Sexual Harassment and a Culture of Misogyny In the RCMP Pt. 1: Cpl. Galliford's Allegations

Photo found here

Many Canadians are shocked by the increasing cases of sexual harassment, abuse, and overall misconduct within the RCMP or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Unfortunately, we are not enraged enough. 

Just this month another female Mountie brought forth allegations of workplace humiliation, sexual abuse, and harassment dating back to the 1980s. These new allegations coupled with the recently obtained photos of an RCMP Corporal on a BDSM website provides the public with more insight into the misogyny-drenched, so-called “old boys” culture within the RCMP. This kind of workplace abuse and overall contempt towards female employees and victims of male violence should rouse anger in all Canadians.

Sociobiology Study: Low voices more "trusting" and why the discipline is sexist, racist nonsense

For the last two nights now, listening to cbc radio one, I have found myself hearing of a ridiculous study conducted by a woman who has clarified her interest in discovering the "evolutionary basis of human behavior" aka sociobiology - you know, the train of thought that fascists hold of human behavior being fixed and unchangeable that lead to war, genocide and oppression.


But I digress.


This new study focuses solely on human voices and how lower voices are apparently more likely to show "dominance" and "leadership." According to this study, several people were asked to listen to the voices of men (yes, they failed to even include women in the study) and judge which voice is more "dominant" -- the findings showed that the lower voices were preferred for whether or not the person speaking could be trusted.


All of this was brought to my attention last night during the airing of my favourite radio programs, "As it Happens" and of course, the amazing Carol Off called her out on her clear sexism by asking why she did not include women. Whenever Carol would ask about what her study presented, especially about non-masculine voices and women in generally in political leadership positions, the woman kept responding with, "we didn't really think about that one..." or "well, that is a good point." She even went so far to highlight how Margaret Thatcher went through voice training to make her voice lower. Rather than critiquing WHY this might be, they simply seem to believe it is all "natural" and not something caused by a sexist society.


And so, tonight as I was listening to a separate program on CBC, the same study comes up as a way to say that a female politician in Canada may be at a "disadvantage" because of what this study has found. There is so much wrong here and no one is discussing this -- this problem is with the study itself. This study is biased in its biological deterministic, sexist, and restrictive approach to research. First of all, why would such research be conducted to begin with? Why would a woman be interested in such a study?


As someone who spends days of her year studying human evolution in Anthropology, I can confidently say that human behavior cannot be studied in the same way that other, non-human animal behavior are for the simple reason that we have culture. Our cultures and upbringings teach us behaviors, socialization skills and ways of being in our world  -- a voice, whether deep or low, is not a starting ground to discuss who makes a better or worse political leader, or who is more "dominant" -- it simply tells us that a group of people who were asked to listen to voices and happened to find the lower ones more "trustworthy." Why are we circulating the story around like it has made some groundbreaking scientific discovery? How can we draw such huge, sexist conclusions about ability to leadership from such a ridiculous "evolutionary trait." Dominance in human societies is something that has a social basis -- dominance in chimps is very different, for example, than dominance in humans and should not be studied using the same guidelines. The pathetic part of this study, too, is the realization that such ideas still exist -- ideas that human behaviors are fixed and unchangeable, relying solely on evolutionary processes that take place in a naturalist scenario. The people who have supported such ideas include eugenicists, racists, sexists, and fascists. These are the people who are "concerned" with trying to "prove" that human behavior has some intrinsic, biological cause. Why must we continue on with such harmful misinformation disguised as "scientific data."


Notions about people being "naturally" one wayor "naturally" another has lead our world into bloody wars, oppression, discrimination, and genocides. This is all in the name of "science" which is allegedly above all scrutiny. An example of this that I did an extensive research paper on regards one  J. Philippe Rushton, a evolutionary psychologist who continues to publish academic papers trying to show that cranium size dictates intelligence. With this, Rushton conducted "research" of measuring skull volume and skull size to support his fallacy that some "races" as he asserts, are of "superior intelligence" than others. Of course, all of his conculsions illustrate a deep racist bias as he constnatly places people of African descent on the lowest level of intelligence. And yet, his work continues to be published because some people still think that sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and the like, are legitmate schools of thought and have a basis in reality when they do not. Sociobiology attempts to create a "science" of segerating humans and pigeon-holing groups of people by attempting to say their learned behaviors and cultures are some how rooted in a "difference" in biology. It takes the "nature vs. nurture" debate and takes a steaming dump on the "nurture" and thus breeding a climate of ignorance and segregation based on "science." This published study is no different.




Here is an opinion piece regarding this topic

Boner Killer Becomes "Women-Only" Space for Time Being

This whole woman's only space sounds like a keen idea as, once again I woke up with anti-feminist, anti-woman,  racist, sexist nonsense on my comment feed. 

Truly, I am sick and tired of my blog being used as a space for angry men  and sometimes even angry women feel teh menz are oppressed to the point where that they begin to abandon and deny their sisters' existence under patriarchy. 

This is, as my comment policy has always stated is my space, a room of my own. Since this virtual space is mine, I will enact some boner killing legislation to establish a dude-free, women's only space. 

Ironically enough, my male partner agrees with this idea. After all, he has heard me read out many of the abusive comments. 

And before the sobbing and convulsing starts - this is NOT censorship. My blogger status and status as woman prohibits me from any sort of power to actually "censor" someone. Men immediately start reciting the US constitution when they are not allowed to comment or show up in women's only space. Women are often denied such space- this space is not for men to complain and degrade women. This is blog was not created for men. This is not a space for you. 

So, from now or until I decide otherwise, this blog will be open to women. 

Have a good, boner-killing weekend! 

photo found here

"The Breast Milk Baby" A New Doll Toy Marketed to Girl-Children

Photo found here

A toy doll marketed to girl-children has been creeping up during my internet browsing. The doll is intended to allow little girls to "pretend" to breast feed their baby doll, despite you know, not having breasts of their own. 

This toy is disturbing for many reasons, not because it deals with breast-feeding, but because it intentionally and quite obviously socializes girls to take the role of Mother to the next level. The toy doll is intended to "teach" little girls how to breast-feed, since of course, a girl's purpose in life is to get with a dude and have as many babies as possible. How often do you see toys such as this marketed to boys? This toy is not only gendered - it is biologically deterministic - it assumes girl-children should conform to their future "womanly-roles" set up by the dominant culture. These toys, like all toy dolls, further perpetuate gender roles and norms that are forced onto girl-children at an early age. However, this particular "milking" doll really establishes problematic assumptions about girlhood and womanhood. These assumptions could lead to more and more girl-children feeling pressured into being passive and socially compliant based on the idea that girls and women are "biologically" inclined towards child-rearing and "nurturing" behaviors. Toy dolls have always done this, but this toy takes biological essentialism to a whole new level.

photo found here

I want to add that I believe breast-feeding should be a socially-accepted act and it should not be looked down upon like it currently is in the West. Breast-feeding is seen as "gross" or "impolite" because women's bodies are constantly viewed as sex-objects rather than healthy bodies with real functions by the majority of society. Women's breasts are viewed as sexual objects and thus are hidden away to keep the men from finding them "repulsive" because they are feeding another human being. This bothers people in the West, men and women alike, because women's breasts are considered a strictly sexual body-part - not one that has a vital function. The Western view of breasts are similar to the views of women's genitalia. Women's genitalia is viewed predominately as a hole that receives a man's junk and delivers a man's child. That sounds harsh, but look at a lad's mag and tell me different. How many men even know the term "vulva?" 

Women's genitalia are not viewed as organs with functions but rather as holes. This is why we never hear "vulva" but only "vagina" when discussing women's genitals. But, I digress. Despite my feelings on breast-feeding, I have to admit that there is something very, very disturbing about attempting to force girl-children into this activity before they even develop their own breasts or sense of bodily autonomy. 

I would like to hear from readers about this toy, what do you think this toy says about society, marketing and gender roles? 

Oh, and here's the advertisement for the doll 

Harper's Power Trip

photo found here

Harper is "legislating" striking workers "back to work" and "prostitution may become legitimate business in Canada"


Under Harper's regime, it's all about destroying unions and slashing worker's rights and putting women back in their "place" 


Welcome to the post-election, authoritarian disaster that Canada is becoming. 

Harper Intent On Ruining Canada

Just thinking about Stephen Harper's desire to guide Canada into a "Conservative direction" makes me truly terrified. Terrified for human beings but terrified more for women and any non-heterosexual people.


Terrified, horrified, mortified, petrified for the safety of our food, earth, and standard of life.

Canadian Election 2011: Harper "Controversial" Quotes Leaked (Healthcare, Abortion and Bilingualism)

Stephen Harper is known for keeping his followers quiet and in check - he forbids all of his party members from speaking to the press or even commenting. This silence has contributed to Harper's lack of transparency and inability to be honest and upfront with Canadians. Today has revealed, however, that Harper's converts were sharing some of the Prime Minister's most "controversial" quotes. I have the parenthesis to indicate that I personally feel the comments are offensive and completely terrifying, not simply "controversial." 


Here are some of those quotes

found here

Here are some more of Harpers quotes from the CBC.ca website:

          From the Jan. 7, 2004 update, page 12 - on health:

"The solution is to have a healthcare system where people pay some of the costs themselves." "If we had a healthcare system based on insurance and we paid for these services out of our own pocket, this would be a non-issue." - referring to what the article's writer called broad-brush swipes at people whose behaviour is deemed costly (March 22, 1999)

           5. From the June 26, 2003 update, page 18 - on social conservatism:

    "We need to rediscover Burkean or social conservatism because a growing body of evidence points to the damage the welfare state is having on your most important institutions, particularly the family. Conservatives have to give much higher place to confronting threats posed by modern Liberals to this building block of our society." Jan. 6, 2003

   

      7. From Aug. 28, 2003 - page 3 - on Elections Canada and then-Chief Electoral                  Officer       Jean-Pierre Kingsley:

'"The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control." Please excuse my language, but when I learned Elections Canada's bureaucrats have pressed charges against a Canadian citizen, I just blew my cool. That is the exact language I used ... This is not the first attack on freedom by Elections Canada. Its heavy-handed chief, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, has been an advocate of the most minute of controls and regulations - and stiff punishments - on every aspect of "free" elections.' 08/2001

Voting day is May 2, Canadians! Go out and vote!!!

Harmful Social Constructions

photo from here

Note: *womyn is used to replace "fab" women.

To assume that females who have lived the experience of being born with a vagina, womb - being born with 'femaleness' as defined by the dominant power is not fairly comparable with women born as males who grew up with male privilege (regardless of how poorly any individual may be treated, there is still the incredible privilege of maleness that is ever-present under patriarchy and capitalism) being born a female automatically puts womyn* and girls as a class in a poor social situation - based on this "femaleness" declared by the people present for our births. The male privilege is not there for females, even if the female child is not socialized to be "feminine" - she still is considered female - she is still a female with all of the oh-so greatly despised reproductive organs. This isn't suggesting that a middle class, white woman doesn't have more privilege than a black woman or something ridiculous like that. This is suggesting that females, regardless of the social construction of "gender," that they may or may not identify with, do not have any privilege over women who were born as male. The phallus is held to the upmost importance in our society.

The phallus is present, the privilege is present.

Unfortunately, many spaces that promote the idea that gender is a biological imperative, fail to include intersex people who obviously know much about gender not being biological. Biological essentalism puts people into small boxes, gender boxes; one is blue and one is pink. It is silly socially constructed oppression. In a patriarchy-free society "man" and "woman" wouldn't exist in such a restrictive way - people wouldn't be driven by greedy medical institutions to get their bodies altered and harmed by pills and knives to feel free and accepting of whatever or whomever they identify as.

Biological essentialism harms men, too - it limits the expression of human emotions and experiences that are always labeled as "feminine" or "masculine" when they are really just human traits. It harms genderqueer people who don't buy into the idea of a "gender" category. If this system of gender is harming everyone, then why are we allowing capitalists to make billions of dollars from "medicalizing" everyone's bodies; the same thing occurred in the past with race. During early science in the 18th-19th Century, craniology and other racializing "sciences" of categorization were implemented to reinforce ideas that "race" exists and the human race is made of sub-races.

Many people now (excluding present-day racists, or polygenists) know that race is a social construction - race has been used to alienate and discriminate against people based on this idea of "inferior races." All of this non-scientific drivel is painted as "natural" or "normal". This is another example of intense social constructions rooted deeply in the institutions that sustain them - patriarchy, capitalism, religion.

Gender is also a social construct. Females, males and intersex individuals are not sub-species. We are not biologically different in any way that is substantial to suggest a plausible hierarchy between us. Why is this idea, then, upheld so widely worldwide?

It is not transphobic of me, as a female human, and whose opinions are constantly thrown out the window, to pose reasonable inquiries from a feminist framework. Transphobia is reprehensible - the status quo will attack everyone for deviating from the prescribed version of "normalcy." Violence, lack of rights, and discrimination are faced by trans people, and this is also reprehensible.


I wish, however, that the silencing of womyn and the overhauling of womyn-only or of lesbian-only spaces would cease. This war against womyn and girls is damaging to everyone - if the status of womyn can't even be changed then everyone else who is not a white, heterosexual male, will suffer. 

Happiness: Guaranteed?

Being a western consumer is quite disturbing. My mind will be settled at times, only to be riled up again by reoccurring thoughts of advertisements and magazine covers. What shoes are being worn by what celebrities, How to lose 10 lbs in 10 minutes, How to do 40 things at once and still look happy, and everything else you can imagine. Why is it that when I feel a pang of hunger it’s followed by a pang of guilt? If I’m hungry, that’s a natural sign that I should eat, right? Wrong! I am told that hunger can be beaten with weight watchers, specific mixed beverages that taste like baby food, or extra low calorie chewing gum. I shouldn’t want to eat, even if my body tells me so – my body is a liar. My body causes me to want to eat too much, sleep too little, and cry at the “wrong times”. It tells me when it’s time to say “no” when I should be saying “yes”. My body hurts when I try to straddle it into spandex dresses and walk on thin slices of wood-like material. My mind will then remind me that beauty hurts, and in the end, it’s all worth it; I can get what I want. But what do I want? Does my want have anything to do with the way I have to get it? We’re told that high-heels, tight clothing, a disturbingly tiny waistline and 3 inches of colourful cream on our face will get us what we want, even if it hurts a little…or a lot.


The more we do, the more we will get. It’s like consumer karma – or maybe it’s more running towards a mirage. This kind of karma does not work in the traditional sense, we give nothing or value to anyone. We simply give money to rich, and expect dream fulfillment and happiness in return. The marketers tell us the right steps to follow to be happy, we follow them and we end up even more unhappy then we started and they end up rich. How can we recognize this obvious observation, this consumer trend and still partake in it? Why do I still stare at a piece of chocolate, debating whether or not it will make my stomach look larger somehow and then come home and write a post like this? How does that make any sense? When we can see that things don’t turn out as we were told, we usually do things differently. For example, if we’re told we will be happier people if we lose more weight and it does not turn out to be true, why do we still strive for it? Are our brains that poorly wired? Are we really as intelligent as we claim to be? Or are we simply vulnerable humans who are being targeted by equally vulnerable but much wealthier humans? How do we change this? Does it need to be changed? I believe it does.

Many will say that buying everything they think they need makes them happier. But what happiness can be felt, really felt, by a pair of high heel shoes – a whistle from a man, a look at yourself in the mirror? Telling yourself that you’re slightly longer legs represent the word “sexy” and you must embody that every moment of your life? What is happiness? Happiness can be touched, you can touch your Porsche, your new handbag or your new HD TV…it must be real, right? You can show the world that you’re slightly better off because you had just enough money at the right time to buy that perfect car – the jealousy you imagine them to feel slightly fills you with joy. Is this really joy? Is our life based upon competing with others, purchasing and then wasting materials? Do we claim our parasite-like behaviour resembles happiness?

Let us consider what we do to ourselves, what we apparently need to feel joy. We are told we need to look a certain way and buy certain things. Women are targeted constantly in the media – bigger breasts, smaller waists, longer legs and thicker hair. We know that there are so-called doctors around that can cut our breasts open and stick foreign objects inside of us. We pay these doctors to mutilate our bodies and tell us how beautiful and happy we will be after it’s all over. We look in the mirror and see that we have accomplished something, our self-esteem will be higher and more men will find us sexually attractive – but wait, your legs are too short and your waist is too average. No one wants to be average. We barely cover our mutilated breasts and March onto the streets with a feeling of false empowerment; a man has mutilated our breasts for the pleasure of other men to stare at. We must now wait to be told by the media and market what else is horribly wrong with us. Walking past glass windows we see the plastic skinned celebrities sporting 8 inch spike heels, we see how long and lean their legs are. If we have the money and the need to feel true happiness, we purchase the shoes. The shoes make us come home and need over the counter pain medication to treat our back pain. The shoes make our feet swell and bleed; much like our breasts did after they were mutilated. But it’s okay, it’s sexy…it’s attractive, men will like us more and that will ultimately make us better, happier people. The trouble with the waist just will not go away, you pay to spend hours at a gym where you run and sweat and think about food. You try to ignore the hunger pangs, but you give in. You fail. You are told you failed, even though you are losing weight, it’s just not enough. You are a failure. They tell you that it’s not a size 6 anymore, it’s a size 0. How could you be so blind?

What are your options now? You are still not happy. You try and get enough money to go back to your so-called doctor; he can mutilate your stomach and your thighs so that they look pieces of plywood. You will fit into a size 0 and the happiness will surely follow. If you don’t have the money for this, you can simply starve yourself. Who cares? Everyone is doing it, even little girls. You keep losing weight, showing your inflated breasts and bandaging your ankles…you keep repeating this cycle until you realize that there is no happiness. Now what? There must be more, and there is always more. Tomorrow there will be something else. Size zero is much too small; you’ll look sick – gain back at least 15 lbs and try again. Try again until you stop failing and start being happy. It will all work out, remember. The celebrities don’t like, the marketers are rooting for you – they want you to shine through and be the best you that you can be…but along the way you have to ask yourself who you are, and what you actually want to be.

PRIORITIES, SEX POLITICS AND REALITY

I have been reading "Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism" lately, and it's full of great articles and essays. It features a lot of Sheila Jeffery's work as well as Andrea Dworkin.



Recently, I made a youtube video mocking Violet Blue, a so-called "sexpert" with zero credentials. She has a blog up where she scopes out apparent "feminist, female-friendly porn" and shares it. This makes her an expert on sexuality.
So much so that Oprah featured her via Skype to talk about how great porn is with Jenna Jameson. To my surprise, Violet Blue, after I left her a rather spiteful message on one of her chauvinistic blog posts, blogged about ME! Yes, she did. All of her "feminist" followers complained about what a puritan I was, how awful I am and how repressed I must be. An anti-feminist by the name of MadShangi found the blog and paraded it allover youtube. This inspired me to get even more involved in anti-exploitation feminist work. I wanted to find out more about these women who hurt women.

For now, let's get back to the book. I think Sheila Jeffreys has a bad rep. because she has a lot of ideas that a lot of feminists probably do not share. I find her fascinating and fair. Last Christmas I received "Beauty and Misogyny" which examines western cultural practices of beauty, fashion and feminist politics. Some of the material was a bit much for me, but a lot of it was new and I took it in the best I could. Keep in mind however, that I do acknowledge flaws in myself
I give into patriarchal cultural practices:
leg shaving
pit shaving
wearing a little makeup

I guess it's not that brutal. It could be much worse. I suppose that I could be wearing push up bras, using fake tanners, wearing fake nails and shaving my vulva. I could be piercing my clitoris and my breasts, wearing stilettos and thus ruining my future chance at having a healthy back.

I could be doing a lot of things, right? I don't like having that "it's not that bad" attitude. Nevertheless, my attitude acknowledges the practices put forth by the patriarchy (and thus I feel they need to be analyzed) but there are more important and dangerous (at least in my mind) practices occurring. These practices should be obvious to most women, they have been around for far too long.

Right now a woman is being pimped out, beat, raped, exploited and possibly killed.
Right now, some man is in his home watching a woman being pimped out, beat, raped, exploited and possibly killed.
That man is masturbating to those practices. He is taking pleasure in witnessing these things - these practices that he feels he is entitled to.

We live in a culture where men feel that they need unlimited access to a woman's body, be it through prostitution, sexual assault, or pornography. Our society calls this "free speech".

Where is our speech?

There are self-proclaimed feminists who take part in this male privileged, misogynistic behavior. Yes, there are women who purchase and use pornography, women that go to strip clubs and buy prostitutes.

They call it liberation. Sexual liberation.

They equate female liberation with male pleasure. This is where sex politics play a role. Females are sexually liberated, according to sexual libertarian 'feminists', when they allow themselves to become subordinate to male sexuality. When we fail to challenge our own lives and our own privilege, we fail to examine what women as a class go through. When we fail to question power struggles in our relationships, we fail to find out how those dynamics affect all women.

To conclude,

"Pornography is the orchestrated destruction of women's bodies and souls; rape, battery, incest, and prostitution animate it; dehumanization and sadism characterize it; it is war on women, serial assaults on dignity, identity, and human worth; it is tyranny. Each woman who has survived knows from the experience of her own life that pornography is captivity -- the woman trapped in the picture used on the woman trapped wherever he's got her."

--Andrea Dworkin