Thursday, 6 October 2011

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.

Wednesday, 5 October 2011

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!”

Monday, 3 October 2011

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.

Saturday, 1 October 2011

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 21st 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?

Thursday, 29 September 2011

A Privileged Life

A recent survey of 165 countries ranked Canada as the third best place in the world to be a woman. This survey attempted to analyze the expansive rights and the best quality of life for women by analyzing factors such as overall ratings of justice, health, education, economics and politics. Canada rated an overall 96.6 (out of 100) just behind Iceland in first and Sweden in second place. The worst 3 ranked places for women were Yemen (12.1 out of 100), Afghanistan (2.0 out of 100) and Chad (0 out of 100).

Seeing this study makes me feel really privileged to be a woman in Canada. Having access education and health care as well as the right to participate in the politics or economics, are small rights that I know I have taken for granted. To think that there is such a range of quality of life for women around the world makes me feel blessed but at the same time spoiled.

How often is it that we stop and appreciate the little things. For example, I recently moved in with a couple close friends. If I lived in a lot of other countries I could possible not have the right to leave my house let alone to live independently. I moved out of my parent’s home so I wouldn’t have to respond to anyone but myself, but really that nothing in comparison to some of the things that other women in the world are fighting for.

Much of the fight within feminism revolves around the fight for equal rights. This is a well-known fact. But how is it that we can create equality for ALL women of the world if there is such a disparity of quality of life. For starters how can we define equal quality of life since we are all holding such polarized definitions. And how can we make social institutions that allow women in countries that were poorly rated have a better quality of life without imposing our western ideals upon their way of life. Is any of this even possible?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2011/09/20/best-and-worst-countries-for-women-the-full-list.html

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

mademoiselle NO more

Feminist groups in France are seeking to remove the title mademoiselle on all official forms and replace it with the title madam. They argue that men are not asked to check off damoiseau (young, unmarried man) however women are asked to check off mademoiselle (young, unmarried women), making them to publically identify their marital status. They seek to remove the double standard between men and women in regards to formal titles.

I never thought about until discovering this article online but how much does the title of Ms., Miss., Mrs. or Mr. (North America’s equivalent of madam, mademoiselle, damoiseau or monsieur) say about an individual before you even know them. Those titles introduce not only our relationship status automatically, but also imply our gender. I can’t speak for everyone, but the fact that one several aspects of my life can be summed up by checking one box (i.e. Miss) on a form.

I wouldn’t blame French women for wanting to remove the title mademoiselle. Personally I think North American women should take a few pointers from our French sisters and think carefully about our titles and possibly even begin to petition them.

http://connexionfrance.com/Mademoiselle-anachronistic-madame-damoiseau-squire-young-unmarried-woman-13044-view-article.html

Don't try this to save your relationship

A Nova Scotian man has just been convicted of sexual assault (for a crime that happened way back in 2006, by the way). According to CBC, he had been dating a woman for several months when she began to talk about breaking up with him. He thought that if she got pregnant, it would save their relationship, so he poked holes in all their condoms, without her knowledge or consent. It sort of worked - the woman got pregnant, but when the man confessed to her, instead of being overjoyed, she called the cops.

Leaving aside the obvious - who could be that messed up to actually believe that this would save a relationship - the issue is whether this was sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault, which was the original charge brought against him.

Sexual assault, in Canada, is defined as sexual contact with a person against that person's will. Aggravated sexual assault is basically sexual assault that could potentially seriously harm/kill that individual. Rape with a weapon is aggravated sexual assault. Having unprotected sex with someone without telling that someone that you've got HIV/AIDS is aggravated sexual assault. But is having secretly unprotected sex with someone with the sole aim of getting them pregnant sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault?

Personally, I would argue the latter. The woman ended up getting an abortion, and got a uterus infection from that abortion. Whether or not you agree with that choice is up to you, but pregnancy itself can be pretty darn dangerous. According to the WHO, in 1995 500 000 women died worldwide of causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. 20 million of them experience ill-health related to their pregnancies. Deliberately impregnating someone against their knowledge warrants an aggravated sexual assault charge in my opinion. What do you think?