212,000 Reasons To End Animal Testing

On Friday UBC released the shocking number of animals that have undergone research testing at UBC in 2010: 212, 000. According to a spokesperson from the University “UBC has maintained over the last year and a half or so that they experimented on about 100,000 animals a year and yet the data released [Friday] for 2010 shows that the number of animals used at UBC has doubled.” According to another University representative 97% of those animals used in studies were rodents, mice, rats, fish and frogs. However, more than 4,000 medium to larger sized mammals were also used in research. In addition, UBC has confessed that 31 animals were exposed to highly invasive procedures which caused that animal stress, severe suffering or even death. The University did say that if the animal was to undergo a painful procedure they were administered anesthesia or pain medication.
            I’m sorry but how many animals do we need to test on? How many innocent animals do we need to expose to unnecessary poking and prodding? Not to mention that this outrageous number is only from one North American University Institution! I understand that research aids us in understanding the “laws of nature” but how is it at all ethical to use living creatures that are unable to give any kind of consent (especially if they are exposed to pain, suffering or death). Do we really need to experiment on so many un-consenting beings? To me reading this article provides me with 212, 000 reasons why we should search for new means of doing research. 212, 000 reasons why we should end animal testing.

Article Link

To Love, Honour and Cherish... your "upgraded" spouse

I am well aware that media is constantly selling us images of what we should and shouldn’t be, but I didn’t think I would see the day when the media would do this. The latest radio contest in Calgary, Alberta is “Upgrade Your Spouse”, a contest where one spouse can enter the other in to receive an “upgrade”. As quoted by the radio station webpage itself “get the trophy wife – or hubby – you’ve always wanted.” Such ‘upgrades’ include (in the order appearing on the webpage):

·         Breast augmentation

·         Tattoos (or tattoo removal)

·         Frown lines

·         Laser hair removal

·         Cooking classes

·         Sex drive

·         Shrink their waist or thighs

·         Driving lessons

·         Cleaning

·         Etiquette

·         Eyes

·         Dental work

·         Hairstyle

·         New wardrobe

·         Lingerie

·         Home gym

·         Spa treatments

·         Personal trainer

·         Post Secondary education

Uummm… really?! There is actually a contest to alter your spouse into a ‘trophy wife/husband’? As if we are not sent enough subconscious messages we are now making a game out of altering someone’s body/mind/life without their input!

            What gets me is the list of examples they give on the website of how you can ‘upgrade’ your spouse. Majority of the list consists of all things that will alter their body: from breast augmentation to laser hair removal, their body apparently isn’t good enough. I don’t want to think what it would be like to be on the receiving end of this contest; finding out that your spouse thinks there is something so fundamentally wrong with you that they will publically announce and enter you into a contest to alter you in some way. If you thought there was troubles in paradise before, ooh I’d just wait.

            While the idea of giving your spouse the option to get a post secondary education, this contest still raises the questions of self-agency. Does your spouse really not have the agency to complete the forms and do it for theirself? Not to mention, what if they don’t want to go to post secondary? While having a post secondary education is beneficial in today’s culture and economy, it is not for everyone. You don’t need a post secondary education to thrive. So what if you are someone who doesn’t want a post secondary education and your spouse enters you to win an education, what are they really trying to say? There are so many hidden messages within this contest that it makes me sick to think that some couples feel the need to alter the person that they ‘love’. The person whom they have proclaimed “to love, honour and cherish to death do they part”. But apparently that is completely true because apparently their spouse needs upgrading.

Upgrade Your Spouse Contest Link

The Right to Love and Be Loved

The CBC reported on an incident at an Ontario Tim Hortons, where after exchanging a kiss on the cheek a lesbian couple was asked to leave the premises. Apparently a patron complained about the couple’s exchange of affection to the manager who then asked the couple to leave. While I don’t know if it was in fact a kiss on the cheek or more than that I don’t know for sure from the article but it sounds like it was nothing more than you would see a heterosexual couple do in a public place.

I feel insulted for this couple that they were singled out like this. They have every right to show each other that they love and care for one another just as much as a hetero couple. If anything their affection should be applauded. They are two individuals who have enough courage in themselves to break the expected heterosexual norm, publically announce that yeah they are different but who gives a “flying f***”. Not only did they have the courage to come out publically but they were not afraid to demonstrate their affection for each other in a public place. Those are not easy things to do. For being afraid to be yourself, to be loved and to love in return I applaud these ladies!

According to the article there is a protest scheduled for Thursday at the Timmies where the incident took place. I wish everyone that attends all the best!

It shouldn’t matter your age, race, shape, size, colour, sexuality, ANYTHING! You love you love. The heart wants what it wants and to accept and acknowledge that your heart wants something out of what society considers the norm would not be an easy task. To any LGBTQ person or couple out there, be proud of who you are and don’t be afraid to show the world what an amazing person you are and/or your love for another.

Love is natural, comes in many different forms. So Ladies in Ontario, Go Kiss, Go Make Out in front of that Tim’s. You have just as much right as any heterosexual couple!

CBC Article: Kissing Lesbians Asked to Leave Tim Hortons

Adipositivity

I found this video and really liked the message it sent. Fat women are beautiful too.

Defining Beautiful

My little sister was watching “Say Yes to the Dress” on TLC yesterday when I started to notice something was framed differently about the show. Turns out it was actually “Say Yes to the Dress: Big Bliss”. It was a specially designed show for “larger” women to help them find their dream wedding dress. Why is it that they need to segregate women that are quote un-quote larger to their own show? Do we really hold that much of a social stigma around size that they need their own show?

I have to say seeing a separate show just for larger women made and still makes me mad. As wrong as it may be is being fat the new dimension by which we discriminate against people. TV keeps priding itself on becoming progressively more diverse and yes while you are showing these women going through the social ritual of marriage (specifically spending way too much money on a white dress) you have put them in their own category of human. They are no longer a bride, they are a “Big Bliss” Bride. By slapping that label on them to me that is as good as not having them in the public eye at all. It is a different form of censorship. It is showing that they are distinctly different and therefore need their own place in the media.

It is bad enough the covers of magazines are plastered with headlines reading “Who’s the Latest Fatty” or “Who Slipped from the Diet Wagon”. And those would be nice headlines compared to the ones you see around bikini season.

I truly don’t understand why the media can’t actually be progressive and inclusive in the end. When I first saw the movie Hairspray come out in theatres it made me so happy that they were showing an image that the “fat” girl can find happiness (even if that happiness is defined as a man). It was showing that everyone can achieve something. But now I look at what is around me and it feels like we have transformed back to the definition of skinny bitches. The Jersey Shore and Desperate Housewives version of femininity. I’m sorry Snookie but from they portray you like on TV, in my mind you are anything but what it means to be an everyday woman.

We need better images of what it is to be a woman. We need to let the world know that a woman isn’t and shouldn’t defined by her size. As for “Say Yes to the Dress: Big Bliss”, allow those women on your daily airing. They are no different than your other brides, so don’t make them feel different. There is more than one definition of beauty out there, so please can we establish woman as beautiful NOT skinny as beautiful!

Go Betty White!

This popped up on my newsfeed and I fell in love with it!

Drunkorexia

A new study released in the USA underlying an increasing prevalent issue on university and college campuses: Drunkorexia. Drunkorexia is a new eating disorder in which an individual purposefully cuts calories during the day to ‘allow’ thereself to binge drink that night. The individual (generally students) is motivated by the notion of getting drunk faster, saving money to spend solely on alcohol as well as a method to keep their weight down. This alarming new trend is suspected to be affecting 1 in 5 students, with the majority of affected individuals being women.

 In the report they examine not only this new emerging trend but also how this can negatively affect the individual’s mental and physical health as well as their personal safety. “Drunkorexics are at greater risk of becoming sexual assault victims and suffering from substance abuse and more severe eating disorders later in life” said Dr. Valerie Taylor, chief psychiatry at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.

I find it sad and alarming how much our society has become controlled by alcohol consumption. Not only does it affect our mental status, social relationships, self-image and economic factors but now it’s affecting our lives in an entirely new way by combining the all the above into one giant superpower ailment on both the individual and society.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Drunkorexia+growing+problem+campuses+research+suggests/5572827/story.html

Conservapedia

I bet you all thought that Conservapedia was a joke, didn't you? Well, sadly for all thinking people on the planet, it's not. Conservapedia was started in 2006 by Andy Schafly, to counter the 'liberal bias' found in Wikipedia (otherwise known as facts) and to promote a Christian conservative viewpoint. It certainly does that.

A quick scan of its 'Feminism' page provides many laughs, but also many genuinely incorrect viewpoints that are hurtful to the feminist cause. I have boldly waded in to counter some of the more, ah, radical claims made in Conservapedia. Sit back and enjoy. Oh, and by the way, the URL is http://conservapedia.com/Feminism, if you think I'm joking. I'm not.

"Specifically, a modern feminist denies or downplays differences between men and women, opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women, and seeks to participate in predominantly male activities, including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse with women."

Modern feminist, in their definition, is 1970s onwards. They seem to have no bones with the suffragettes of the 1920s...other than the fact that they inspired modern feminism. First off, the accusation that modern feminism opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women.

This is patently false. What feminism encourages, in a word, is choice. Pre-feminism, when women had no rights, they had no choice. They had to be homemakers and mothers. Now, feminism has allowed women to pursue what they want to do. If you want to be a homemaker and a mother, that's fantastic! Go and pursue those dreams! If you don't want to, that is splendid too.

Next up is the claim that we want to participate in predominantly male activities. Fine. You got me there. Predominantly male activities is pretty much anything and everything. Even cooking, which is one of the favored insults leveled at a feminist ("Get back in the kitchen, woman!") is dominated by men (the Culinary Institute of America has twice as many men as women). So yes, I'm going to say that feminists do want to participate in predominantly male activities, and make them equal activities.

And as for the lesbian claim...well, sure. If that's your schtick, go for it.

They've got a list of traits that will identify the Modern Feminist too, and here they are (cut for time):

"Oppose chivalry"
This one I kind of see as a depends-on-your-viewpoint thing. Some feminists, I know, are offended by chivalry. Their view is that chivalry is based on the presupposition that women are helpless and can't do anything for themselves, and carrying on these traditions is just enforcing that view. There are also women who see chivalry as something harmless, that men can carry on if they want to, or not, for all they care. My view on this is that chivalry is something that should be practised by both genders. To me, chivalry is manners. So hold doors for people; pay for the dinner if you asked the person out; share your umbrella. Be a decent person. I promise, it's not that hard.

"Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family"
Please see above point. Feminism, as I said, is about choices. If that is your choice, then feminism is behind it 100%.

"Shirk traditional gender activities, like baking"
God damn it. Someone should have told me that my modern feminist card would be revoked if I baked anything before I made those biscotti this afternoon. Again, this falls under sweeping generalizations, and we can only go back to the choice point.

"Prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"
Whether or not a man wears it is really beside the point when it comes to my sartorial choices. And in fact, I seem to remember a lot of shaming from the religious right if a guy wears jeans that are considered 'feminine.' Funny, that. At any rate, I wear pants and dresses, where pants are appropriate and where dresses are appropriate. Pants make life a lot easier - everything from walking down the street to working on a construction site is easier when you're wearing pants. Plus, you don't have to worry about windy days. Pants are a convenience thing; which is, I imagine, why guys started wearing them.

"Seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines"
This is a serious question. Should women serve in the military? Of course, it's only serious in the U.S., where women, although they can serve in non-combat roles in the military, are prohibited from actually being in the front lines. In Canada, both men and women serve in combat roles. The general arguments leveled against it are that women are, on average, less strong than men; and women when captured can face a whole other level of serious torture (eg. rape). The way that Canada dealt with it was extensive conditioning for both men and women in combat roles; so that when they're actually fighting, they're fit as they can be. And as for the heightened danger for women in combat roles: if a woman decides that she wants to brave that because she wants to serve her country, kudos to her. Another related question is whether women should be exempt from the draft. I say no: if you're going to agree that both men and women can serve equally in the military, then you're going to have to say that both men and women will be called up to fight when there is a need for it.

"Distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (eg. Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign)"
This one is just funny. The reason why Henry VIII's wives take precedence is not because of a dire feminist conspiracy to throw them into the limelight, but because they kind of took precedence in his lifetime, too. Henry was a bit of a ladies' man. We remember his wives because he set aside one to marry another for a son, and in doing so created a serious diplomatic relations disaster with Spain and split from the Catholic Church, creating the Church of England of which he was head. Shortly after he married that wife, he beheaded her. His penchant for divorcing wives and beheading them is well-known because it's a pretty major part of his character, and drove a lot of his actions.

"Believe marriage implies female servitude when it is in fact a mutual bond"
I absolutely agree with this one. It should be taken in context with the next point, however...
"Often condemn the God-Given order of gender roles, as laid out in the Holy Bible"
...which is frequently quoted by conservatives as evidence for wives being subservient to husbands. So this one doesn't quite add up.

"Object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey;" object to other female-only names, such as "temptress""
Gee, I can't imagine why we would object to being named temptresses.

And the last one, my personal favorite:
"Support of the homosexual agenda"
The "homosexual agenda," as defined by Conservapedia, is the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle as healthy and normal (start clutching your pearls now) by homosexuals, who desire acceptance and approval of their actions.

Okay, again, you've got me. I, personally, am behind this homosexual agenda. Sign me right up. It raises an interesting question, however - should feminism, by definition, promote homosexual rights?

Feminism is the belief in/action towards full equality between the genders/sexes. In my opinion, this encompasses LGBTQ rights as well. If women or men don't have the right to marry and love whomever they want without censure, then they don't have equal rights. There can be no equality in society without every single individual having equal rights. If you give heterosexuals the right to marry and love, then you must give LGBTQ people this right as well. Feminism has to stand behind these rights, if they want true equality.

So there you have it, feminism straight from Conservapedia! If you consider yourself a modern feminist and you don't quite match up to their guidelines, don't worry. There are a lot worse things than being hated by Conservapedia. In fact, I'd say being hated by Conservapedia is a sure sign you're doing something right.

The Cherry on my Sundae: Female Orgasm

I am doing research for a project and trying to find articles on female sexuality and sexual experiences. Basically, trying to demonstrate how sex can be liberating for women as well as men. When I start my search for academic articles I didn’t think it would be too difficult. Sadly I was mistaken. For not only when I search “female sexuality” in a database do I get wide array of almost everything but an article that will assist me in my project.

But the one thing that really got me was when I entered “female orgasm” into the data base the first key word that the search engine generated along with the results was “sexual dysfunction”! I still cannot believe it! Sexual dysfunction was linked to female orgasm! To me this is a huge red flag that while we might be progressing in our beliefs towards female sexuality we still have a long ways to go!  Empirically women are not as likely to achieve orgasm, compared to men, but that doesn’t mean they should be socially less entitled to pleasure during sex. Female orgasm isn’t a dysfunction within their sexuality; it is a perk, a benefit, the cherry on your ice cream sundae per se. Anything but a negative of sexual relations.

Now to be fair I didn’t look up what would happen if I typed in “male orgasm” into the search engine, but if it did come up with the top key word of “sexual dysfunction” what is that saying about our societies overall views towards sex. It appears sexual pleasure isn’t as universally accepted as pop-culture makes it out to be (but that’s opening a whole other can of worms).

One Way to Make Your Point

I have heard of radical protesting before but it is not often it is caught on tape while it occured during a meeting between the Canadian High Comissioner and the UK. Watch and enjoy!

Sexy Protesting Video Link

Occupy Calgary's Success

Congrads Calgary on a successful protest today! At 1pm over 500 protestors started out at Bankers Hall and marched along downtown streets to the Olympic Plaza. Police have reported no arrests were made during the protest and the demonstrated maintain a peaceful manner. Congrads Calgary! I truly believe that you were able to get your message across!

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Occupy+Calgary+draws+about+protesters/5556758/story.html

Royal Succession up for Debate

The British monarchy has recently brought into question the current means of succession to the throne. Presently, if Kate and William produce a son, regardless if he is first born will be entitled to the crown. British Prime Minister David Cameron has sent a letter to British Colonies proposing a change to British law allowing the first born, regardless of their sex to be able to take the thrown.

For the first time 300 years of royal succession, placement of the thrown could be determined by factors other than one’s sex at birth. While the whole system might have reconstruction to do (i.e. maybe allow the child to have autonomy over whether or not they want to be king/queen for starters), this is a large step towards recognizing that tradition doesn’t make it right: tradition only a social tool to legitimize your actions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/13/pol-harper-royal-succession.html

Occupy Calgary

Calgary demonstrators set up camp in St. Patrick Park on Tuesday in reaction to the Occupy WallStreet protests in New York. The series of protests are aimed at rallying against business and corporate greed; the 1% of society that holds the wealth.  A march is planned for 1pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011 through Downtown Calgary. Thus far a couple warnings however no charges have been laid at this time.

Unlike Occupy WallSteet I hope Calgary is able to raise some hell, well peacefully that is. Take over for NY and make the cause known. Present the cause to the world and let it known the extreme discrepancies in wealth that exist throughout the world. If 1% of the world hold all the power then how much power does the average citizen have. Take back that power Calgary.

            However, do it in a nice manner Calgary. You can’t make an impression on society if you are obnoxious about it. You need to push the boundaries, not break them otherwise your actions will get the attention not the cause. Make a difference Calgary!

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/police+called+to+occupy+calgary+camp/6442500815/story.html

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/occupy+calgary+demonstration+planned+for+this+weekend/6442498796/story.html

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/now+trending+occupy+wall+street+movement+spreads+on+social+media/6442490356/story.html

  

The Googlher

Apparently a new product, the Googlher, a Google powered vibrator has recently come on the market. The Googlher, is a bullet vibrator set to vibrate every time Google pings your web browser. So literally you receive pleasure for surfing the web. Interesting concept but I don't know if I would get much work done.

Google Powered Vibrator Video

Halloween Double Standards

Yesterday, my friend and I decided to spend some time window shopping. When we got to the mall we came across a Halloween store and decided to go in. I thought it would be exciting seeing all the different costumes and decorations however I ended up walking out of there a little more appalled than excited for the upcoming holiday.

            While there was decorations (all gory by the way) the majority of the store was dedicated to costumes. However when I began to take a closer look at the costumes for women I began to notice a disturbing trend: they were all slutty! The only costume my friend and I could find in the store that wasn’t at all revealing was a nun costume. A nun costume, go figure. Everything else from a fairy to German beer maid consisted of almost more packaging that it did fabric on the costume! Has Halloween become marketed as the whore of all holidays? Halloween used to be about pumpkins, witches and ghosts now it appears to be another excuse for us to sell sex.

            Something else that upset me was the differences between men and women’s costumes. I didn’t see a single “sexy” men’s costume. Instead they were long trench coats of doctors or uniforms of soldiers. Not only were they given noble occupations to dress up as but they were not showing a bit of skin. The first outfit I saw for women was a “sexy” M&M costume which barely covered her who-ha let alone anything else. Women get M&M costumes and men get doctors and soldiers. What kind of double standard is this?

            Women need the option to dress up for Halloween but not as sexed objects but as subjects with purpose. I realize sex sells but common people really a slutty M&M is what you find appealing?

Women Making History

For the first time since 2004 a woman – well actually three women – have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their contributions to promoting peace, democracy and gender equality. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf  and her compatriot, Leymah Gbowee of Liberia as well as Tawakkol Karman of Yemen were all awarded the Peace Prize yesterday.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is the first woman to be elected president in modern Africa and was awarded the prize for her efforts and accomplishments of bringing peace to Liberia. Tawakkol Karman was awarded the prize for her insistence that the United States removal of support of President Saleh’s regime which Karman characterized as a corrupt failure.

Congratulations to all three women! Not only are your accomplishments amazing but you have shown young women all around the world that women are capable of being leaders as well as capable of initiating change. For this we thank you!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/world/nobel-peace-prize-johnson-sirleaf-gbowee-karman.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Please Give All the Single Ladies a Positive Message

“Run the World (Girls)” by Beyonce has become a popular song in the media lately, including its latest inclusion in the hit show Glee. I will admit I am a definite Gleek however I have lost a little respect for a show that claims to be progressive, (by battling issues of discrimination and inclusion) after airing such an insulting song. While I am aware that Beyonce was trying to be progressive and show that women can be powerful, I strongly feel she went about it all the wrong ways.

For example in the song it explicitly states “My persuasion can build a nation; endless power; our love we can devour; you'll do anything for me.” Both first and second wave feminists while they were fighting to end women’s oppression they never mentioned the need to establish a matriarchy. Most of my experience is with creating a balance of men and women in power, not a need to establish a female dominated power system.

Not only do some lyrics and the underlying notions of matriarchy get to me but if you have seen the music video it doesn’t leave much to the imagination. I am well aware that music videos in general at present are rather “revealing”. But in a song that is supposed to be radical and an expression of female strength why are all the women in the video parading around in corset’s and fishnets? Their choice of clothing is only feeding into patriarchal notions of male dominance within advertising and media, that women are best displayed as sex objects.

While Beyonce may have good intentions of showing society that women can be powerful, in my mind she went about in all the wrong directions. Women don’t need to rule the world, women just need to be allowed to have a more assertive voice within mainstream society. And if women are about to rule the world in those clothes I am not sure how much of an actual impact they would make in establishing social change. So nice try Beyonce but please try again.

Appealing to the Senses

When I was searching the net today I came across this post secret. It makes me to see that someone has fallen so hard. Mental health is a huge issue in today’s society. It is suspected that 1 in 5 individuals will suffer from mental health issues in their life time. That number is huge! If you were to put five of your closest friends in a room statistically one or more of them suffers from mental illness. But out of those affected, for a variety of reasons will never seek medical diagnosis or attention. It isn’t healthy for the affected individual or anyone around them to go untreated. Mental illness is like any other medical issue in the sense that if left untreated it can progress to a state similar to that of the author of this post secret.

While you cannot see mental illness it doesn't mean it should be a silent disease.

http://www.cmha.ca/bins/content_page.asp?cid=6-20-23-43 

http://www.postsecret.com/

What is a Feminist?

I saw this comic and it made me think of all of the ways in which all feminism is stereotyped as radical man-hating hippies that doesn’t shave, smell from refusing to shower (in order to conserve water or protesting against “the man”) and burn bras in protest. That is really anything but the case.

But then what is it that makes a feminist? For me a feminist is a warrior for equality. Someone who believes in universal equal rights and isn’t afraid to stand-up for those rights. While historically that did mean the occasionally hairy woman who burnt bras, today’s definition of a feminist would not be the same. We have learned new, innovative and efficient ways to make our point without having to destroy our underwear in the process. We have redefined what it means to be a woman and ultimately what it means to be a feminist, to be more inclusive and accepting. We have created an environment where being feminist isn’t a crazy radical notion but a way of life, a way of acceptance.

It is because of that that I can proudly say: “I am a feminist!”

Reclaiming the word

In case you've been living under a rock these past few months, Slutwalk was originally started when a Toronto policeman gave this advice to a crowd of women: If you want to avoid rape, don't dress like sluts.

These are the statistics - one in four North American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, 80% of sexual assaults occur in the home, 80% of victims are assaulted by someone that they know, and 60% of victims are under the age of 17. (statistics come from www.sexassault.ca/statistics )

We don't all dress like 'sluts' when we are raped. Slut is a social construct, used whenever someone feels that it's necessary to take that woman down a peg. It's been an insult and a dirty word for as long as anyone can remember. You can be called a slut pretty much any time, no matter what you're wearing or how you're acting. Probably every woman has been called a slut at some point in her life.

Slutwalk originated as a protest against this policeman's narrow and victim-blaming attitude. It was called Slutwalk because that's essentially what the policeman called all victims of rape: you must have asked for it, you were dressing like a slut. How else was the poor rapist supposed to act towards you?

Slutwalk spread across the globe, with protests occuring in Toronto (the home town), New York City, Calgary, Indonesia, South Africa, Berlin. Men, women, children all walked in every type of dress, holding signs, just to tell victim-blamers that no one asks to be raped, that rape victims have only one thing in common - that they were raped, and that it's not their fault.
But some have taken offense at the word Slutwalk. Organizers have claimed that they are trying to reclaim the word slut, to make it so that it's not an insult to call a woman that any more, for people to acknowledge that slut really has no definition except something to make a woman feel shamed. They're trying to reverse that shame. The naysayers are arguing that no one should want to reclaim the word slut, that it's a dirty word and it should stay in the cupboard of shame. They aren't arguing against the idea of Slutwalk, simply with the connotations of the word slut.

I've heard both sides of the argument, and I agree with neither. To me, Slutwalk is more than reclaiming the word slut. I support Slutwalk no matter what it's called, because the concept behind it is more than reclaiming the word or denying it. Slutwalk, to me, is saying that no one has the right to blame me for something that is out of my control. If I am raped, it isn't my fault. Slutwalk is about telling the victim-blamers that no woman should ever, ever be blamed for her rape. Every woman should get justice for her rape, no matter what she was wearing or what she was doing or what she was drinking. That instead of teaching a woman all the rules that we all know (don't drink, don't walk outside after dark, don't wear a skirt, don't look a man in the eye, don't take the same route home twice, don't go someplace alone) and telling her that it's her fault if she doesn't follow them, we should be telling men a very simple, easy rule: Do Not Rape. The onus should be on a man not to rape, not on a woman to not get raped.

That's why I'm going to be going to the next Slutwalk. That's why I don't care if you call it Slutwalk or Rapists Should Go To Prison Walk or Anti-Victim-Blaming Walk. They all boil down to the same thing: it's not your fault. It's not your fault.

A "Modern" Family

My roommate recently introduced me to the tv show “Modern Family”. If you haven’t watched it yet, I would highly recommend giving it a try. The sitcom creates humour by playing of stereotypes the ideal North American family. Two characters in the show, Cameron and Mitchel are a gay couple who have recently adopted a little baby girl from Vietnam. One thing that gets me about their relationship is that they are never seen kissing on the show. They get close to showing affection, such as a peck on the check or a hug but never actually displaying the same levels of PDA (public displays of affection) as either of the other heterosexual couples on the show. It makes me wonder how much of our television is censored. We are allowed to see a heterosexual couple display affection in greater graphic depiction but when it comes to a homosexual relationship we don’t hold it to the same standards.

I am by not any means bashing “Modern Family”. I for one quite enjoy it! It is a progressive show in that they are displaying a 21^st century model of family. But what does make me angry is how much our society still holds a heterosexual bias. What makes being straight so much better than being gay? In my mind, nothing. Shouldn’t love be love be love be love. Nothing is going to happen to our children if we demonstrate to them images of two men or two women, or heaven forbid a transvestite, or anything out of the norm, being affectionate with each other compared. Yes it could potentially result in a change in what we consider the “Normal” North American family. However isn’t the definition of a normal family changing at this moment? Hasn’t it always been changing? Won’t it always continue to change? So why it is still so taboo to allow characters on television, such as Cam and Mitch, to display PDA on prime time? Shouldn’t the “Modern Family” be open to progressively changing view of family and allow them to show just much affection as the heterosexual couples displayed?