Links - February 18, 2013

Links Roundup for February 18, 2013

Feminist Current - Girls explains the difference between porn and nudity in half an hour (nsfw)

Feminist Current - There is No Feminist War on Sex Workers

CODE RED for gender justice! - Can One Billion Rising End Violence Against Women?

Michael Laxer - No exception for Assange: Rape apologetics and the left

Candice Chung - Do men really prefer rental girlfriends?

Zoe Williams - Baby health crisis in Indonesia as formula companies push products

Michael Zhang  - Woman Photographs Herself Receiving Strange Looks in Public 

 Mike Blanchfield - Highway Of Tears: Human Rights Watch Alleges RCMP Officers Raped, Abused Aboriginals In BC

Rebecca Watson - The Privilege Delusion

Bo Winegard and Ben Winegard - The New Atheists, Political Narratives, and the Betrayal of the Enlightenment The Real Delusion: Part 1

White Western Agenda Within Charity Organizations such as World Vision

found here

* This post has been revised and updated as of November 29, 2012* 

Some interesting topics were brought up in my WMST class today...
We were going through our end of semester project presentations and one woman mentioned UNICEF and UNICEF's attempts to eradicate female genital cutting in Egypt. This led to a conversation about the practice in class and how charity organizations operate and the framework they work within.

It became clear that oppression, inequality etc was not being properly addressed due to many organizations' adherence to a westernized, colonialist agenda.

When I think of UNICEF, I often think of a Christian group that is similar to say, World Vision. I have just learned, however, that UNICEF stemmed from the UN, although. Nevertheless, as many of you may remember, some Christian groups would often send out their children to gather money for UNICEF during Halloween, usually done by their church. This seems to happen with a lot of so-called 'neutral' or 'secular' organizations.

So, what I began to ponder is how are these so-called 'secular' organizations operating from such a white Judeo-Christian perspective (i.e. Church-based organizations receiving funds for children around the world) to deal with poverty that has REAL causes that are being blatantly ignored, offering real hope or change? What is change if it comes at the cost of having to discord one's own culture and belief systems in order to receive assistance from white-dominated Western organizations. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the folks at World Vision are malicious  in fact, i'm positive they are doing what they think is right and have their hearts in the right place for the most part. However, their conditional and often gendered policies based on Christian beliefs, political motives and impacts on local communities is problematic. 

photo from here

But I digress, one of the women in this class, who I am quite fond of, brought up the point that it is difficult to give money to many large charities because one does not know if there are any strings attached or conditions in place.

 And so, it is important to ponder:  1) is the money actually getting to the people who need it and is it being used by those people alone?  2) Does the organization earn any money from the donations? 3) Does the money get used exactly how it was intended? And 4) Does the group of people needing the charity have to take part in particular activities or adopt similar religious, spiritual and cultural beliefs in order to receive funding from these organizations?

The problem with asking these questions though, is that you'll never be able to find an honest answer because many of these organizations are large, transnational entities and many do have strings-attached.

World Vision, is probably one of the most popular and well-known charities around the world, but particularly in North America. It is clear from both the advertising they circulate and their website that they are operating from a particularly religious framework.

And now, many of you may be asking "So, what's wrong with a Christian group spreading charity to other countries?"

Well, nothing is wrong per say with the people who want to help out others and ally with World Vision but there are problems with charities that give funds while taking part in a kind of neo-colonialism. This neo-colonialism stems from attaching conditions regarding religion and culture, onto those funds. World Vision is a large-scale charity that often tries to “develop" non-Western nations (fund them, build schools and teach their children European, white curriculum, build them roads etc.) by spreading the word of Jesus Christ through communities with diverse religious and spiritual beliefs.

According to their website, World Vision’s stated goal is "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God." This group works on six continents and has total revenue of 2.6 billion dollars. 

It is important, firstly, to unpack the mission statement of World Vision,

"To follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God."^[3]

I will list various problems with this statement,

1) It attaches condition to the charity being given– one must accept a Christian spirituality and Western, Christian values to receive aid.

2) Since the charity is based on one notion of spirituality, it restricts the choices of the people living in the communities assisted by World Vision. 

3) Christianity, evangelical Christianity especially, has many beliefs based in westernized, white-dominated, patriarchal and hetero-normative frameworks. It thus poses a danger to women's rights, particularly women's labour and land rights as well as their reproductive rights and access to appropriate healthcare. 

4) This idea of “human transformation” under evangelical Christianity is only one notion of “being human” and is thus horribly restrictive to individuals who do not deem Christianity as the “correct” way one's life, especially people who likely already have their own cultural spiritual beliefs. 

The language of “poor” and “oppressed”however, is by far the most disturbing and unfortunately  the most common. The notion of “poor” is often defined differently in the West and may not apply to everyone. In the West, we base poverty on how little money and access to resources someone has. 

Why is our definition of poor the correct definition? Why does our reality have to apply to everyone else? 

The Trobriand Islanders, for example, do not rely on a money-based economy and yet, manage to supply everyone in the community with what they need. Here, there is less gender stratification, if any, and you become "rich" not by gaining for yourself, but by giving to others. Social capital trumps money in this community and yet, most Westerners would consider these people "poor."

It is really quite demeaning to call these people “poor” based on our narrow definitions and our own worldview. 

5) “Justice” is used by World Vision, but I’m not sure in what context. Do they mean justice as in ‘following the rules of our religious beliefs and thus altering the way one lives their life to fit the Christian way of life?’ Why do other cultures need wealthy, white Christian groups to give them justice? What is this idea of justice, anyway?

6) The kingdom of God is mentioned again - an essentialist view of the afterlife provided to us by White Christian groups like World Vision. How dare they tell other cultures that their beliefs are incorrect and their way of life will not get them in the “kingdom of God”? The only thing different from old school colonialism and World Vision’s approach is that World Vision is willing to give money in return for another non-Western nation to disregard their own heritage, beliefs and culture.

Also, and very importantly, there is an obvious power struggle between the charity groups like World Vision and those receiving the charity. This is a fundamental problem with many of these groups as they are often dominated by white, western males. These groups have millions of dollars and a very Westernized perception of reality and they claim these people are all victims of this ‘unknown’ oppression caused by ‘unknown’ things (or possibly ‘god’s wrath’). The "poor people" shown on World Vision commercials just are poor...because...they're poor...The discourse of World Vision ignores colonialism, globalization and neo-liberal capitalist policies and their role in inequalities and poverty all over the globe. 

In their advertisements, a famous, almost always white man or woman sits next to a non-white/non-Western child and tells the camera about how awful that child’s life is. They speak over the child, as if the child is not even there. Of course, the 6 year old was likely unable to give informed consent. Then, they tell the audience that the child has lost his or her mother or father and now has to take care of his or her brothers and sisters. They talk about this child’s parent as if the child is not even in the same vicinity as the speaker. How would they feel if some stranger was talking about their life and their experiences in a way that showcased them as ‘poor’ or ‘oppressed’ to the rest of the world? How dare they define these experiences for them and in front of them? Often the World Vision folks will have a camera on a child as he or she cries, they will zoom in on the tears. It is likely that this child has no idea what these people are saying as language was probably a barrier. After the speaker tells about how awful the child’s life is, they let the audience know how adopting a child (by adopt, they mean send money to a child over several years) will make the audience members feel good about themselves and better the world. They say that you will feel great about yourself but really, you merely continue to live a life of unsustainable abundance off the backs of exploited workers who work on less than 2$ a day. 

Bottom line: We need to be far more critical of organizations and groups that are discussed in the mainstream media as being moral, concerned and most importantly, politically-neutral. If they want to help, they must stop denying the reasons why the poverty and inequality exists in the first place. 

"Boner Killing" is Violence Against Teh Menz?

I've just been informed by an Anonymous poster that my blog title, "Boner Killer" is encouraging and perpetuating "sexual violence" towards men. 


Now that I have finished my lengthy guffaw from the mere shock of the comment, lets hear your thoughts...especially those of you who have expressed a love for my blog title.


Just for the record, Anonymous, killing a boner implies that I am taking away a boner. It does not imply that I literally take to the streets to castrate men and somehow physically overpower them. It certainly doesn ot imply that I, or any other woman for that matter, has the societal power to even walk up to a man in the same way they would walk up to us prior to an assault. This scenario would likely have a pretty rare place in our society, given how women are systematically treated by men around the world. I mean, we can't even go for a walk in the evenings without fearing rape or harassment. 


But I digress. Let's get back to what "boner killer" means...


When someone refers to someone else as a "boner killer" they mean that the other person is a sort of wrecker-of-fun - someone who is attempting to destroy a man's boner or his "good time" somehow. An example of this is my blog search-terms. After the Black Swan came out on DVD, many people were searching "Black Swan Boner Killer" and this would bring them to my blog. It is likely the Black Swan was referred to this way because the film did not contain an amount of boner-inducing zest for these dudes and so they said it was a "boner killer." 


Women who refuse to live up to conventional beauty standards and fail to give a rat's arse about giving dude's the jollies in their trousers are often called "Boner Killers" - that is why this blog is titled as such. 


Personally, it terribly unfortunate to me that someone came here to comment and pretend that sexual violence perpetrated by women against men is a relevant concern in our world - considering how pervasive violence against women is, systematically and otherwise. This is not suggesting that men are not sexually abused or harmed by women. The large majority the of sexual abuse and assault against boys and men are committed by other men. However, this blog is about women and the realities that women face; grim realities. They are everywhere. It is happening every moment of every day, somewhere in the world.

So, to those who wish to comment (those who follow my comment policy) here is my question to you: Are men really at risk for "sexual violence" because of my desire to turn a bonerfied woody into a damp sock? Will gaggles of women take to the streets to be "sexually violent" towards men? Your thoughts...


Oh, and just a reminder, Anonymous comments do not get published - this has been in my comment policy since day one and so adequate warning has been provided. 






Photo found here

Psychology, Pedophilia and Patriarchy - The Three P's of this Post

          ***TRIGGER WARNING FOR SEXUAL ABUSE***

This past May I wrote a blog called "DSM-V Presents "Paraphilic Coercive Disorder" which was basically a jargon-filled name for "Rapist Disorder." In the post, I expressed concern about the DSM V and its impact on victims of rape and violence and this concern has not been lost. There appears to be more controversial buzz surrounding the DSM V and it has left me with a sour gut. This time, however, the proposed revisions for the DSM V have ignited a reaction from a pedophile support group called B4U-ACT. This group is composed of people who claim to be "minor attracted people" rather than pedophiles and who do not actually rape or abuse children. They claim to be attracted to children and do not act out on their "impulses" and assert to help pedophiles avoid physically harming children. They feel the DSM V is being unfair with a proposed revision on pedophilia. 

Before getting started on the article that brought this all to my attention, I took it upon myself to go to the DSM V website and look at the revision list for pedophilia. This is what I found:

Pedohebephilic Disorder

A.    Over a period of at least six months, one or both of the following, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors:

(1)    recurrent and intense sexual arousal from prepubescent or pubescent children [5]

(2)   equal or greater arousal from such children than from physically mature individuals [6]

B.     One or more of the following signs or symptoms:

(1)   the person has clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning from sexual attraction to children

(2)   the person has sought sexual stimulation, on separate occasions, from either of the following:

(a)    two or more different children, if both are prepubescent

(b)   three or more different children, if one or more are pubescent [7]

(3)   repeated use of , and greater arousal from, pornography depicting prepubescent or pubescent children than from pornography depicting physically mature persons, for a period of six months or longer [8]

C.     The person is at least age 18 years and at least five years older than the children in Criterion A or Criterion B.

Specify type:

Pedophilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Prepubescent Children (Generally Younger than 11)

Hebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Pubescent Children (Generally Age 11 through 14)

Pedohebephilic Type—Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

In Remission (No Distress, Impairment, or Recurring Behavior and in an Uncontrolled Environment): State duration of remission in months: ____

In a Controlled Environment

***

Information obtained from http://www.dsm5.org 

All information belongs to the American Psychological Association, 2010

***

What follows will be the article from the Salon and my commentary added in bold. To read the article uninterrupted by my commentary, see here. 

We usually hear pedophilia talked about in terms of mental illness -- if not evil -- but Aug. 17 a motley crew of self-identified "minor-attracted persons" and mental health professionals have gathered in Boston to talk about it as a sexual identity. [This appears to be an example of "identity politics" and its merger with the psychology community] At hand is an issue deeply important to both groups: the revision of the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

The sponsor of the event, B4U-ACT, a support group aimed at preventing pedophiles from acting on their attraction to children, hopes to influence the relevant entry in the upcoming revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. [I am glad people want to prevent pedophiles from raping kids but why are we viewing pedophilia as some legitimate "condition?" How can we assume that pedophilia is a naturally occuring disorder that some people are just "born" with? We must think critically about such things rather than passing them off as something inevitable or even natural. What does that say about our society? ] Understandably, the idea of pedophiles helping to define their own mental illness has some unnerved. [Obviously! When one thinks about the victims of child sexual abuse and how often they are silenced, one's mind does not then think about the poor pedophiles who don't actually rape kids but likely think about raping children. Why not give a voice to the victims of abuse instead of giving a voice to those who contribute to an oppressive society?] Earlier this week, the Daily Caller wrote about the event in a piece headlined, "Conference aims to normalize pedophilia." It's true that many in the community believe that attraction to pubescent or pre-pubescent children isn't a mental illness at all, but the symposium itself has the stated aim of raising awareness about fundamental problems with the proposed revision to the DSM's entry on pedophilia.

Richard Kramer, director of B4U-ACT, argues that the panel of experts responsible for the revision "represents only the narrow field of sex offender assessment and treatment." He believes it's important to also represent minor-attracted folks  who have not offended and would like to keep it that way: "[The panel] bases its work almost exclusively on assumptions about, and research on, sex offenders, who do not represent minor-attracted people in the general population," he wrote me in an email. "As a result, the DSM includes inaccurate and misleading information and ignores the existence of minor-attracted people who are law-abiding." 

[This proposed "title" of "Minor Attracted People" is incredibly offensive and degrading to the victims of childhood sexual abuse and to those who are exploited to facilitate the "fantasies" of pedophiles who may not physically harm a child. Regardless of whether or not they offend,  these people still consume children in one way or another because they, as adults - as mostly male adults - have that power. They objectify children who do not have the same social power or rights as they do  which is why their "title" for themselves and their "cause" is so harmful.] 

It might seem counterintuitive for non-criminals to fight to be recognized alongside criminals, but B4U-ACT sees this as a way of fighting the stigmatization of attraction to children and the conflation of pedophiles with child molesters. [There should be a stigmatization because children do not have the social power or the life-experience to understand or consent to being an object of a grown man's gaze .] Of course, "pedophile" has become cultural shorthand for "abuser" for good reason: We fear they will act on their attraction to children. An article on the DSM debate in the Harvard Mental Health Letter says the scientific evidence supports that concern: "Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way. [Exactly - and more so when they form "support" groups that aim for the general populis to feel sympathetic for their pedophilia. The support group itself merely perpetuates the victim-blaming and victim-silencing tendencies of our patriarchal society ] Typically this involves exposing themselves to children, watching naked children, masturbating in front of children, or touching children's genitals." Kramer and his ilk argue that such scientific wisdom is based on skewed data that looks only at offenders, and that many child molesters are not technically pedophiles (i.e., they offend because of opportunity, not sexual attachment).

Such claims seem rather dubious when visiting a message board like Boy Chat, where it's easy to find men discussing how society just doesn't understand that many "young friends" enjoy having a friendship with a "boy lover." [Again we see that pedophiles have a voice - they also have access to the voices of other pedophiles to assure them that their "way of life" is bona fide]. There are no mentions of sexual activity with children, as such posts are forbidden, and posters are effusive about how they would never think of "hurting" a child -- but one gets the sense that they're operating under a different understanding of "hurt." Most of the discussions focus on feelings of love and tenderness for young boys; it's all very reminiscent of how Michael Jackson would talk about his friendships with children. There are also conversations about how to find a "YF" -- for instance, one man says he is renting a room in his house to a woman with custody of her grandsons. He writes, "The boys have taken to me, naturally, and my landlady loves me. I'm taking it slow, but I've already been trusted to watch the boys ... another night coming this week; an overnight. They're cutie pies." 

There is a general consensus within the medical community that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and as such is unlikely to change, so treatment focuses on helping them to suppress their desires through psychotherapy and medication. [Oh, a sexual orientation?  How can anyone say that pedophilia is as sexual orientation, as if pedophilia is a type of "queer lifestyle" or even relevant to sexuality. They are attracted to power - to defeating, colonizing and consuming children.  Pedophilia is not about consensual sexual activity or romantic love. Also,  just because the pedophile is "unlikely to change" doesn't mean that we should be welcoming support groups that defend men's abuses against children,  both in fantasy and acted out on a child! But, who is surprised? The DSM V is now saying that rapists have a "condition" that makes them rape, silencing the voices of rape victims, almost all of which are women. It appears to  all goes back to maintaining power in the hands of men and silencing the victims of male violence] Fred Berlin, director of the Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit at Johns Hopkins and an expert presenter at today's event, compares it to the sort of treatment people with drug addiction or alcoholism go through. 

[Whoopsie Daisy! I guess the pedophile had a "relapse." To0 bad that their relapses include victimizing children] 

"They need to learn to not give in to cravings [Whaddya know! Pedophiles can have "cravings" for children akin to alcoholics craving a bottle of cheap port. Children are things!] which are satisfying and very pleasurable but which their intellect and their conscience and society is telling them they ought not to act on," he told me by phone. "Now, can everybody succeed? No, but there are large numbers of people who experience these attractions and with proper help go on and don't continue to offend.  There is good evidence to show that that's the case."

He says many pedophile activists [What's next, "rapist activists"?  - they don't really rape, they just want to...)] are concerned that the term "has become a stigmatizing pejorative," a way of saying "that somebody is less than human."[Like the way you feel about children?] They're unlikely to get much sympathy from the general public for being stigmatized, but Berlin says it's in society's best interest to resist demonizing them. "The idea is to try to get folks who are sexually attracted to children to come forward and get help before acting so that children are not harmed," he said. [That's great that you want to stop pedophiles from physically victimizing children but when you start saying it is "activism" and making up chat rooms to talk about "loving boys" - you've attempted to create harm, rather than prevent it. These trends towards normalizing men's entitlement to women and children are terribly harmful.] "That's certainly a goal that I would fully support." He adds: "None of us as little children sit down and ask ourselves the question, 'Do I want to grow up to be attracted to men or to women, to boys or to girls?' Nobody sits down, reflects about that and then decides," he argues. "If someone realizes while growing up that they're attracted to pre-pubescent children, it seems to me it is very important for them to know that there are places they can go to get help before they act on those feelings." [What help will they get? What about the notion that "pedophiles cannot change?"]

This debate goes far beyond the push by pedo-activists, raising fundamental questions within the medical community about how we define mental illness. Controversially, the proposed DSM adds hebephilia (attraction to pubescent children) to the entry for pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescents), creating the hybrid "pedohebephilic disorder." Psychiatry professor Richard Green, founding president of the International Academy of Sex Research, wrote in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, "In several European countries, the age of legal consent to have sex falls within the range proposed for the DSM as signifying mental disorder for the older participant," he writes. "If the general culture is accepting of participation by the younger party [How can we conclude that a child can consent to a sexual relationship with an adult, whether they are 8 or 15 years old, when the power dynamics are so clearly unbalanced?] but psychiatry pathologizes the participation by the older party, then the mental health profession pronounces a moralistic standard and, if successful, becomes an agent of social control." [No, this is absolutley, 100% incorrect. Social control is when grown men feel entitled to access the bodies of women and children (whether through pornography or rape) and in turn create a cultural climate in which women and children are disproportionately victimized. This creates fear that forces women and children to make changes to their lifestyles to avoid victimization. Social control is when a woman cannot walk the streets at night because a man may assault her. Social control is when women and their children around the world are made poor because of the wars that men fight and the economic system that they fight for. Social control is when a man tells the court that the 11 year old child "liked" being raped. Social control is what men have over women and children.]

Few of us in the general public are capable of thinking about pedophiles, or hebephiles, in emotionless, scientific terms -- but, luckily, we aren't the ones charged with treating them, or defining who "they" are.

• Tracy Clark-Flory is a staff writer at Salon. Follow @tracyclarkflory on Twitter. More: Tracy Clark-Flory

If anyone wants to contact the group B4U-ACT or the "pity-a-pedophile" foundation as I like to call it, here is the website. In the meantime, this fuming boner killer is in need of a toke and a few snuggles from her cat. 

Links - July 18, 2011 *Updated*

Links July 18, 2011


The F Word: Feminist Media Collective "Of course pornography is a prisoner's right. Because women aren't actually human beings"

 Excerpt:
‘Only in America’, I thought immediately. Only in America would a person be so selfish, so deluded, to think that their individual rights should exist at the expense of the human rights of others. And this is exactly what pornography does. It removes the rights of women to be human. Women in pornography are not represented as whole human beings, they are represented as things to ejaculate onto or into. Women, in pornography, are not represented as women, they are represented as body parts.


The F Word: Feminist Media Collective "Burlesque: They tell me it's just for fun...Except I'm not having any"


Excerpt:
I have seen several burlesque shows in Vancouver. And Ariana and I went again, for research purposes; to check out what’s happening on the scene these days. Hoping we would find all sorts of subversion, you know, challenges to gender norms, maybe some comedy, something even remotely feministish. What we found was a stage and some women awkwardly taking off their clothes, with smiles pasted across their faces so we knew they were enjoying themselves. A man in a business suit ‘hosted’ the evening, and introduced all the ‘girls’. He remained clothed throughout the evening. A male MC was also allowed the privilege of keeping his clothes on. One after another, ‘girl’ after ‘girl’ got up on stage, unzipped her dress and, by the end of the ‘show’ was in pasties and a g-string, posing for a cheering crowd. Let’s play find the subversion! There is nothing new here. It’s just the same old thing. And I wasn’t having any fun.

Nimbostratus Parade "Dude Sentencing or Why real Justice Eludes Women"

Excerpt:
I just read about one Xavier Robert Bissonnette, a fifty-six year old Calgary man who raped a seventeen year old girl he was corresponding with over the internet. The story apparently is newsworthy only because Bissonnette is HIV positive. He was diagnosed in 1998. He has most likely signed the death warrant of the child he raped. The charges he is facing in a court of law?
Aggravated sexual assault.
That's it. That's all. The only charge.

Womon On a Journey "On rape fantasies and BDSM"

Excerpt:

Clearly, our fantasies arise fromsomewhere, and since we have the capability of changing our fantasies, they are not biologically programmed.
Perhaps to the BDSM crowd, radfems seem perfect, as though we never think an “unpure”  thought (to use a moralistic term)  regarding sex. This just simply isn’t so. Plus, I have met women who used to be really into BDSM as a way to cope with abuse, who now have embraced radical feminism and feel much freerer for it.  However, we can never expect radical feminism to have the appeal that sex-pozzie “feminism” has, because “sex pozzie” feminism does not seek to challenge the patriarchial values we are surrounded in like a fish in water.

I Blame the Patriarchy "A Bit of Lighthearted Fun"

Excerpt:


"The true nature of our status as the sex class is, by the way, that we are imprisoned in a rape continuum. This continuum ranges from the “voluntary” performance of femininity (which quantifies women’s usefulness to men), to compulsory heterosexuality (which ensures availability to men), to pornography (which eroticizes inequality), to violent sexual assault (which is at the apex of the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women)."


Sociological Images "Racism and Jingoism Among U.S Soccer Fans"


Excerpt:


"After the tsunami in March, we featured a series of hateful Facebook updates suggesting that the Japanese deserved the devastation. Yesterday Japan won the women’s World Cup against the U.S. and we’re seeing the same rhetoric.  The collection below, and more, was up on Buzzfeed as of yesterday night."


In the News

The Guardian "Doctors' anti-abortion views could impact on women's access to service"

Excerpt: 

"A survey of medical students has found that almost half believe doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform any procedure to which they object on moral, cultural or religious grounds, such as prescribing contraception or treating someone who is drunk or high on drugs."

Ottawa Citizen "Hudak says he 'may have' signed anti-abortion petition"

Excerpt: 

"Ontario Tory leader Tim Hudak was grilled over his stance on abortion Monday, as he staged a press conference to tout a policy targeting convicted sex offenders. Hudak, entering his first provincial election campaign as party leader, told a group on the Christian right in 2009 he was opposed to abortion and had signed petitions calling for the defunding of abortions."

Newsweek "The Growing Demand for Prostitution"

Excerpt: 


"One man in the study explained why he likes to buy prostitutes: “You can have a good time with the servitude,” he said. A contrasting view was expressed by another man as the reason he doesn’t buy sex: “You’re supporting a system of degradation,” he said."

The Chronicles of Hiatus Presents "The Invaders of Women's Personal Space"

After a tedious and unwanted departure from my usual place of residence, I have returned with a creepy anecdote about an uncomfortable encounter with a dude. So, brace yourself, for the not-so-exciting, but still a pretty eerie tale that illustrates patriarchy and male entitlement.

***

I am at work taking care of children at the beach and I notice a food and drink stand that is set up nearby. Coffee, of all beverages, is being sold at this stand and mouth watering ensues since, you know, nothing calls for a steaming cup o' joe like the summer heat! 

At the stand, a woman takes my order - she is kind and absolutely not creepy. As she is fiddling with a slow "one cup" coffee machine, a dude is throwing down some f-bombs. The man is white and probably in his early to mid forties. He is wearing sunglasses and has pierced ears and a few forearm tattoos; his hair is short and spiked and he wears a chain around his neck. He proceeds to make small talk and asking me how many kids I was minding. I manage to get away before he can say anything else. It was not until the second visit, for yet another cup of coffee that his presence becomes creepy. Once again I am at this stand and the man is there and appears much more talkative. As the coffee-machine takes a while to work, the dude uses this idle time to create more small talk with me. I try and stick to discussing the weather. We do not get much seasonal weather in the summer up here (eh?) so it is usually a safe topic. Despite this old standard, the man departs from the weather and moves onto a conversation about my abundance of mosquito bites. "Oh, look at your shoulder!" he tells me, "You have so many bites just on that one shoulder there."I tell him that I realize how bad my shoulder is and how I find it annoying to have so many bites in one place.

Since my shoulder is not very interesting, at least in my opinion, I start to welcome a change in conversation or better yet, a conclusion to my cup of coffee. Rather than dropping the bug-talk, the man actually gets up and walks towards me. 

My mind is well-aware of his intentions - they have become so predictable and tiresome over the years of personal invasions. I am also aware of the entitlement that many men feel towards personal space, particularly women's personal space.

And so, the man moves behind me and begins to put his fingers on my shoulder, feeling the largest bug-bite with his fingers. The whole experience lasted a few seconds, but instantly, I feel violated. In response, I find myself making some awkward gesture or noise before I proceed to quickly grab my coffee and make my way back to my spot in the sand. 

Should I have protested right then and there? While taking care of kids? Something along the lines of "do not touch me" - I failed to utter much of anything. The larger society appears to view this type of interaction as "normal," since men often feel that touching that is not sexual in nature, like the touching in this situation, is acceptable and even somehow "friendly." Many entitled people see this non-sexual touching as completely ordinary, and certainty not as an invasion of someone's space. 

However, what is intriguing and yet enraging to consider, is how this form of stranger-touching is viewed as normal when it is done to women and children, but not when it is done to men by other men. How likely would we see a man randomly touching another man that he does not know in a public place? Would you see a man randomly scruffily rubbing another man's hair, as some adult strangers to do to random children that they do not even know? How about a man kissing the hand of a male stranger or just touching another dude-stranger's hand in anyway at all? Oddly enough, we do not see a lot of up-close and in-my-personal-space interactions going on between adult males who have never met before. 

We must recognize the power dynamics at play in our society - the power that establishes these entitlements make room for not just violation of space, but violence against women at large. If our personal space was considered as valuable as a man's personal space than perhaps violence against us would become less common. When men feel as if they are authorized and entitled to accessing a women's bodies and personal space, we know that we are still living under an oppressive patriarchal force that perceives women (and children, as well) as objects. This is not to say that some women do not violate children's personal space. 

Women and children, at large, are viewed as passive, non-thinking, non-feeling creatures without boundaries or feelings of their own. This is made clear by the enormous numbers of cases of violence against women and children by male perpetrators. This is also made clear by the normalization of these invasive interactions by complete strangers.

But I digress.

Men respect the boundaries of other men because the social norms set up by the social hierarchy requires their allegiance to the status quo and to one another. Men who step out of these boundaries, or question male entitlement at large will often fall victim to other men; they do not fall victim, systematically and disproportionately to women and children. This is how patriarchy presents itself to the masses and yet the masses do not see it. Why? Because they have grown accustomed to the principles of male-dominance; males at large, as a sex-class, have been unquestioned in their privilege for so long. This unquestioned privilege has  become a routine force in the continued oppression of women, children, the earth and the rest of the global community at large who is not a class-privileged white guy.

Notes:

Photo of woman in bubble found here

A Radical Pro-feminist Talks with Men's Rights Activist

I strongly urge all of my readers to read through A Radical Pro-Feminist's recent series of conversations with a Men's Rights Activist. The MRA in the posts behaves civilly, so it is readable. I recommended the readings as A Radical Pro Feminist illustrates amazing points, work of women worldwide and a real analysis of the so-called "Men's Rights Movement" 

Part 1 

Part 2 

Part 3

A Radical Pro Feminist has also recently opened up further conversation on the so-called "feminist" work of Katie Roiphe and Chistina Hoff Sommers 

No Woman No Slut

(Translates: No Whores, No Saints, Only Women

from here)

As someone who has been called a slut too many times to count (usually for not putting out) and who has been blamed and shamed for acts committed against me by men. I get it. What I don't get is why, instead of being enraged by abusive name calling, are women marching to the streets calling themselves something men have been calling them for centuries (in possible linguistic variations, of course). As much as I understand the intent and find joy in the fact that women are mobilizing against rape - I am saddened by the low bar being set. Is this it? Will attempts to reclaim words stop men from committing violence against us? Will it really make men see our true humanity?


The following is a conversation between myself and a few others...it basically summarizes my feelings about the "Slut Walks"


In my response to the invitation I wrote:

No woman is a slut. the word is not ours to reclaim since it has been traditionally used to oppress us. why call any women sluts? lets reclaim our right to be considered human beings with full humanity, not the sluts we are told we are. although I do not agree with attempts to "reclaim" oppressive language (women are not of the social power in our society to do so anyway) i wish everyone luck, as I know and i am sure thousands of other women (and children) know what it feels like to be told its "your fault" because of some attire choice, or shoeware or any other factor that isn't related to our consent.

In turn the creators of the event which is a group for "social change" replied: 


I don't think that anyone needs to tell women to respect ourselves.... this is part of the problem: 'others' deeming what is self-respectl and what is not. I think that we should all focus on being respectful towards others and developing our own humanity instead of telling others what routes are acceptable for self-empowerment in the face of systematic and degrading oppression.


And a male responded with:


The "SlutWalk" is an insult to women... c'mon women, have some respect for yourselves! This is the WRONG way to go about it... THINK ABOUT IT!!! THINK, BEFORE YOU EMOTIONAL REACT!!! PLEASE!!!


Another male said:


If the "SlutWalk is an insult to women" then why are so many women in multiple countries supporting it? Why was the event initiated and developed by women? It's an event created by and for women to counter the insults and injustices against women in our society. Please see the website created by the local organizers for a whole bunch of background


To which I responded:


Luckily some feminists are setting up "No women are sluts walk" so no one is called a slut, and no one "deserves" to be raped...or you know, i can take advice from the two dudes here and let them tell me what's good for my feminist agenda and what isn't based on how many people think a group (women) with zero social power can reclaim a word that has been used to us and subordinate us to the status quo and patriarchy. I stick to my guns that no woman is a slut. 


It's basic power relations - women walking around in short skirts calling themselves sluts won't change the fact that under patriarchy we are viewed as slabs of meat and orifices on legs - but i guess if we say it's "reclaimed" suddenly our lack of social power becomes irrelevant. The feminist movement needs to be reclaimed and re-examined, at least this middle-class only, liberal nonsense that changes no social structures,  nor challenges the actual root of our oppression - are we hear to appease the oppressor or are we here to declare our status of "human being?"


For anyone who is not looking to falsely "reclaim" oppressive language, but still believe women ought to not be raped and ought to not be blamed for rape or anyone who feels women's sexuality and/or sexual choices should be mocked, repressed and/or dominated by patriarchal forces should check out this event  that is called "Stop Calling Women Sluts Walk"


Also, for a great piece on this that examines the positives and the negatives of these events from a feminist perspective, go here