which are supposedly situations in which the existence of consent can be contested and thus women are not entirely sure whether or not their rape was, in fact, a rape at all. Feministing and a poster at the White Ribbon Campaign blog are but two excellent places to visit that thoroughly expose this concept as ridiculous and hurtful.
Longtime readers will recall a list that I posted last year that very accurately points out the various scenarios that are rapes. Due to the severe importance of this topic, I will re-post that list in full:
A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't wear short skirts. Women shouldn't leave drinks unattended. Hell, they shouldn't dare to get drunk at all. Instead of that bullshit, how about:
If a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
If a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
If a woman is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
If a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
If a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
If a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
If a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
If a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.
If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
If your step-daughter is watching TV, don't rape her.If you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
If your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.
If your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.
Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.
Don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
Don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
Don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
Don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
Don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.
I've taken the liberty to bold out some of the extra-key ones here, just to emphasize how much garbage is the idea that there is a "gray zone" separating consensual sex and rape. I would also like to point out that the situation provided always concludes with "don't rape her" and not "don't have sex with her." There's a reason for that. When any one or more of this set of circumstances arises, consent is not given. Indeed, in the second scenario that I bolded, consent is actually withdrawn. The Cosmo article points out exactly that type of scenario and the story of a confused woman the morning after who was not sure whether or not she was raped, and makes no effort to affirm that she was indeed raped.
This all begins with the assumption by some men that women's default position on consent is "yes." For many of these men, this assumption arises from their consumption of pornography, in which women are portrayed as always willing, always submissive, always desirous of doing whatever vile act men may wish to perpetrate upon them. The inability to rationalize that not all women want to have sex with all men at any time, and more specifically, that any individual woman does not want to have sex with any individual man is an insidious failure on the part of many men that will often result in them raping a woman. The need to impose and imprint in men's minds the reality, that consent is not automatic and not default, that it is only when a woman says "yes"--the first time!--in an environment in which she has a legitimate ability to make a truly free choice, is sex consensual. Anything less than that standard should be perceived and portrayed as rape, because that is what it is. Pestering a drunk girl for two hours to have sex, and receving her ultimate concession, is still rape, because: a) she is intoxicated and her ability to rationalize and make her own judgment called is limited, and b) consent was withheld for 119 minutes, only being given after being worn down and in combination with a). That, by any sensible standard, should be viewed as rape.
Thus, not only is "yes" assumed to be the default position for all women, so too does a single "yes" override any number of "no's." This, to any reasonable person, is not logical, and should not be indicative of legitimate consent. Allow me to go to an extreme scenario: if I'm being held captive in a dark room, imprisoned and subjected to mental and psychological abuse, and I've said no to the question "Can we cut your arm off?" 149 times, does my relenting to this trauma on the 150th posing of the question truly mean that I consent to having my arm cut off? I should surely think not. That is not a gray area, is it?
In sum, Cosmo, as it does in so many other fields of women's lives, truly has failed women with this article. It leaves them with a considerable impression that there are some scenarios where their "no" doesn't count and that their failure to say "no" doesn't count as withholding consent. It is perpetuating an illegitimate and unjust status quo in which rape is not only tolerated in our culture, but accepted. For a magazine that purports to "empower" women, Cosmo's "gray rape" theory is yet another imposition of male-dominated harmful ideology that prevents women from reaching their maximum potential while giving men an out card from accepting responsibility for their causal role in rape.
Longtime readers will recall a list that I posted last year that very accurately points out the various scenarios that are rapes. Due to the severe importance of this topic, I will re-post that list in full:
A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't wear short skirts. Women shouldn't leave drinks unattended. Hell, they shouldn't dare to get drunk at all. Instead of that bullshit, how about:
If a woman is drunk, don't rape her.
If a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her.
If a woman is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her.
If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her.
If a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don't rape her.
If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her.
If a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her.
If a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her.
If a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her.
If a woman is in a coma, don't rape her.
If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her.
If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her.
If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her.
If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her.
If your step-daughter is watching TV, don't rape her.If you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her.
If your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend.
If your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.
If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and tell the guy he's a rapist.
Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it's not okay to rape someone.
Don't tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.
Don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x.
Don't imply that it's in any way her fault.
Don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl.
Don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.
I've taken the liberty to bold out some of the extra-key ones here, just to emphasize how much garbage is the idea that there is a "gray zone" separating consensual sex and rape. I would also like to point out that the situation provided always concludes with "don't rape her" and not "don't have sex with her." There's a reason for that. When any one or more of this set of circumstances arises, consent is not given. Indeed, in the second scenario that I bolded, consent is actually withdrawn. The Cosmo article points out exactly that type of scenario and the story of a confused woman the morning after who was not sure whether or not she was raped, and makes no effort to affirm that she was indeed raped.
This all begins with the assumption by some men that women's default position on consent is "yes." For many of these men, this assumption arises from their consumption of pornography, in which women are portrayed as always willing, always submissive, always desirous of doing whatever vile act men may wish to perpetrate upon them. The inability to rationalize that not all women want to have sex with all men at any time, and more specifically, that any individual woman does not want to have sex with any individual man is an insidious failure on the part of many men that will often result in them raping a woman. The need to impose and imprint in men's minds the reality, that consent is not automatic and not default, that it is only when a woman says "yes"--the first time!--in an environment in which she has a legitimate ability to make a truly free choice, is sex consensual. Anything less than that standard should be perceived and portrayed as rape, because that is what it is. Pestering a drunk girl for two hours to have sex, and receving her ultimate concession, is still rape, because: a) she is intoxicated and her ability to rationalize and make her own judgment called is limited, and b) consent was withheld for 119 minutes, only being given after being worn down and in combination with a). That, by any sensible standard, should be viewed as rape.
Thus, not only is "yes" assumed to be the default position for all women, so too does a single "yes" override any number of "no's." This, to any reasonable person, is not logical, and should not be indicative of legitimate consent. Allow me to go to an extreme scenario: if I'm being held captive in a dark room, imprisoned and subjected to mental and psychological abuse, and I've said no to the question "Can we cut your arm off?" 149 times, does my relenting to this trauma on the 150th posing of the question truly mean that I consent to having my arm cut off? I should surely think not. That is not a gray area, is it?
In sum, Cosmo, as it does in so many other fields of women's lives, truly has failed women with this article. It leaves them with a considerable impression that there are some scenarios where their "no" doesn't count and that their failure to say "no" doesn't count as withholding consent. It is perpetuating an illegitimate and unjust status quo in which rape is not only tolerated in our culture, but accepted. For a magazine that purports to "empower" women, Cosmo's "gray rape" theory is yet another imposition of male-dominated harmful ideology that prevents women from reaching their maximum potential while giving men an out card from accepting responsibility for their causal role in rape.
09 August 2007
White Ribbon Campaign - Halifax
Earlier in the week I became an official member of the White Ribbon Campaign, an organization of men dedicated to ending men's violence against women. I've been a supporter for some time now, and this is the logical next step.
Apparently I'm the only member in Halifax. This is where anybody who lives in Halifax and the surrounding area comes in. I'm going to be in need of assistance in getting this campaign off the ground. If you're a male who wants to raise awareness of male violence against women in an effort to curb it, please make a comment expressing your interest in doing so.
The main thrust of the WRC is around this time of year, leading up to the anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnic massacre in Montreal on December 6th. The WRC does not hold any events on that date itself, but is in full promotional mode leading up to it, handing out white ribbons and collecting pledges of support, both on paper and financially. The objective of the WRC is not to deflect or steer attention away from women's groups, but rather to serve as a male voice that challenges other men to pay attention to the problem of male-instigated violence against women and urge others to take a stand.
I will be doing regular updates on the work of the White Ribbon Campaign - Halifax effort on this blog, and I welcome the support of any men who wish to help. For more information, please visit the White Ribbon Campaign website at: http://www.whiteribbon.ca
Apparently I'm the only member in Halifax. This is where anybody who lives in Halifax and the surrounding area comes in. I'm going to be in need of assistance in getting this campaign off the ground. If you're a male who wants to raise awareness of male violence against women in an effort to curb it, please make a comment expressing your interest in doing so.
The main thrust of the WRC is around this time of year, leading up to the anniversary of the Ecole Polytechnic massacre in Montreal on December 6th. The WRC does not hold any events on that date itself, but is in full promotional mode leading up to it, handing out white ribbons and collecting pledges of support, both on paper and financially. The objective of the WRC is not to deflect or steer attention away from women's groups, but rather to serve as a male voice that challenges other men to pay attention to the problem of male-instigated violence against women and urge others to take a stand.
I will be doing regular updates on the work of the White Ribbon Campaign - Halifax effort on this blog, and I welcome the support of any men who wish to help. For more information, please visit the White Ribbon Campaign website at: http://www.whiteribbon.ca
01 August 2007
Superbad - you ain't kidding
Apparently the market for blatantly sexist, misogynist, and female-degrading movies has not yet been exhausted. All evening I've been seeing commercials for a teen-targeted movie called "Superbad."
The recidivist behaviour I've seen so far includes:
-a male following a female student staring incessantly at her visible thong;
-a male "accidentally" bumps another male so that he grabs a female's breasts;
-two males staring down the shirt of a friend's mother and saying, after she walked away, "take good care of those" before the scene cuts away;
-a male--presmably drunk and ostensibly leaning in to kiss a woman who had not consented to it--headbutt her to the ground;
-two males talking about a female who "had breast reduction surgery" and referring to the idea as "slapping God across the face;"
-two guys plotting how to charm their way into a woman's pants: "I was so gone last night, I shouldn't have slept with that guy...We could be that mistake!"
All that in two 30-second commercials, folks.
The film's R rating primarily (since it comes first) derives from its "pervasive crude and sexual content." Cue the rant.
At what point does the train of American Pie-inspired garbage end? Sadly, only when the demand to see women treated as second-class, compliant, idiotic, sex receptacles has dissipated. Obviously that is not on the horizon. The film is made by the same asswads that brought us Talladega Nights and the 40-Year Old Virgin. People--mostly males in the 18-25 range--are going to line up and pay money to watch this movie, beginning next Friday, because it is what they want to see. They want to see the things they saw in the commercials and the trailer. Getting that little taste of what this movie offers will make them hungry to see more, to the point that they will set aside two hours and shell out $10 plus whatever snacks they so desire. They get a kick out of seeing women get headbutted by drunk men. They laugh when a guy follows a girl down a hallway staring incessantly at her backside. They are entertained by teenaged boys gazing their friend's "hot" mom. This is what they want, and it is being delivered to them.
Demand creates supply. Obviously the men behind this film believe that there is enough demand out there to offset the cost of making this movie. It won't be the #1 film at the box office, obviously. But it will end up making millions of dollars. Take that number and divide it by ten, and you will know how many young men out there get their rocks off by seeing girls humiliated and treated solely as objects of lust and as a goal. The attainment of a woman as pressing objective. To be more specific, the attainment of penetrating a woman as pressing objective. I hope that nobody I know goes to see this movie. I hope that nobody anybody at this forum knows goes to see this movie. I hope that nobody sees this movie and sends a signal that this type of hatred isn't desired. The first two may be possible, the last one, I readily concede is a pipe dream. And that's what disappoints me most of all.
The recidivist behaviour I've seen so far includes:
-a male following a female student staring incessantly at her visible thong;
-a male "accidentally" bumps another male so that he grabs a female's breasts;
-two males staring down the shirt of a friend's mother and saying, after she walked away, "take good care of those" before the scene cuts away;
-a male--presmably drunk and ostensibly leaning in to kiss a woman who had not consented to it--headbutt her to the ground;
-two males talking about a female who "had breast reduction surgery" and referring to the idea as "slapping God across the face;"
-two guys plotting how to charm their way into a woman's pants: "I was so gone last night, I shouldn't have slept with that guy...We could be that mistake!"
All that in two 30-second commercials, folks.
The film's R rating primarily (since it comes first) derives from its "pervasive crude and sexual content." Cue the rant.
At what point does the train of American Pie-inspired garbage end? Sadly, only when the demand to see women treated as second-class, compliant, idiotic, sex receptacles has dissipated. Obviously that is not on the horizon. The film is made by the same asswads that brought us Talladega Nights and the 40-Year Old Virgin. People--mostly males in the 18-25 range--are going to line up and pay money to watch this movie, beginning next Friday, because it is what they want to see. They want to see the things they saw in the commercials and the trailer. Getting that little taste of what this movie offers will make them hungry to see more, to the point that they will set aside two hours and shell out $10 plus whatever snacks they so desire. They get a kick out of seeing women get headbutted by drunk men. They laugh when a guy follows a girl down a hallway staring incessantly at her backside. They are entertained by teenaged boys gazing their friend's "hot" mom. This is what they want, and it is being delivered to them.
Demand creates supply. Obviously the men behind this film believe that there is enough demand out there to offset the cost of making this movie. It won't be the #1 film at the box office, obviously. But it will end up making millions of dollars. Take that number and divide it by ten, and you will know how many young men out there get their rocks off by seeing girls humiliated and treated solely as objects of lust and as a goal. The attainment of a woman as pressing objective. To be more specific, the attainment of penetrating a woman as pressing objective. I hope that nobody I know goes to see this movie. I hope that nobody anybody at this forum knows goes to see this movie. I hope that nobody sees this movie and sends a signal that this type of hatred isn't desired. The first two may be possible, the last one, I readily concede is a pipe dream. And that's what disappoints me most of all.
21 July 2007
Summer Reading
With the Haligonian weather being its usual terrible self, I've had a good amount of time for reading lately. As I'm wont to do, here's my latest batch of readings and recommendations.
If you're interested in such topics as America's will to win the war on terror and tyranny, Clausewitz, and whether military personnel should pursue graduate-level education at civilian universities (and I'm looking through the Internet at my old Dal colleague, Rob, here), check out the latest issue of The American Interest. It's a journal that I usually look at online but I had to buy this one so that I could re-read it a couple times after the subscriber-only firewall goes up. It's one of their best issues and has had some very compelling reads.
Beyond that, I'm reading a book about Canadian intelligence services and another on the importance--and limitations--of intelligence in war. The latter is written by John Keegan, a truly fantastic historian whose histories of the world wars ought to be required reading for any aspiring historian/political scientist. I know that they were for me. Good old Nellis.
Also, BB's back posting at the Den, which is awesome.
Finally, think good thoughts for George Bush, as he's getting a colonoscopy. Remember, if it goes horribly, President Dick Cheney.
If you're interested in such topics as America's will to win the war on terror and tyranny, Clausewitz, and whether military personnel should pursue graduate-level education at civilian universities (and I'm looking through the Internet at my old Dal colleague, Rob, here), check out the latest issue of The American Interest. It's a journal that I usually look at online but I had to buy this one so that I could re-read it a couple times after the subscriber-only firewall goes up. It's one of their best issues and has had some very compelling reads.
Beyond that, I'm reading a book about Canadian intelligence services and another on the importance--and limitations--of intelligence in war. The latter is written by John Keegan, a truly fantastic historian whose histories of the world wars ought to be required reading for any aspiring historian/political scientist. I know that they were for me. Good old Nellis.
Also, BB's back posting at the Den, which is awesome.
Finally, think good thoughts for George Bush, as he's getting a colonoscopy. Remember, if it goes horribly, President Dick Cheney.
07 July 2007
Wouldn't That Mean Her Suffrage is Gone Too?
This week, as I occasionally do, I read Ann Coulter's column. If anybody ever wants to get a sense of what they do believe in, visit her site because you will either come away knowing that you're a conservative or fully assured that you are not. Me, I'm not. In this week's festival of hate she gives favourable review to a new conservative-penned tome and gives examples of just some of the many agreeable things she finds in its pages. The very first one she posted is another anti-feminist, anti-woman offering that she's become noted for. No doubt she'd find common cause with the traitors at REAL Women.
Women shouldn't vote: "What changed ... that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage."
Now I'll admit that I'm not in favour of big government running the show in all aspects of life. I'm still perplexed about Canada's waking up one morning in December 2005 and deciding that a state-funded and -run national daycare program was a top priority that deserved drowning out almost everything else for a week--even the environment. But that doesn't mean there aren't areas where I'm happy the government is calling the shots: health care and education immediately spring to mind.
What Coulter is saying--or, at least, endorsing--however, is that we should return to the bad old days of the 19th century when only white, property-owning males had the right to determine the make-up of their government. Simply astonishing. Does she forget that she's a woman, and thus her advocacy of ending women's suffrage would result in her losing her democratic rights to vote? What if the menz, once fully freed from having to deal with such cumbersome issues like educating children and protecting women from numerous forms of male violence, decided to go one further and start stripping away other women's rights, like their right to own their own property or have and create their own wealth? All of those proceeds from her hate-filled books would simply evaporate, and her platform would thus be lost. It is amazing that this woman of incredible privilege would come and state that every member of her gender should not be equal citizens. What's even worse is that there are millions of people who would agree with her.
Women shouldn't vote: "What changed ... that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage."
Now I'll admit that I'm not in favour of big government running the show in all aspects of life. I'm still perplexed about Canada's waking up one morning in December 2005 and deciding that a state-funded and -run national daycare program was a top priority that deserved drowning out almost everything else for a week--even the environment. But that doesn't mean there aren't areas where I'm happy the government is calling the shots: health care and education immediately spring to mind.
What Coulter is saying--or, at least, endorsing--however, is that we should return to the bad old days of the 19th century when only white, property-owning males had the right to determine the make-up of their government. Simply astonishing. Does she forget that she's a woman, and thus her advocacy of ending women's suffrage would result in her losing her democratic rights to vote? What if the menz, once fully freed from having to deal with such cumbersome issues like educating children and protecting women from numerous forms of male violence, decided to go one further and start stripping away other women's rights, like their right to own their own property or have and create their own wealth? All of those proceeds from her hate-filled books would simply evaporate, and her platform would thus be lost. It is amazing that this woman of incredible privilege would come and state that every member of her gender should not be equal citizens. What's even worse is that there are millions of people who would agree with her.
09 June 2007
Yuck
The latest exhibit of a sick society:
"Courts have seen the number of sex offense cases involving juvenile offenders rise dramatically in recent years, an Associated Press review of national statistics found, and treatment professionals say the offenders are getting younger and the crimes more violent."
There's more of them, and they're committing ever-more heinous crimes. Like o.a.g. says, it's not your imagination; things are, in fact, getting worse. Wonder where they're getting their inspiration? Could it be related to the increased prevalence of, and increased violence in, pornography?
This nutjob doesn't think so; indeed, he sees pornography as a safety valve against rape and other forms of sexual assault. Relying on the vile intellectual foundation that all men are inherently predisposed to rape women, he suggests that: "The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults." This is what we, in the academic community, heuristically refer to as "bullshit."
Fact: the FBI reports that the number of "forcible rapes" (is there any other kind?) has increased in the past 20 years by almost 3% Unless men raped nearly a million women in the United States in 1982 (and who knows, maybe they did, but that number would be off the charts compared to all other years in the FBI's numbers), there is no way that his number can be accurate.
Fact: less than 1-in-5 (19%) of women who have been sexually assaulted by men report the crime against their person to the police. And yes, it is men who are doing it, overwhelmingly: the US government reports: "Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of SV committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men."
With these two facts alone, it is incomprehensible how one can arrive at the conclusion that rape has practically vanished since 1982. Given that the proliferation of porn has resulted in a global value that exceeds that of the Hollywood film industry, how this individual can say that porn acts as a cathartic release for men to stop them from raping defies all reason. My guess: he's a porn addict looking to create a false pretense so that he can feel better about himself and his use of sexual exploitation of women for his own gratification.
"Courts have seen the number of sex offense cases involving juvenile offenders rise dramatically in recent years, an Associated Press review of national statistics found, and treatment professionals say the offenders are getting younger and the crimes more violent."
There's more of them, and they're committing ever-more heinous crimes. Like o.a.g. says, it's not your imagination; things are, in fact, getting worse. Wonder where they're getting their inspiration? Could it be related to the increased prevalence of, and increased violence in, pornography?
This nutjob doesn't think so; indeed, he sees pornography as a safety valve against rape and other forms of sexual assault. Relying on the vile intellectual foundation that all men are inherently predisposed to rape women, he suggests that: "The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults." This is what we, in the academic community, heuristically refer to as "bullshit."
Fact: the FBI reports that the number of "forcible rapes" (is there any other kind?) has increased in the past 20 years by almost 3% Unless men raped nearly a million women in the United States in 1982 (and who knows, maybe they did, but that number would be off the charts compared to all other years in the FBI's numbers), there is no way that his number can be accurate.
Fact: less than 1-in-5 (19%) of women who have been sexually assaulted by men report the crime against their person to the police. And yes, it is men who are doing it, overwhelmingly: the US government reports: "Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of SV committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men."
With these two facts alone, it is incomprehensible how one can arrive at the conclusion that rape has practically vanished since 1982. Given that the proliferation of porn has resulted in a global value that exceeds that of the Hollywood film industry, how this individual can say that porn acts as a cathartic release for men to stop them from raping defies all reason. My guess: he's a porn addict looking to create a false pretense so that he can feel better about himself and his use of sexual exploitation of women for his own gratification.
20 May 2007
Because I love and miss Kelowna, I try to do a respectable job of keeping informed regarding what's happening in my hometown and, to be frank, best place in the world. Today, while reading the daily Kelowna news at Castanet, I came across the disturbing story of a sexual assault on Abbott Street--a place not far from where I once lived. While the story itself is yet another example of male violence against women, my nose was further pushed out of joint (which is never fun when you've already had it broken once in your life) by the manner in which Castanet reported the story:
"A 28-year-old man is in police custody after a woman was sexually assaulted on Abbott Street early Sunday morning."
I'm not a fan of the passive voice being used to describe sexual assault. It makes it sound like rape is an invisible crime: *poof* a woman is sexually assaulted. Wrong. Men sexually assault women. Women aren't just sexually assaulted out of thin air. A more appropriate phrasing of the story would be thus:
"A 28-year old man is in police custody after allegedly* sexually assaulting a woman on Abbott Street early Sunday morning."
See the difference there? It's perfectly clear why the man is in custody, and shifts the onus on to him. To many this may seem like a quibble. The reality is far from the level of a quibble. By using the passive voice--the woman "was sexually assaulted"--it implies a disconnect. It is phrasing that is in the same line of thinking as giving advice left, right, and centre to women as to all the things they should do to avoid being sexually assaulted, while giving a free pass to the people that we should really be focusing our attention towards, namely, the men who rape. This will cause long-time readers to harken back to a post I wrote waaaayy back last October that gives men advice on how to not rape women, the type of "free advice" that we should be giving out on a regular basis, given the increasing number of reported rapes (which is still a pithy fraction of the actual number of sexual assaults).
So with that in mind, I would like to suggest to my readers that when they see stories of sexual assault reported in misleading fashion like the Castanet story above, send them a letter and urge them to report the story that squarely places the focus on the male act of sexual assault rather than the consequence of a female being sexually assaulted. Additionally, send me a link and I'll send one in too.
*I'm not a fan of using the word "allegedly," but I understand that news outlets have to use it in order to protect themselves from a libel suit if it turns out that the alleged assailant is found innocent (that's another can of worms, too!). That said, rape is the only crime in which people actually question whether anything really happened. Nobody ever asks if a murder victim is dead, but people sure do like to question whether a woman was violated against her will.
"A 28-year-old man is in police custody after a woman was sexually assaulted on Abbott Street early Sunday morning."
I'm not a fan of the passive voice being used to describe sexual assault. It makes it sound like rape is an invisible crime: *poof* a woman is sexually assaulted. Wrong. Men sexually assault women. Women aren't just sexually assaulted out of thin air. A more appropriate phrasing of the story would be thus:
"A 28-year old man is in police custody after allegedly* sexually assaulting a woman on Abbott Street early Sunday morning."
See the difference there? It's perfectly clear why the man is in custody, and shifts the onus on to him. To many this may seem like a quibble. The reality is far from the level of a quibble. By using the passive voice--the woman "was sexually assaulted"--it implies a disconnect. It is phrasing that is in the same line of thinking as giving advice left, right, and centre to women as to all the things they should do to avoid being sexually assaulted, while giving a free pass to the people that we should really be focusing our attention towards, namely, the men who rape. This will cause long-time readers to harken back to a post I wrote waaaayy back last October that gives men advice on how to not rape women, the type of "free advice" that we should be giving out on a regular basis, given the increasing number of reported rapes (which is still a pithy fraction of the actual number of sexual assaults).
So with that in mind, I would like to suggest to my readers that when they see stories of sexual assault reported in misleading fashion like the Castanet story above, send them a letter and urge them to report the story that squarely places the focus on the male act of sexual assault rather than the consequence of a female being sexually assaulted. Additionally, send me a link and I'll send one in too.
*I'm not a fan of using the word "allegedly," but I understand that news outlets have to use it in order to protect themselves from a libel suit if it turns out that the alleged assailant is found innocent (that's another can of worms, too!). That said, rape is the only crime in which people actually question whether anything really happened. Nobody ever asks if a murder victim is dead, but people sure do like to question whether a woman was violated against her will.
10 May 2007
End of an Era
As I sit here on Day 10 of the Great BC Adventure of 2007, I am faced with bad news that I knew would reach me no matter how great the holiday is.
First, Tony Blair has announced his resignation, effective June 27th. Blair has been a staple of global politics for the past decade, acting as a key ally of the United States and Canada on a number of issues, from terrorism to strengthening NATO to reeling in Slobodan Milosevic to presenting the case against Saddam Hussein. He has been at the tip of the sword when it comes to re-defining a number of key regimes in international relations, giving credence and legitimacy to concepts such as the responsibility to protect and acting on them. As liberal interventionists go, Blair boasts serious credentials that most neoconservatives can only aspire to. I will best remember this great British Prime Minister for his steadfast calm after 9/11 and standing firm by the United States as it sought to establish new rules for the War on Terror and Tyranny. Bob Woodward has a great quote from George W. Bush in his first book in the Bush at War series, as the President turned out to be awfully prophetic when he stated early on that within a few years, "only the Brits may be with us." So long as Tony Blair was at the helm, the United States had a staunch ally, friend, and supporter to boost the Washington-London special relationship.
The second bit of bad news is that a good friend in the blogosphere has all but packed it in as a result of receiving numerous death threats against herself and her children. Biting Beaver is a very strong feminist voice, the first feminist blog that Tasha and I read regularly and enjoyed for months. The extreme lengths to which the enemies of women went to silence her are despicable and hopefully they will be exposed and held accountable for such domestic terrorism.
On a last note, one far less negative, I've got five bucks each on the Sabres and the Ducks against my dad. Mostly this is here so that I remember it.
First, Tony Blair has announced his resignation, effective June 27th. Blair has been a staple of global politics for the past decade, acting as a key ally of the United States and Canada on a number of issues, from terrorism to strengthening NATO to reeling in Slobodan Milosevic to presenting the case against Saddam Hussein. He has been at the tip of the sword when it comes to re-defining a number of key regimes in international relations, giving credence and legitimacy to concepts such as the responsibility to protect and acting on them. As liberal interventionists go, Blair boasts serious credentials that most neoconservatives can only aspire to. I will best remember this great British Prime Minister for his steadfast calm after 9/11 and standing firm by the United States as it sought to establish new rules for the War on Terror and Tyranny. Bob Woodward has a great quote from George W. Bush in his first book in the Bush at War series, as the President turned out to be awfully prophetic when he stated early on that within a few years, "only the Brits may be with us." So long as Tony Blair was at the helm, the United States had a staunch ally, friend, and supporter to boost the Washington-London special relationship.
The second bit of bad news is that a good friend in the blogosphere has all but packed it in as a result of receiving numerous death threats against herself and her children. Biting Beaver is a very strong feminist voice, the first feminist blog that Tasha and I read regularly and enjoyed for months. The extreme lengths to which the enemies of women went to silence her are despicable and hopefully they will be exposed and held accountable for such domestic terrorism.
On a last note, one far less negative, I've got five bucks each on the Sabres and the Ducks against my dad. Mostly this is here so that I remember it.
19 April 2007
Random
- Year Zero is fantastic. Go buy it, make sure to note the change in CD colour after playing it. Be sure to check out: http://www.freerebelart.net and scare your friends too.
- Less than two weeks until I go back to the Okanagan. I can't wait. The weather here has been hideous lately, the job market has little for me, drivers are terrible (yet another close call in an intersection on Monday night), apples are obscenely expensive, and people frequently smoke in non-smoking areas.
- I'm reading a fictional book for the first time--anything Star Wars notwithstanding--since I can't remember. It's Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, on the recommendation of one Banana Doodle. Very chilling book about a dystopian future (what is up with all the dystopian future tales these days?) in which women have no rights at all. Best line: "Maybe boredom is erotic, when it is women doing it, for men." Wait, that's the current environment!
- Is bringing up the "global conscience" conference the best way to demonstrate Stephane Dion's leadership credentials? Not really. President by default of a talking head meet-n-schmooze isn't going to inspire Canadians when the overwhelming number of Canadians don't actually pay close attention to these types of conferences. What he needs is a nickname. It worked well for Chretien.
- I read the entire 70+ page US Supreme Court decision yesterday pertaining to the ruling in the so-called "partial birth abortion" legislation that Congress passed in 2003. Very informative reading, yet I am surprised and disappointed at the conclusion that the majority reached based on the information provided by the doctors who had the most experience and knowledge in performing abortions. Justice Ginsberg's dissent was impassioned and powerful, and I tend to agree with her: removing one of the safest methods of performing a second trimester abortion as an option seems to be an interference on the part of the state with a woman's sovereignty over her own body. Not surprisingly, Americans are largely divided along partisan lines, and the reaction is very strong from both camps.
- The playoffs just haven't been as fun to watch this year without Montreal in them.
- I managed to catch a show on PBS' America at the Crossroads series that was hosted and narrated by Richard Perle. Whatever mistakes have been made, America's course is still the right one, and I'm happy to see proponents of America's current grand strategy--the Bush Doctrine--still being given airtime.
- As feared, the murderer at Virginia Tech is increasingly appearing to be, at least partially, motivated by a hatred of women. A loner, a stalker, first victim was a woman, another woman reportedly shot in the eye. This wasn't the sole motivation--though apparently some rag in Britain posted a picture of Emily Hilscher with the headline "Was it an obsession with Emily that drove gunman to kill?" and a first sentence of "This is the face of the teenage student who may have sparked the biggest gun massacre in US history." It turns out that they never were an item, but for whatever reason, this paper was compelled to lay the blame on her as the cause of Cho's madness and violent rampage. Despicable. We obviously know that he was twisted and warped by a number of factors, but the all-too-common theme of misogyny is yet again a player in a man's determination to go on a path of slaughter.
11 April 2007
But Who Will Handle the Complex Files?
Don't let the headline above fool you, I am actually disappointed and very surprised by Belinda Stronach's announcement that she is going to return to Magna and not run in the next federal election. I've always had a lot of respect for Stronach, and that the way she was treated by her opponents, the media, and others was unfair and more than a little revelatory of the latent sexism of some pundits. We all know the things that were said about her, and they do not deserve to be repeated.
Stronach was a big supporter of post-secondary education, enhancing the role of women and youth in politics, and played a key role in etablishing the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance. Her father's company, Magna, is the driving force behind the The Next Great Prime Minister series, she led the task force that resulted in the Liberals' Pink Book, and has many other achievements in politics. This is a sad day for Canadian politics, and an even worse one for Stephane Dion (as I asked my pal Chucker a couple weeks ago, is there any situation in which Dion is not the biggest loser?), as he is losing one of his most recognizable forces and a strong female candidate.
All the best to Belinda Stronach back at Magna.
Stronach was a big supporter of post-secondary education, enhancing the role of women and youth in politics, and played a key role in etablishing the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance. Her father's company, Magna, is the driving force behind the The Next Great Prime Minister series, she led the task force that resulted in the Liberals' Pink Book, and has many other achievements in politics. This is a sad day for Canadian politics, and an even worse one for Stephane Dion (as I asked my pal Chucker a couple weeks ago, is there any situation in which Dion is not the biggest loser?), as he is losing one of his most recognizable forces and a strong female candidate.
All the best to Belinda Stronach back at Magna.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)