RSS Feed

Category Archives: Feminism

Your Joke’s Not Funny

Posted on

CBC’s Q hosted a discussion of sorts on the reaction to “rape joke” Facebook pages. The pages — with real people who “like” them and everything — have charming names like “You know shes (sic) playing hard to get when your (sic) chasing her down an alleyway” (194,000 “likes”) and “Riding your Girlfriend softly, Cause you dont (sic) want to wake her up” (87,000 “likes).

First problem, rape jokes are never ok. Second problem, why can’t people who mock sexual violence spell and punctuate properly?

Why aren’t rape jokes funny, you say? (You being the person who is not reading this post because my readers are better than that.) Read the rest of this entry

Slutwalk 2011: If she’s a slut, I’m one too

Posted on
http://instagr.am/p/Czg2Q/

SlutWalk Toronto protest sign via @calamityjennnnn

Slutwalk Toronto, a march down the streets of Toronto to protest the shaming women based on their appearance and their choices, and blaming women for sexual assaults (check out the list of other cities participating), happened today.

Let me start by saying that I am not an authority on this event, and probably not even the best person to be explaining it. But since it came up at a dinner that included strangers last night, and I feel like I did a poor job of explaining it (I write instead of talk for a reason), I’m going to give it another shot here. You can visit the official site here, follow the twitter feed here, or follow the conversation on Twitter here.

There were some ignorant questions asked at this dinner. Mainly “Does everyone dress like sluts?” Ignorant, of course, because that suggests that a) being a slut is a real thing and not an unfairly applied term used in an effort to shame women,  and  b) links appearance to promiscuity (and with that the understanding of what “promiscuity” is), and promiscuity to deservedness (of assault or disrespect).

But the more important question, asked this time from a woman, was “Why not call it a ‘Women’s Empowerment Walk’ instead of ‘Slutwalk’?”  I think she was coming from a good place.  Why would you want to label yourself with a word that is so offensive?  Why would you protest using a word that continues to be used to discredit women?
I tried to respond, but I didn’t have a very good answer. I guess because I hadn’t thought it through very well.  I think I’ve figured it out now.

Calling it “Slut” walk is not, as far as I can tell, a re-appropriation of the word “slut,” as much as it is a denouncement of those who use the word to define women – any women.

Slut is a name unfairly given to women based on what one person, or a society as a whole, perceives them to be.  The label comes with a basket of assumptions about actions and choices, and is deliberately used to shame (even by those who attempt to re-appropriate it – see: my friends circa 2002).  It’s used to other these women, to separate them from the good and deserving women of society.  It implies that these women are less worthy of respect and protection.   It’s an excuse for hurting them and for defending the men who do the hurting.

By separating the “us” from “the sluts” we create a false sense of security.  Even though we’re collectively outraged by a judge and a police officer who come right out and victim blame/slut shame, there are many among us who harbour the same biases against women.  So by calling it Slutwalk, and participating in Slutwalk*, it effectively sends a message that “if she’s a slut, so am I.”  Because “sluts” aren’t real.

So why does it matter if women are called sluts?

I guess it’s a bit like why rape jokes aren’t funny.  Because even if you’re a totally nice guy who wouldn’t actually ever rape someone, there’s a good chance that someone around you thinks you’re serious and that you actually do think rape is okay. (this is a paraphrased idea from Kate Harding and others, but I couldn’t find the right link).  Making rape jokes and using derogatory language like “slut” contributes to our rape culture, and whether you mean to or not, you’re holding up a social norm that says that rape is ok as long as it only happens to bad women.

Slutwalk Toronto Protest sign via @CalamityJennnnn

Until we can get to a point where we don’t think only some women deserve a life free from violence, until we stop thinking that anyone is EVER asking to be hurt, and until we stop defending men who hurt women (whether it is because we like those men/their work, or because we don’t like the women) then we will not stop sexual assault from happening.

Until we stop dividing women into groups, and valuing them based on their perceived purity, actions or sexuality, we will not stop rape from happening.

Until we stop othering women who do not fit into a socially constructed idea of proper (usually white), pure, womanhood  (e.g. “sluts,” sex workers, women of colour, women in developing nations, women who wear short skirts or who go to parties, women who drink, women who use drugs, women who accept rides with strangers or those who accept rides with friends, women who go home with someone at a bar, women who don’t protect themselves from rape in a way that we think they should, etc. etc etc), rape will continue to happen.

So here’s to those women who were brave enough to stand up and say “We aren’t ever asking for it!” and to all the women who continue to fight for a world free of violence.

*I wasn’t part of the march.  I’m not a girl who likes crowds

Update: You should also read this fabulous post on Feministing. “What might appear slutty to one person might appear totally unremarkable to another. In other words, Fagan doesn’t get to define “slutty.” No one gets to define “slutty,” because “slutty” is entirely relative. Which is especially handy for people who want to blame a woman for her own rape, since the “slut” label can be slapped on pretty much any woman, anywhere, at any time!”

Rape, Reporters, and Women

Posted on

Note: I wrote this after news of  CBS correspondent Lara Logan’s brutal assault surfaced, when amongst all the victim blaming, people had the nerve to ask ‘Should women reporters be allowed to report from war zones?’ I forgot to post it, but nothing’s changed since then

Asking what it means to be a women in a conflict zone suggests that it is the woman’s responsibility to protect herself from assault.  Asking if it’s appropriate for a woman to be there might as well as be asking if it is appropriate for women to be anywhere.

Even if women could prevent assaults just by taking precautions, the responsibility should never lie with her.  Rape is the responsibility of the men who commit it. Sexual Assault doesn’t ever come with the job.

International Women’s Day: Why feminsim isn’t passé

Posted on

Susan B. Anthony (LOC)
I don’t know what I take the bait every time and read Margaret Wente’s nonsense. But I did. And it was as poorly thought out, under-researched, offensive, and so full of ass-hattery that I have been sucked into replying.

I will not, however, link to the article. If you haven’t read it, I leave it up to you if you want to contribute page views (and therefore money). But I’ll keep it short. Two reasons why Wente has done a disservice to women everywhere with “In the West, the war for women’s rights is over, and we won”

When Margaret Wente used the outrage at Justice Robert Dewar as proof that the west no longer needs International Women’s Day, she forgot two things:
1) We still live in a culture where rape happens (and clearly at least one, but we all know it is more) person blames women for letting it happen . Until there is no rape, we need feminism
2) International Women’s Day is about women everywhere (it’s in the name, Margaret). Even if I believed there was nothing left to be done in the west, there is still plenty of work to be done for the status of women in the world.
Pro-abortusdemonstratie / Pro abortion demonstration

I’m a feminist and International Women’s Day matters to me.

If you need more convincing, visit Shameless Magazine’s blog for a good ‘ole fashioned list of bad things that still happen to women.

Who’s afraid of Naomi Wolf?

Posted on

What the hell happened to Naomi Wolf?  Is there some crazy-making virus out there that inhibits logical thought? ‘Cause I’m stumped.

I thought her intentions were good (but her argument ridiculous) when she wrote her J’Accuse piece in the Huffington Post last month.  No, it didn’t make any sense. Obviously the solution to taking rape seriously is not to ignore rape allegations of men who are unpopular with governments.  But I thought that maybe – just maybe – she had taken her thinking cap off that day and was trying to do the right thing for all those women she works with.

Then came the TV debate with Jaclyn Friedman. You know the one, right? The one where Naomi Wolf said sex with a sleeping woman wasn’t rape? Yeah. Blew my mind in the worst possible way.

And still, I thought maybe the Twitter campaign, though hilarious, might be going just a little too far..  And then I read it.  This. An op-ed for the Guardian arguing in favour of publicly revealing rape accusers’ names because it would somehow prove that women are grown-ups too.

The only conclusion I can come to is that Naomi Wolf has lost her mind.  There’s really no other explanation for someone who argues that we should reveal the name of women who, even with this supposed anonymity, already get death threats, beat up, killed, yelled at, have their lives strewn over the internet, get called names, and get treated like liars…and those are the ones who speak up.  Wolf knows this.

There’s a reason that most rapes aren’t reported and that the ones that are rarely end in convictions.  So Naomi, until you can offer me a world in which a rape accuser is treated with respect, dignity and, most importantly, safety (or better yet, a world with out rape) don’t name names.  And please, stop talking.

Tweeting for a better world

Posted on

At the Christmas dinner table last year, my father asked “What is Twitter?”

Hornet's Nest of Revolutionary Feminism T-shirt Cafe Press/Tiger Beatdown

Buy this tee at http://www.cafepress.com/TigerBeatdown

 

What he meant was “why would anyone want to use that?” I passed the task over to Ryan (the expert at the time) but he was unsuccessful. I was still (begrudgingly) new to the platform so I didn’t have much to add.  But now, 2500 tweets later, I have an answer, Dad: I use Twitter because it makes me better feminist. (It probably also makes me a more engaged citizen in general, but that’s for another day.)

Twitter connects  me with ideas – some that maybe I could have come up with on my own but didn’t know how to express, and others that make me stop and say “huh” – and a world of new people.  It’s like being in a high-tech consciousness raising party.

It took an online protest for me to really get this.  In the past weeks, during the height of the internet and media assbaggery surrounding the Julian Assange’s rape charges, up sprung a Twitter protest.  #MooreandMe was officially a place to protest Michael Moore and other high-profile people for their treatment of the situation, but was clearly more than that.  It was women – women I otherwise wouldn’t have known existed – demanding that the world listen to them.

It was awesome. It was amazing to watch.  And even though I didn’t agree with everything that happened or was said,  it left me feeling empowered because I knew that people were talking intelligently about rape and our culture’s often messed up ideas about what that means.

Of course there were still horrible trolls and internet bullies but mostly there were strong, positive voices for change.  I read amazing posts by Kate Harding (who never fails to blow my mind) and Andrea Grimes.  I got a glimpse into soul of the woman spearheading the protest.  I even got to watch Naomi Wolf lose the respect of women everywhere when she said that sex with a sleeping woman isn’t rape (during a debate with Jaclyn Friedman on Democracy Now).

And after sharing all of those great links on Twitter, a male follower wanted to talk about it. He wanted to understand what was going on and what all those women were shouting about.  So I sent him more links – and I’m pretty sure he read ‘em too!

So that’s it, Dad. That’s why I love Twitter. There’s no doubt that it wastes a lot of my time.  But from where I’m standing it’s time well wasted.

Christina Hendricks takes it off.

Posted on

The weight, that is. Well maybe. She might be thinking of it. Or something.christina-hendricks-london-fog1

Which leads me to ask: Can we please stop talking about Christina Hendrick’s weight? When I google “Christina Hendricks weight” I get 266,000 results. It sounds like we need to change the conversation.

To what?

Well, for one, who made Hendricks the poster child for plus size women in Hollywood?  She certainly didn’t.  In fact, she’s said numerous times that she doesn’t like when people talk about her weight because it makes her self-conscious. So maybe we should talk about our obsession with women’s bodies as their entire value? Or perhaps we need to talk about our need to fetishize women who are different, while at the same time tearing them down?

And let’s stop pretending that we’re actually OK with “real” looking women in Hollywood (ignoring that Hendricks is far from the average “real” person). If we were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I get that we like to live vicariously through women like Hendricks: “If she’s OK with her body, then maybe I can be too.” But self-hate comes from within. It sure is nice to see healthy women on TV, but that’s not a solution.

Now someone out there is surely screaming “I don’t hate my body, you jerk! I just like that Hendricks is good role model.”

Great. But instead, let her be a role model for controlling her own body not for maintaining an idealized weight.  Because bullying a woman into maintaining a plus size so she can be your role model is just as bad as bullying her into being skinny.

 

Boobs for everyone!

Posted on

This is a blog about breastfeeding by someone without children.  It’s also a blog by someone who is clearly a judgmental bitch.  And yet, even with those admissions, I can’t bring myself to walk around accusing women of hurting their babies because they, for whatever reason, choose formula.

Some moms out there are infuriated that Old Navy has a shirt promoting (I guess?) formula.  The Globe and Mail trumps it up as a triumph for mommy-bloggers (which assumes that “mommy-bloggers” are just a bunch of women sitting in a room sharing a single thought – but that’s a different issue). I think it’s nonsense.

We’re not talking about feeding your child rat poison. We’re not talking about hitting, or abusing children.  We’re not even talking about smoking while pregnant like some crazy commenter suggested. We’re talking about formula.

It’s food.  It doesn’t have all the same benefits of breast milk, (it arguably has different ones) but it provides nutrition to children who need it.  Why they need it that way is none of your business!

The Nestle Scandal is often touted as an example of why formula is bad.  But formula wasn’t necessarily bad. Bad water, poverty, and exploitation of women was bad.

I was breastfed until I was two and a half or so – and it probably would have been longer had my mother not gotten sick.  That was her choice.  It certainly wasn’t a nutritional necessity.  I can’t for the life of me understand why one would want a child attached to her breast for 3 years, but hey, whatever works.

I happen to believe the doctors who say breastfeeding is good.  But that doesn’t mean that anything but breastfeeding is murder.

The minute women get pregnant our society treats them as commodities of procreation rather than human beings.  The whole point of feminism is that women should have choice, and value beyond their organs.

One of my favourite feminists, May Friedman, wrote this article (PDF) about her thoughts on breastfeeding.  It’s enlightening and it’s better than anything I can write.

Think what you want. Get angry even.  But keep it to yourself.  Mothers have a hard enough time as it is.

The Trouble with Androgyny

Posted on

Girl babies should be given androgynous names to do better in business. I’ve heard this idea before but was reminded when reading this CBC article about a woman who posed as a man and made more money writing than she had as a woman.

I’ve actually met people who named their daughters something androgynous to somehow better prepare them for the future. And while the trick might serve the girls well in business (at least, as long as they don’t ever have to speak to anyone or meet them in person) it’s just another example of a bastardized feminism that teaches girls to get respect by being more like men (or how we perceive men to be) rather than actually demanding respect for what they are: Women.

We see it everywhere. With the rise of raunch culture, women learn to fuck like a man in television shows like Sex and the City, and girls grow up thinking that posing for playboy is the best way to express their sexuality. To quote Ariel Levy:

There is a widespread assumption that, simply because my generation of women has the good fortune to live in a world touched by the feminist movement, that means everything we do is magically imbued with its agenda. But it doesn’t work that way. “Raunchy” and “liberated” are not synonyms. It is worth asking ourselves if this bawdy world of boobs and gams we have resurrected reflects how far we’ve come, or how far we have left to go.

This cultural shift erases diversity in our understanding of women by disallowing the things that are perceived as traditionally “feminine.” Admitting emotion is bad, femininity is weak, and sexual passivity means you’re not really in touch with your desires.

While many women may want to have tons of uncommitted sex, never talk about feelings, and juggle long work hours with families, they’re not all women.  Women, like men, cannot be understood as a singular group. They have similarities – some stronger than others – but they are not homogeneous.

Men get it too.  Though they still live a privileged life in many ways, the expectation that women act like “men” also assumes that all men are the caricatures we see on television shows.  While asserting their new aggressive “feminine” side, women have learned to devalue traits in men that were once considered traits of women – all of which are understood as weaknesses.

Equal treatment is often confused for sameness. But there’s no harm in actually admitting that men and women are different. The harm comes in the value placed on that difference, and the perceptions of what those differences mean.

Unless we stop lowering ourselves to some mythical level of sameness rather than expecting the world to raise itself up to a level of understanding, acceptance, and celebration nothing is ever going to change.  But just in case, maybe I’ll change my name to John.



Forgivers of the Unforgiveable

Posted on

Seeing that Roman Polanski was a trending topic on Twitter today when news broke that Switzerland would not extradite him to the US didn’t surprise me, but it made me sad.  Every time I’ve heard his name in the past year, the familiar knot in my stomach returns.  It’s not just that his crime disgusts me (though it does), or that he’s lived a life of luxury for more than 30 years, it’s the apologists who really make me sad.

It hurts me that we live in a world where news organizations will describe his crime as “unlawful sex” instead of rape, and 138 people in the film industry will sign a petition demanding his “immediate release.”  It boggles my mind that being an artist can somehow trump being a child-rapist.

So since the world seems to need a constant reminder, here you go:
Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child by Kate Harding

Reminder: Roman Polanski fled sentencing by Tracy Clark-Flory

And just for good measure,

Snips And Snails And The Unbearable Heaviness Of Roman Polanski by Catherine Connors

Sarah Palin’s “Feminism”

Posted on

If you’ve been following me on Twitter… or in my living room… you’ll know that Kate Harding pretty much makes me drool with everything she writes.  I’m aware that my need to constantly profess my love for her is totally creepy.  But every time I try and find someone else who is pissed off, awesome, crazy smart, feminist, and funny – basically, everything I wish I could be as a writer – I’m disappointed.

When Tracy Clark-Flory (who I am actually very fond of) wrote this piece on Salon about Sarah Palin’s Bullshit Feminism, I kind of thought it was a joke.  I meant to blog my own rebuttal but… well I got distracted by life.  Luckily Kate Harding took care of it for me.

This is an excerpt from her post on Jezebel.com:

So, can’t I just agree to disagree with Sarah Palin – or at least to ignore her use of the term [feminism] and continue to go about my business? Well, evidently not, or I wouldn’t be writing this. The problem is, words mean things. I could start calling myself a red meat conservative, or campaign for those of us who are against the death penalty to “reclaim” the term “pro-life,” but at some point, the relationship between your beliefs and your choice of words either passes the sniff test or it doesn’t. And someone who actively seeks to restrict women’s freedom calling herself a feminist is, not to put too fine a point on it, a liar. There’s a difference between a big tent and no boundaries whatsoever; if Palin’s “entitled to be accepted” as a feminist just because she says she’s one, then the word is completely meaningless — as opposed to merely vague and controversial.

Read the rest of it here. Really, read it. It’s excellent

Mad at Mad Men

Posted on

Mad Men Barbies
Season 3 Spoiler Alert

I’ve had a hard time with Mad Men from the very beginning. After watching the first episode I was so overwhelmed by the “boys club” dynamics and the way the men treated the women that I had virtually no interest in the show.

But after having a few more episodes on in the background as I was at my desk I became curious.

Overall, it is incredibly well done.  It’s a show about over-indulgence, boredom, and the failure of the American Dream, but the writers don’t feel the need to hit us over the head with it.

Everything looks great: It’s authentic (as far as I can tell) and none of the details are overlooked.  The writing is generally strong, and most of the actors are phenomenal.

There are some intriguing characters. Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss) is feisty and thrives in an environment she shouldn’t. Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks) is smart, tough, and in control. They’re both complicated, but that’s what makes them interesting.

But I’ve never been able to appreciate the men.

Though they may be well written, they’re simply vile personalities.  They’re disrespectful and rude, they cheat on their wives and back-stab each other.

While Don Draper (Jon Hamm) is the only one who gets much of a back story (and a convoluted and mysterious one at that), his present story is  full of philandering and lying to his wife – just like the other guys’.  Draper, with his classic good looks, gives most people an orgasm just for walking on screen, but I can’t stand him.  His damaged past doesn’t make him any more appealing to watch.

While it bothers me that the men of Sterling-Cooper seem to be incapable of monogamy, that along doesn’t make me hate the show.  It does, however, make it incredibly hard to feel engaged because I dislike the majority of the characters.

But what I can’t understand is the rape.

The first instance was a particularly disturbing scene in season two when Joan’s boyfriend, Greg, gets jealous and rapes her in Don’s office.  It was extremely hard to watch, but I was convinced that it would be resolved before the end of the season.  It wasn’t.

Even if spousal rape wasn’t illegal (it became illegal in US States between 1975 and 1993) women knew it was wrong. In season three Joan and Greg’s relationship is deteriorating. By making their problems about Greg’s general bad attitude instead about the abuse, it suggests that women in the sixties were willing to put up with anything if it meant marrying a doctor.

I haven’t finished watching season three yet, so maybe there’s a consequence for Greg still to come.  But as far as I’m concerned, it’s already 10 episodes later and would be too little too late.

If this wasn’t bad enough, Pete Campbell has become a rapist too.

Campbell wasn’t a particularly good guy for much of the first two seasons.  He cheated on his wife, toyed with Peggy’s emotions, and attempted to blackmail Don.

But by season three he seemed to be getting his act together.

That is, until a neighbour’s au pair needed help after she ruined her boss’ dress.  The girl feared she would deported so Pete offered to help her out.

He got the dress replaced, returned it to the girl, and asked her on a date (his wife was out of town).  The girl refused.  Later, Pete got drunk, went to the girl’s apartment and told her that she owed him for his help (and as such for helping her keep her job and her US residency).

He insisted she let him and model the dress. She reluctantly did.  When they got to the bedroom, he closed the door and forcefully kissed her.  The sex is implied, but not shown.

The scene played out more like one of Pete’s seduction scenes instead of what it really was: Rape. He might not have held her down, but he might as well have.  After all, for consent to mean anything there needs to be a balance of power.

This is very different than Joan’s rape, and is clearly not meant to illicit the same sort of reaction.

The next day the girl’s male boss confronts Pete.  The girl had spent the day crying.  I was expecting the man to, at the very least, punch Pete.  I wanted a reaction. I wanted a consequence.  But he only threatened Pete and told him  to stay away.

When Pete’s wife, Trudy, returned home, she figured out that Pete had “cheated.”  She was temporarily upset.  Luckily, any pain the perceived cheating caused her was fixed when Pete insisted Trudy not go on vacation anymore without him.  Clearly Pete’s actions were Trudy’s fault.  We all know that men can’t help themselves, right?

I always feel really upset by rape in a story line.  It seems to happen so frequently now that I have come to expect it.

In many cases it is just lazy writing.  It is a plot device that can only be used against women and as such is usually used to demonstrate their weakness.  There are few times when it adds much to the story because the motivations for rape in movies and books often don’t fit true motivations: Violence, power and control.

As much as I was disturbed by Joan’s rape and am upset that it doesn’t appear to have had a significant impact on her relationship, at least the motivation made sense.  Greg was jealous and wanted to assert his masculinity and power.  I don’t like it, but at least viewers won’t forgive him.

But in Pete’s case, it appears to have been about loneliness.  We know that rape isn’t about sex, and yet this scene was.  Not only does this undermine the victim’s experience, it tells audiences that this kind of rape isn’t real rape.

By creating any sort of hierarchy in understanding what rape is, we’ll never be free of it.

Brontesaurus: The best commercial ever made

Posted on

“The joke’s on you, narrow-minded cur. We’re women!”

This the funniest video I’ve seen on YouTube in a really long time!

I love it for many reasons. It’s over the top and completely absurd like most toy commercials (specifically ones aimed at boys), it’s about unlikely heroes, and the Brontesaurus is awesome.

But mostly I just find it hilarious and awesome to hear kids playing feminist role playing games. Using little kid role playing voices, but making important statements is absolutely delightful to watch.

Love. It.

Female Genital Cutting: Would you let someone ‘nick’ your daughter?

Posted on
https://www.arpg.ca/biaag/feature.aspx?id=1

Because I am a Girl Tee-Shirts can be purchased online from Plan Canada

There’s a great episode of The Simpsons where Bart makes a collect call to Australia to see which direction their water drains.  After the call leaves an Australian family with a huge phone bill, the Simpson family gets flown to Australia so Bart can make a public apology.

The curveball, they discover, is that Bart must also get a booting — with a very large boot — from the Prime Minister.  After a string of antics, chases and negotiations, the Australians tell the Simpsons that the Prime Minister wants “just wants to kick Bart once, through the gate, with a regular shoe.”

Like any good mother, Marge refuses.  It wasn’t the severity of the kick that mattered, it was the desire to commit a violent act on her child.

Though the example is silly, the principle is not.  It’s a parent’s duty to protect their child.

When I think of the girls whose parents have sent them to have their genitals butchered I’m horrified and dumbfounded.  The thought is so abhorrent that I cannot understand the parents as anything other than child abusers.

Female Genital Cutting (a.k.a. Female Genital Mutilation) is illegal in the United States but it was revealed in a recent article on Salon that it still happens in the U.S. – either in secret or by sending their girls overseas to be cut. In a lovely turn of events, that article inspired new legislation in the U.S. that makes it illegal for families to travel outside of the US to have their daughters’ genitals mutilated.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has gone in another direction.  In an effort to limit the amount of physical harm, the AAP recommends a compromise(PDF): give the girls a “ritual nick” instead of banning any genital tampering in order to “build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities.”

Their motivations are good, and from a purely medical standpoint I can understand the AAP’s position.   After all, the less physical damage the better.  They do not condone FGC and they do want to want to prevent girls from being sent overseas to be cut.

But while I understand the desire to reduce harm, it’s irresponsible of the AAP to suggest a compromise in the name of cultural sensitivity and understanding tradition when the tradition is so seriously flawed.

Medical opinions are valued and taken as fact by most of society.  So while the statement by the AAP may be based only on medical information, it has social implications – namely it affects the public’s understanding of a women’s right to control her own body.

There are so many cultural differences and traditions we should be sensitive to (and even celebrating).  Violence is not one of them.

The physical harm caused to women from traditional FGC is an obvious enough reason to be opposed to the practice. It is painful (often performed with unsafe objects and without anaesthesia), unsanitary, dangerous, and it causes a slew of health problems including infections and infertility. It also prevents women from enjoying sex and safely giving birth.

But the reasons behind the practice are also important.  As noted by the AAP in their report: “FGC becomes a physical sign of a woman’s marriageability, with social control over her sexual pleasure by clitorectomy and over reproduction by infibulations (sewing together the labia so that the vaginal opening is about the width of a pencil).”

The intent of FGC is to prevent women’s sexual autonomy and control their lives.

By compromising we’re essentially saying the tradition and the motivations behind it are OK.

No matter how much physical damage is done, female genital cutting is a violent act.  We wouldn’t accept a compromise on other issues of violence against women (“Actually guys, it’s OK if you hit her just a little bit to satisfy your interests, as long as it doesn’t leave a very big mark.”) so why this one?

Education on the consequences of FGC is essential. Healthcare and support of women who have already been cut is also important.  But even one more cut is too much.

An open letter to Stephen Harper

Posted on

Dear Stephen Harper,

You do not have permission to withhold my tax dollars from women who need help.

It is wrong for the government to be meddling in health care treatment, and it is wrong for the government to fund only one point of view in an obvious attempt to further a moral agenda and pander to anti-choice voters.

The Harper government’s decision is contrary to what other G8 countries – including the U.S. which won’t even fund abortions in its own country – and medical professionals recommend to save women’s lives in developing nations.

Refusing to fund agencies that do other crucial work in addition to providing safe abortions will be detrimental to the health of the mothers and children Ms. Oda claims to want to help.

Harper is expecting that people who hate abortion will love him for this, and no one else will bother to protest because it only affects women in developing nations.

Reproductive rights are protected by law in this country despite being unpopular with some people.  What’s the point of offering foreign aid if we don’t think the people receiving it deserve the same rights as Canadians?

With absolutely no love,

Lizz

P.S. Agree with me? Sign the “letter” below with a comment.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers