Alcohol, consent, double-standards and why I wouldn't want to be THAT judge.

Oi. The Book of Face is a frustrating place sometimes.

I've been agonizing over whether to respond to shitty things I see on Facebook or just to take a deep breath and exercise my 'hide-button' finger when I see egregious shit being posted by people I otherwise love and respect.

It's a tough call, sometimes.  Do I risk being piled on or alienating people by playing the role of feminist (or anti-racist, or pro-LGBT, or otherwise anti-oppression) killjoy? Or do I quietly keep scrolling and secretly hate myself a little as I click the 'hide' button?

It's hard.

Someone I especially love and respect posted this image* the other day:

I agonized over whether to comment on this, to the point that I had a bit of an anxiety attack and ended up deactivating my account for a few days.

But here goes:

Yes, loved one.  Neither party in this particular infographic could legally consent.

I'll be quite honest, I would hate like hell to be the judge or jury in the rather unlikely event that the charges went to trial, because that person would be in the uncomfortable position of calling someone a rapist,or calling someone else a liar (and also, possibly, a rapist as well).

I say unlikely, because a very small percentage of rape cases actually go to trial.  Most charges are dropped or dismissed due to lack of evidence.  This case here would be a prime candidate to get dropped, mainly because of the he said/she said position and the fact that they were both drinking.  Many a rape survivor has heard the chorus of "If they didn't want it, why did they go with/drink with/get in a car with/flirt with/building a fucking sand castle with them?"  Seriously, anything to discredit the charges.

Don't believe me? Not only did over 40 women come out against Bill Cosby, he is also on tape admitting to purchasing Quaaludes to incapacitate women for the purposes of having sex with them.  And people will STILL perform mental gymnastics of Olympic Gold proportions to discredit the victims and give Cosby the benefit of the doubt. FORTY.

In a similar vein, Jake is also in a terrible position, were he to try and press charges.  He's be assumed to have consented based on the fact he's a dude.  Because male victims of rape only count when it's in prison. It sucks.  People DO need to get over the idea that women are incapable of raping men, whether through force, coercion, or incapacitation. 

Anyone (male, female, nonbinary folk) who is drunk cannot consent to sex.

It's pretty simple.  Don't have sex with people who have been drinking if you don't want to be accused of rape.  People will argue that "So what, if my partner has a glass of wine, I shouldn't have sex with them?"

Don't be silly.

Having a glass of wine is not the same as being drunk. That being said, some people can drink until the cows come home and be a clear as bell.  There are also situations (medications, not having eaten enough that day) that can cause one drink to hit someone like a ton of bricks.

If you know for sure your partner is totally into it and fully consenting - ie. they are tearing your clothes off and is maybe only one drink in; maybe you have been in a relationship for years - and you know they are not operating under the influence of outside substances, then knock yourself out!

Consent! A fun, sexy time for all!

If you are unsure the person you are with is able to fully consent, maybe don't have sex with them.

If they *seem* fine, but you know they've killed a case of beer or a bottle of wine or a 26er that day, maybe don't have sex with them.  Hell, if you're NOT sure they DIDN'T kill a 26er, or a case of beer or a magnum of wine, maybe don't have sex with them.

If the person you are with is exhibiting any behaviour that might suggest that they are not totally into having sex with you - for example, freezing up, zoning out, making weird whimpering noises, expressing doubt ("Maybe we shouldn't.. this isn't a good idea.."), even seeming bored or distracted, use your words and say something to the effect of "Are you okay with this? We can do something else."  Give them a safe out, and if they don't take it, then proceed.  If you're still not sure they're into it, maybe don't have sex with them.

If you fear that the person you are about to have otherwise consensual sex with might turn around and accuse you of rape, then maybe don't have sex with them.

If you fear that the person you are with is going to mock you, or call you a pussy, or a cock-tease or otherwise disrespect your "No," then they are a boundary-disrespecting douchebag and maybe don't have sex with them.

You'll notice that I'm using a lot of gender-neutral terms here.  A lot of "they" and "them".  That's because these are rules that should apply to ANYONE.  No one is entitled to the sexual use of anyone else's body, male, female, genderfluid, or otherwise.

Note to my ladies:  We are also capable of victimizing men. I cannot emphasize this enough.  Please remember that. Climbing on a passed-out dude and going for a ride, that's rape.  Threatening, coercing, until you get your way... same deal.  We need to hold ourselves to a standard of consent as well.

So yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and yes, my dear loved one, that is how equality should work.  We're working on it.  In the meantime, make sure the consent you get (and the consent you give) is sober, un-coerced, and enthusiastic and things will probably be okay.

* I do want to add that the initial ad that the meme is predicated on is a problem, in the fact that it only states that Josie couldn't consent, not that neither of them could. This denies agency to women while simultaneously perpetuating the stereotype that men are always good to go, anywhere, anytime.

It's like we're regressing instead of progressing.

Oi people.

So, first off, it's been a while, hasn't it?  Yup. I've got no excuses, only a dearth of things I feel qualified to talk about, and blogging about the day-to-day is well.. Meh.

But every so often, a story catches my eye that is so mind-blowing in it's ridiculousness that I really have to wonder about humanity.

My source of ire stems from a story of an 8-year-old girl who was at a public pool with her parents, and in her excitement of "holy shit, SWIMMING!', threw her top off and jumped in.  Because 8-year-olds, they LOVE that shit.

The pool attendants told the parents to get a top on that kid, pronto, and the parents were all "Why?? To cover our child's likely non-existent breasts?" They were pretty pissed, and in my humble opinion, rightly so.  Because frankly, if the little boys are not required to wear a top, then it's kinda discriminatory for the girls to have to wear one, is it not?

You know how people always tell you not to read the comments on news stories? It's good advice. Because people are all kinds of awful.  You know how I know this?  I read the comments.  And the comments basically boil down to a few key pro-pool and pro-parent arguments:

Pro-Pool arguments:

- Rules are Rules!
- But, pedophiles!
- Also, more rules! and more pedophiles!
- Leftists, amiright??
- Girls are developing earlier and earlier these days, and also, pedophiles.

Pro-Parent arguments:

- It's been legal to be topless in public in Ontario for literally years.
- *most* boys and girls at that age are built pretty much the same
- The pedo argument is pretty much victim-blaming at its finest
- Boobs are boobs and not a Big Freaking Deal™.
- Also, she probably didn't even HAVE boobs, because eight-year-old.

The way I see it is this;  It's pretty damn disturbing that our culture has such a fucked-up relationship with breasts that we even flip the fuck out over the suggestion of a girl who DOES NOT EVEN HAVE BREASTS BUT OMG MIGHT SOME DAY enjoying the sun without a shirt or top, as the boys do.

Rules are rules, yes. But some rules are stupid and born of outdated ideals and morals that are not relevant in this day and age.  These rules need to be changed.

There have always been pedophiles lurking about. Pedophiles and sex offenders are not a new thing and they're not going to magically go away because your kid is wearing a shirt. A shirt is not a force-field, and a pedophile is not likely to strike at a public pool because the key word is public and most child sexual abuse tends to happen behind closed doors, not at public swimming pools.

And yes, suggesting that not wearing a shirt to a public pool will lead to a child being targeted by a pedophile is victim-blaming. Sorry, but really, not at all sorry.

The thing that gets me is not only this is a particularly US/Canada-centric attitude but relatively new! Not the weird breast-squeamishness, but putting this fear of breasts on children.  I remember being a kid, a scant 30ish years ago, and I remember seeing both little boys and girls on the beach without shirts on (myself included) and nobody batted an eyelash. In fact, some found it more bizarre that people would put their little girls in bikinis and other two piece bathing suits, due to the sexualization factor - making the suggestion of breasts where there were none.

So it seems that not only is our society incapable of looking at breasts in a non-sexualized manner (see almost EVERY debate about public breast-feeding), but people will actually freak the fuck out about potential breasts.

Are we actually getting more repressed? Sometimes it seems that way.

PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! - SOURCE

P.S. There's a really fantastic image that I saw on Tumblr a while ago that I wanted to use here, but as per usual, I fail on the image search front, and SafeSearch (or alternately, the sheer wrongness of the internet at large) foils my efforts again.

Girls and Defiance.

Meandering through the Book of Face, I came across a lovely photoset that was featured in an article a friend had 'liked'.


Mom's powerful photos of her daughters show 'Strong is the New Pretty'

Admittedly, there's some issues with the title, because of course some people are just going to read the header and not the article and assume that the point of the article is to bash all things traditionally girly.

Well, it's not.

The woman who took the photographs, Kate T. Parker, even says so much in the article. As a mom, she wanted to show her girls that they are ALSO beautiful, even if they are not-so-much into the girly-girly.

So, let's get that debate out of the way.

Girls (and women) are not obligated to be all frou-frou 24-7. Nor are women who do find joy in getting dolled up, or knitting, or kittens, or pink ribbons and acres of tulle and make-up somehow less-than women who like to play sports, or fix cars.

Additionally, strength and femininity are not mutually exclusive.  So let's shut that shit down right now.

What caught my eye was one comment in the article, in regards to these images:

They don't look strong. They look defiant. Defiant is not attractive in a child of either gender.

I felt I needed to call bullshit.  I posted the following in response:

Defiance is not a bad trait. There is something to be said for it. Defiance is the ability to stand up for yourself, and others. Girls are too often taught to be compliant.. To bend to the will of others. To be quiet, to be ladylike, to not make waves.

Defiance can be a beautiful thing. It is strength.

Defiance brings change. It allows people to stand up and declare "This is not the way things have to be!"

Defiance means being able to state your needs and not caving to pressure.

I have girls.  I want them to be able to say no.. to lovers who move too fast, to friends who encourage bad decisions, to bosses who treat them like shit.  Hell, even to me.  I'm not a perfect parent.  Sometimes, just sometimes, I need my kids to call me out when I'm wrong.

To be defiant.

(If you're reading this, that doesn't mean you're going win every argument, and yes you still have to do the dishes.  Just sayin')

Defiance is the ability to say 'No, I won't.' 

It's the ability to say 'CAN TOO!' and 'JUST WATCH ME.'

Defiance is beautiful.

Source: Kate T. Parker Photography

Food banks, nutrition, Kraft Dinner and the social safety net

I've been seeing a few posts going around about an Ottawa area food bank, the Parkdale Food Centre, and their recent policy change wherein they are refusing certain items of food they deem unhealthy... Namely that Canadian lunch staple, Kraft Dinner.

I have a few thoughts on this:

- KD is, yes, pretty much chemical glop.  Delicious, delicious chemical glop. Mmmm.

- KD has the capability of being mixed with meats and veggies to create a more filling and nutritious meal.  It is also easy to cook and easy to store, which is important for people who lack cooking facilities or safe places to store food.

- With the exception of around Christmas and Thanksgiving, food banks in Ontario are generally understocked and screaming for donations.

- Some people who donate food are assholes and will use food drives as an opportunity to unload their expired and or plain nasty stuff.

- Food banks do need to be able to offer more healthy options such as fresh fruits and vegetables, milk.  Money donations help them do this by offering grocery vouchers that can be redeemed at local grocery stores, or by allowing the food bank to stock these items daily.

I think a big point is being missed in a lot of the debate about this policy.  From my perspective, it is reasonable to encourage the donation of healthier options, but it is kind of arrogant and patronizing to refuse items (barring items that are expired or opened).  Healthy food is needed, but so is comfort food.  So is the occasional treat.  

But the thing nobody commenting on this story seems to be touching on is that food banks are supposed to be an emergency measure, a stop-gap.  If we have people relying on food banks to the point where it is becoming nutritionally detrimental, then that is a BIG problem and in most cases not the fault of the people having to rely on the food banks.   It's a symptom of a system that is not doing what it can to look out for its more vulnerable members.. the elderly, the disabled, families having to work at minimum wage, both single-parent and two-parent. 

If these people who rely on ODSP or CPP or a fair minimum wage do not have enough to even feed themselves on a regular basis, then that's a sign of a much bigger problem than a few boxes of Kraft Dinner.

Things remind me of other things - On being pro-choice and having babies.

The recent announcement that Chelsea Clinton is up the spout, as they say, seems to have caused some confusion in the forced-birth camp.  There seems to be some kind of idea that being pro-choice amounts to being anti-baby and anti-pregnancy.  All abortion, all the time.

It's not so.  I am staunchly pro-choice.  I happen to like babies a lot.  They're cute.  Mine were adorable and are growing up to be awesome people.  I also happened to mostly enjoy my pregnancies, although I grew to miss my ankles after a time.

I also never, ever want to be pregnant, or have babies again.  Ever again.  I don't think anyone who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy should be forced to whether by legislation or by circumstance and lack of resource.
.
The confusion of the anti-choicers seems to stem from the insistence of Ms. Clinton, along with grandparents-to-be Bill and Hil, in referring to her impending offspring as a baby.

Part of choice involves the decision to imbue meaning on a pregnancy.  I'm reminded of the passage from The Little Prince, where the fox explains if the prince were to tame him, to establish ties with him, that to him, the fox would "be unique in all the world" and vice versa.

In a sense, a person who is carrying a wanted pregnancy has established ties to the fetus, has began thinking of it as a baby.  The pregnant person has made a choice (whoa, there's that word again) to establish ties with what is growing inside.  In the story, the Prince does decide to tame the fox, although in the beginning, he has misgivings about having much to see and places to visit.   He makes the choice to tame the fox anyway, and the fox says to the prince that "You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed."

That's a big deal and a choice that should not be foisted on someone.  But more, it's a decision made by a pregnant person, followed by their partner and eventually their friends and family, to establish those ties.   So, it is not hypocritical for a pro-choice person to refer to a wanted pregnancy as a baby as opposed to a fetus, once they have made the choice to establish that tie, to give it such meaning.

Source

The only organs people should worry about in public bathrooms are bladders and colons.

Think about all the times you've used public washrooms. Now ask yourself how many times someone in a public washroom has openly waved their genitals at you? Not very often, I'm guessing? Now out of the probably minuscule number of people who have waved their genitals at you, how many have been trans folks?

Anectdata here, but I can unequivocally state that I have never ever had a trans woman wave her genitals at me in a public washroom. Although I can't back it up, I'm fairly confident, however that I have at some point in time shared a public washroom with a trans woman without even knowing it, my ignorance of such events likely being a result of the distinct LACK of genital waving in public washrooms.

Which is why i don't get what the big fucking deal is with letting trans people use the washroom that corresponds with their identity. Arizona, can you answer this for me?

If you accept the premise that trans women are women, full stop, you accept that there is no greater threat allowing trans women to use women's facilities. The presence of differing genitalia shouldn't enter into it. I mean, when was the last time someone told you to drop trou or present your birth certificate before allowing you to go pee?

The problem is that a lot of people don't accept this premise, which sucks, because it's really not that difficult to wrap your head around. What makes a woman a woman? Not boobs. I know dudes with nicer boobs than mine. We still accept that the profoundly flat-chested and breast cancer survivors still identify as women. Not a uterus, since I'm sure post-hysterectomy patients still define themselves as women. It's an innate sense of being a woman. It just so happens that some of the people with this sense of womanhood happen to have penises, or have had one at some point.

So instead of freaking out about the possible genitals of whomever you may be asking for an extra square of toilet paper, maybe just figure if you're in the ladies, and their in the ladies, chances are it's a lady. Then worry a little more about what's going on in your own stall.

Gender Essentialism in Your Stocking This Christmas

This showed up on my Pinterest feed yesterday:

Source

It's a list of stocking stuffer ideas for Christmas, by age.  I groaned inwardly when I saw that it was divided into a list for boys and one for girls.  Then I got a little optimistic when I saw that the first half-dozen or so items on the list were identical.  Play dough, art supplies, bubbles, stickers.. I can totally get behind this list.

And then as I continued to scroll down, my heart dropped with an almost audible sitcom trombone chorus - You know the one... wah wah waah waaaaah. About six or seven lines down, we get to the inevitable.  Cars and action figures for boys, dolls and jewellery for girls.

*sigh*

Can we step out of our boxes for a minute and consider the fact that some little girls just might enjoy playing with cars?  Or maybe there are little boys that enjoy playing with dolls?

I know many people will jump up with "But My Daughter LIKES dolls! My Son Likes Trucks! They wouldn't WANT to play with trucks/dolls!"  That's awesome.  Really, it is.

Your kid is not EVERY kid.

How many kids out there aren't getting what they would really like for Christmas because lists like these reinforce gender stereotypes that dictate what toys are appropriate for what gender? I'm not even going to get into the assumption of a gender binary here, because people tend to lose their shit when faced with the suggestion that a kid may be anything more than all-boy or all-girl.

What I wonder is why the creator of this image couldn't have amalgamated these items into one list and done away with the unnecessary gendering of sunglasses, jewellery, Nerf Guns and Barrels of Monkeys?

Speaking as a former little girls I, for one, LOVED Barrel of Monkeys.  It was a goddamned barrel of FUN.

UPDATE: So last night I posted a comment on the blog where this image originally came from asking, very diplomatically, why split the list into boys/girls, since parents clearly would already know whether their kids were into dolls or trucks, regardless of gender.  I wish I had taken a screen cap, because I went back to see if there was a response and my comment has been deleted.  I followed up, although I doubt my response will garner a response.

There's also a disclaimer at the top of the blog now asking not to leave harsh comments regarding the splitting of the lists into boys/girls.  That may or may not have been there before I commented.  I hadn't really paid attention, so if it was already there, my bad.

Exploiting Victims in the Name of Activism

So, as we already know, Chris Brown is a giant, girlfriend-beating douchecanoe.  Chris Brown the rapper, not Chris Brown that guy that used to work with my sister.  That guy was pretty cool and to the best of my knowledge, never beat anyone with an umbrella.

No, I definitely mean this guy. - Jeff R. Bottari/Getty Images

So, some folks in Sweden decided to protest one of Brown's concerts and in said protest, decided to put up a huge billboard and posters featuring the visage of then-and-possibly-now girlfriend, Rhianna, shortly post-assault.  You know the one, where he beat the shit out of her.

I am not okay with this.

Don't get me wrong.  My issue with these billboards has nothing to do with any desire to see Brown NOT punished to the further extent of the law by the court of public opinion.  I would love nothing more than for him to be forever known not as Chris Brown, Musician but Chris Brown, Giant Girlfriend-Beating douchecanoe.

Seriously, fuck that guy.

I love the fact that people are putting stickers on his CD's reminding people that this guy beat the shit out of a woman and maybe we shouldn't give him our money.  I'd love to see people do similar to Guns N Roses CDs, or Roman Polanski films or DVD boxed sets of Three and a Half Men.  (Axl Rose was accused of beating two exes, Roman Polanski drugged and raped an underaged girl and Charlie Sheen is.. well, Charlie Sheen).   Sing it from the rooftops.  "THIS GUY BEATS WOMEN."  Blow-horn that shit, seriously.

Can we do that without exploiting the victim?  That is my main issue with this postering effort. Given the fact that it appears that Brown and Rihanna are kind of off-again, on-again, I'd be willing to bet that she has not given any permission for her image to be used in such a way.  This is not a publicity photo from a magazine spread.  It's a picture taken in the wake of a horrific assault, when Rhianna, as a subject, was in a vulnerable position.  It's a haunting reminder of what he did to her, but is not for us, as the public, to consume.

As I said, I do not think Chris Brown deserves anything less than to have his name forever associated with being that guy who beat his girlfriend with, ironically enough, an umbrella and then was known to throw hissy fits when the media refused to just 'get over it'.  But in such cases, the victim's right to privacy should be respected, without being exploited as a poster child for a cause.  It reminds me of The World According to Garp and the Ellen Jamesians, who alienated Ellen James by making her a martyr and, through their movement, refusing to let her move past her own assault.

The use of Rhianna's battered face as a reminder of Brown's wrong-doing feels exploitative to me.  I feel like the people who created these posters were more interested in vilifying an abuser (which, on it's own is not a bad thing) than protecting the victim from further harm.

I've been reading again.

So back when I was in school, I bought and/or procured a shit-load of books, mostly those that had been mentioned in class, with the intention of reading them.  The snag was that while in school, I never had time read anything other than the required texts for my classes.  Once I graduated, my brain went into sleep mode and I wanted nothing more than to immerse myself in comic books, suspense thrillers and Harry Potter.

I was burnt out.

I also starting blogging and reading blogs a lot more in this time so my reading materials mostly consisted of other blogs and my books got sorely neglected.  So five years later I'm getting back into reading some of those more 'meaty' books I picked up in school.

I just finished "The Road To Wigan Pier" and I was struck by how a book that was published over 80 years ago holds relevant in many ways today.  Some of the parallels I found between his descriptions of the unemployed in Britain in the 1930s and prevailing attitudes toward the unemployed and working poor at the time similar to some of the misconceptions the Occupy movement attempted to address this past year.  Namely the idea that the unemployed don't want to work.  Both Orwell and the Occupy movement pointed out that most unemployed are willing to work, were the the work there and available at a living wage.

The book comes from a very pro-Socialism standpoint.  His thesis seems to be that unless a lot of people embrace socialism very soon, the only alternative will be Fascism which, to paraphrase, is basically Socialism without any of the good stuff.  He points out a few reasons that people at the time were hesitant to consider it, despite agreeing with many of the ideals.  One argument, that could easily applied to today and the tendency of lower-middle class to accept the fallacy of trickle-down economics, is that the class-conciousness of the time meant that people who, by upbringing, considered themselves 'middle-class' (described by Orwell as 'those who pronouce their aitches') were being pushed into the working class by way of economics.   One who was raised to think of themselves as a higher class than the working class may, out of fear of 'losing their place', be apt to align themselves with systems that benefit the rich, than systems that are actually more likely to be in their own best interests.

The other issue Orwell brings up is the tendency to avoid Socialism out of a desire not to align oneself with the prevailing ideal of what it means to be a "Socialist".  The caricature of the pistachio-shirted, sandalled, stuffy, boring, intellectual type is similar to the image of the man-hating, hairy-legged butch lesbian who will scream at someone who holds doors that causes many people to say "Yeah, I believe men and women should have the same rights, but I'm not a feminist..."  

(For the record, I fully identify as a feminist, but I am still grateful when someone holds a door for me.. why?  BECAUSE IT'S A NICE THING TO DO, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE.)

Long story short, I found this book a hell of a lot more interesting than I had originally thought I would.  The descriptions of the daily lives of the British coal miners and the living conditions of the unemployed of the working poor at the time made me look around at all I have and thank Gord for what I have.  The later parts of the book where he describes the machine age and its effects on the human population had me nodding in agreement, as many of the passages could easily have been written today.

Put your hand up if you totally saw THIS coming.

It was only a matter of time wasn't it?  Only a matter of time until the horrid shitshow attack on reproductive rights (aptly termed the War on Women by the media) started to creep its way north of the border.

Today Parliament, in spite of Steve-O's empty promises not to reopen the abortion debate, is debating whether to have a big old special committee to discuss the whole “Does life begin at conception” thing.  I caught a snippet on the news this morning regarding the debate, and later came across the story through Twitter (via @creativetweets).

Abortion rights debate spurred by MP's motion

Granted, the definition of the current law, which basically states that life begins when you fall out of your mom's vagina, is rather outdated seeing as it's based on a British definition that goes back about 400 years.  Any woman who has had her ribs bruised to shit by a fetus that seems to fancy itself the next Bruce Lee will tell you that this definition doesn't quite ring true.

But I am not, for one second, buying that this debate is being held in the name of clearing up an old definition in the name of being more scientifically accurate and “in line with 21st century medicine”.  Especially when you consider that Stephen Woodworth, the Conservative MP who brought it to the table, all but admitted that the motion is linked to abortion.

Woodworth wants to have an honest discussion but I think it's a discussion that should be kind of moot.  Regardless of when government rules ‘life’ begins, does one ‘person’ (or fetus') right to life cancel out another person's right to NOT have another person take residence in their body for up to nine months, possibly to the detriment of her own health?

I'd say no, regardless of how this fetus or person got there (ie, the ‘good' abortion vs the ‘bad' abortion) and no regardless of whether the reasons for abortion are considered selfish or noble/tragic.  Pro-choice means choice for all, even if we don't like or agree with those choices.  Anything less and we run the risk of allowing our rights over our bodies to be eroded.

I'm glad to hear that at least the NDP is planning to vote along party lines with the idea that the right to choose is NOT up for debate.  Conservatives, we don't know for sure, but it doesn't look good.  Rae has said that the Liberals will likely be allowed to 'vote their conscience'..

My friend @corecorina posted a link on twitter to a petition put forth by Liberal party member Lucie Pepin.  I will be signing and I encourage those who are eligible to sign as well.  We've already seen from the way things have been going to hell in a handbasket in the U.S. that allowing this debate to open again can quickly dissolve into a slippery slope to the point where even a miscarriage could potentially be grounds for criminal charges.

Oh, Toronto Sun, I guess I shouldn't be surprised..

But this seems sad, even for you.

I stopped reading the Sun years ago, not being able to take the sensationalist, pearl-clutching, chicken-littling right-wing rhetoric. I got tired of the blatant objectification that is the Sunshine Girl, Michael Coren's rampant bigotry and homophobia, and hell I even got sick of the snarky little comments in the letters section.

For a publication that started out as a youthful voice in the face of the Old Guard of Canadian news media, they're not exactly a bastion of progressive thinking.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised when they show a distinct lack of sensitive for trans issues, by referring to Former-now-current Miss Universe contestant Jenna Talackova as a he/she on their front cover.

Source

Keep it classy, Sun Media.

I had hopes when I saw the headline on their homepage that read "A True Heroine" that Mike Stroebel's column about Talackova would be a little less insensitive and transphobic, but again, I was disappointed.

Disappointed but not surprised.

I can't put my finger on it but both yesterday's column and the follow-up today  seemed to ring with a bit of snarky condescension.  Maybe it's the reference to 'men-turned-women' and their 'advantages' in the beauty pageant circuit.  Because, sure expecting a contestant to drop trou in order to prove that they 'meet gender requirements' when none of the other contestants are expected to (I could be wrong.. is the lack-of-swimsuit or 'most-legitimate-vagina' competition a new thing I haven't heard of?) is nothing compared to the advantage of leaner muscles and no monthly bloating.

The Sun's lack of sensitivity not-withstanding, there are issues with the idea of having to 'prove' oneself as a woman in order to compete that are wholly problematic. Let's pretend for a minute that there aren't a MILLION AND HALF things about Miss Universe that are problematic.  One's gender and how they identify goes so much deeper than simply what kind of equipment resides in one's crotchal area.  I, for one, even without her having had gender reassignment surgery, would be willing to give Jenna Tarackova the benefit of the doubt when she says she was 'born' a woman and would thus meet the guidelines of being a naturally-born woman, since being a woman is more than the presence of a vagina or breasts.  Why shouldn't the Miss Universe pageant do the same?

Once again I offer the caveat that my knowledge of transgender issues is limited, so my grasp on some concepts and terminology may be shaky, and I totally invite people to call me out in the comments if I fucked up.

That said though, I would think that advising a major publication to avoid terms like He/She is a pretty obvious no-brainer.

Can we stop having this conversation already?

I haven't read, nor seen, the Hunger Games, although the more I read about it, the more I want to check it out, as it sounds pretty freaking cool.

It seems there's a bit of a kerfuffle over one or two of the major characters in the book being cast with black actors.

Can we gets over this already?

Every damn time a POC gets cast as a known character who is not explicitly Black, Asian, Native or whatever, a bunch of "I'm not racist but..." assholes get their collective panties in a bunch and start muttering about "polital correctness running amok", like a POC couldn't actually be cast because they are, you know, a Good actor or something. No, it's all part of some big liberal bleeding heart affirmative action agenda.

Can we just accept that, except in cases where you are dealing with historical context (like, real people who actually existed) or when race is a fundamental part of the overarching narratives, the race or ethnicity of the actor or actress being cast should not fucking matter, especially in cases where descriptions of the character don't really allude to their enthncity at all.

"If someone cast a white person as {Insert known POC character here} then it wouldn't be okay.. You're a hypocrite!"

Not the same thing, folks. There are oodles of roles for white actors and actresses, already. There are a lot less good, fleshed-out roles for Black and Asian actors that aren't total stereotypes. And even LESS for Native or East Indian actors.

Basically, if your enjoyment of a film can be tarnished by the casting of a POC, when you'd imagined the character as white, then at best, you're unimaginative as hell and at worst, kind of an asshole. And a bigot.

***************************************

New, happy post up at Different Paths, Same Destination. Go check it out.

Your vocabulary lesson for the day.

The English language is a complex tapestry of varying rules of grammar, spelling and uses. Individual words can hold multitudes of meanings and evolve over generations. Sometimes those meanings can evolve into ones that are hurtful and silencing. We have control over this and we can keep words from being hurtful by not using them in damaging contexts.

Words mean things.

I can't believe we're still having this conversation but here goes:

When you say something is gay when you really mean stupid, you are equating gay with stupid. It paints gayness as a negative trait, and it's not. Full stop. When you use this, you are insulting and marginalizing an entire group of people. Same with retarded. Hell, even same with lame.

Using the word stupid all the time gets boring, I know. And these can be difficult linguistic habits to break (believe me.. I've stuck my foot in my mouth on more than one occasion... Right Danno?

So for your convenience, here is a handy list of words that can be used in place of stupid that DON'T serve to marginalized entire groups of people for no good reason.

Stupid

Ridiculous
Ludicrous
Lacking common sense
Illogical
Inane
Nonsensical
Foolish
Sophomoric
Absurd
fucked up beyond comprehension
Horrendous
Preposterous
Banal
Vapid
Unimaginative
Unoriginal
Pedestrian
Laughable
Pointless
Puerile

Of course, some of these are better suited to some contexts more than others. This isn't even a comprehensive list. Your Thesaurus has all these and more. I hear they even have em online now.

Yeah. You're welcome.

My readers are helpful. See also:

Insipid
Stupidiotic

Feel free to add suggestions in the comments.

Affirmative Consent and Erring on the Side of Caution.

I was introduced to a new term the other day - Hate-Reading.  You know, that thing when you continually read the same web site or subscribe to the same media outlet even though the thoughts and opinions expressed are generally full of fail and make your teeth itch?

One of my recent hate-reads has been Slate.com's resident advice giver, Dear Prudie. The other is The Stir by CafeMom (with the exception of Jenny Lawson and Becky Harks - they're pretty awesome) but that's a blog rant from another day.

Anyway, dear Prudie usually has few gems up her sleeve, such as the post linked above where she basically plays into the idea that someone who drinks heavily can't really be raped, they're probably just ashamed. Yup, we're still not over this. Twenty-first century, even. Yeah, Prudie is kind of an asshole but that's not really what I'm talking about here.

It brought up an interesting discussion on feministe regarding good consent when drugs and alchohol are involved. Somehow in these discussions there is always someone who wants a clear line in the sand showing exactly when someone is too drunk to consent, like legally. It's friggin' sketchy, like people want to know "exactly To what extent can I take advantage of a situation before I am legally culpable?"

Dude (or Dudette, because you know, it happens) if you have to ask, you probably have or will cross that line.

Where's the problem of erring on the side of caution and if you're not in a position where you're entirely sure you have genuine consent, then politely back off.

Remember that movie, the one where Michael Cera played Michael Cera playing every role he's ever had and sang "These Eyes" and Jonah Hill was fat and loud and the cops blew up the car and the drunk chick tried to blow Michael Cera but he said no because she was pathetically drunk?

You can learn a lesson from that movie. A lesson besides the one that says cops are generally bored and really do want to be your friend, because they're afraid of becoming irrelevant and old. Shocking, I know.

Worst thing that happens when you say to a drunk person that you're not comfortable having sex with thm when they're drunk is that you don't have sex that night. Not the end of the world.

Okay, one guy argued that someone could take great offense at you refusing to have sex with them, and assume you are an agency-denying, patriarchal slut-shamer, to which I say that consent works both ways. The non- or less-drunk party also has the right to say no, regardless of the other person's hurt feelings. So in that situation I say that the worst thing that will result from saying no is that you don't get to have sex with an asshole that night.

Before I close off I just want to mention that "erring on the side of caution" doesn't have to mean that once that bottle of wine has been cracked that all bets regarding sexy times are off, no matter who you are. Mileage is going to vary depending on the consenting adults involved: their trust levels, previous dialogue, and hell, alcohol tolerance comes into play as well. Just remember, affirmative consent is the presence of "Yes", not the absence of "No". And if that yes is more like a Yesshhhh, unless you Trust each other well enough or your date just happens to have a lisp, take that yessssshhhhh with a grain of salt, because it's a damn site better to be called an asshole than a date-rapist.

Can We Maybe Teach Our Kids Not to Be Entitled Assholes?

I'm becoming more and more disillusioned with parents.

Twice in the last month, I have attended public speaking events for things involving my kids and have been frustrated beyond belief. I've just about given up on the possibility that the coming generation will ever have any ability to sit down and shut up for more than five minutes at a time, because they sure as shit don't have any parental guidance on the subject of acting respectfully in a public forum.

In both events, I had to strain myself over the sound of phones buzzing and beeping (even after attendees were asked to turn their phones off), people talking and chit-chatting and allowing their kids, little and not-so-little alike, to run around and make noise. This is winter in Ontario.. do you have any idea how much noise snow-boots on a hardwood floor make in an auditorium? A shit-ton of noise.

Here I am, trying to set a decent example for my own kids, quietly admonishing them for wiggling, kicking and whatnot but I feel like I shouldn't even bother trying to get my kids to behave when other ADULTS don't even have the manners to pay attention to what is going on.

I get that kids have a hard time sitting for a long period of time. So my hats off to those who recognize this and remove their kids when they start getting bored and fidgety. Thank you. A fidgety kid is distracting enough, but a fidgety kid whose parent is constantly going "Shhhh!!" or indulging their need for conversation, or even just ignoring the kid when someone is giving a presentation or even just is beyond infuriating. So my hat is off to the parents who understand that sometimes it's just time to leave.

But, lately it seems that the kids are only a small part of the problem. Adults seem to have a hard time grasping that there are times when it's inappropriate to be carrying on a conversation or talking on your phone or getting and walking around a half-dozen times when there is someone addressing you as part of an audience. It's rude to the speaker and it's rude to the people who are there for the performance or information session or whatever reason there is to assemble. It reeks of entitlement and tends to teach the kiddos that no matter the situation, your immediate gratification is top priority to the detriment of those around you.

As someone with a bit of hearing loss, it's especially aggravating because I have trouble dealing with excessive ambient noise.

I think kids should be allowed in public spaces. I don't want to see them shuffled away, but we as parents need to teach and more importantly MODEL appropriate behaviour in public.

Come On, Canada.. we're dropping the ball on that 'human rights' thing.

Okay, so first there was that story a while back about how all those same-sex marriages that people rushed to Canada to get weren't actually valid if they weren't recognized in the place where the couples actually lived.  That was some kind of fuck-up indeed.  I'm not sure what the point of travelling somewhere to get married is if it's not going to be recognized elsewhere.

Free tourism, I guess?

Now, it seems that there is a regulation on the books that essentially bars pre-op transgender folks from boarding airplanes for travel.  (I just want to mention that I'm not totally comfortable with the term 'pre-op' as it implies that all transgender folks WILL eventually opt for SRS - not all do.)

From blogger Chris Milloy's website:

The offending section of the regulations reads:

5.2 (1) An air carrier shall not transport a passenger if …
(c) the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents;

Milloy points out that the rule, which came about last July is not actually a piece of legislation, but a regulation put forth by the Ministry of Transportation, and as such didn't have to be subject to a lot of pesky votes and such.  No, they pretty much just said so and that was that.

Really, guys?  We have a reputation to uphold, here.  We're supposed to be the bastion of human rights in North America and we're kind of failing miserably.

Unlike the constant attacks in the U.S. on pretty much anyone who's not at the top of the kyriarchy, which have been well publicized and put right out there for our amusement and/or horror, these kind of things seem to be happening pretty quietly, with an air of 'Oh, well that's not what we meant.'

It's been said before, and Imma say it again:  INTENT.  IT AIN'T MAGIC

So even if a law is not 'meant' to be discriminatory, if it causes issues for a commonly marginalized group, then it's discriminatory.

It strikes me funny that, in the wake of the election of a Conservative Majority these governmental microaggressions seem to be popping up more frequently, but always in such a way as to allow for plausible denial and magical intent.  My inner conspiracy theorist, who makes an appearance every so often, would probably think that no, suddenly backsliding on gay marriage would be a bad political move.. but what if the law was just written poorly?  It'd reflect poorly on the government to just say 'Hey.. we aren't gonna let transgendered folks fly' but if we wrote the regulation in the name of safety?  Who doesn't like safety?

Tricky, tricky, tricky.

But then again, you'd have to be kind of a jackass, or have not had ANY exposure whatsoever to gender issues to see how such a regulation would fuck with people who don't necessarily gender-identify with what's in their pants.  In which case, makes this some pretty fucking blatant discrimination.

*Privilege disclaimer:  My experience with transgender issues is pretty limited, so if I've made use of some iffy terms or concepts here, please feel free to call me out in the comments.

On the subject of boundaries and courtesy.

Read a post on Feministe today about an advice column on Slate.com that questioned what to do when your seat-mate on a flight pulls out a lap-top and starts watching hard-core porn during the flight.  The letter-writer in this case was a grandmother travelling with her daughter and small grandchild.

Not surprisingly, a lot of people's response was "Oh hell, no.  Call the flight attendant on that shit," because that's a pretty blatant broach of other passengers' personal boundaries, natch.  Regardless of the age of your seatmates, I would think it's safe to say this is never cool.

If you're ever wondering if it's appropriate to watch porn on an airplane, well, unless you are chartering your own private jet, one should usually err on the side of "Porn on an airplane? What the hell is wrong with you?"

A few people asked the question 'Okay, well where do you draw the line? What if it's not porn per se, but a movie or show the occasional scene of graphic sex or violence such as Dexter (which I use as an example, because it generally has a fair amount of both and I'm not really familiar with a lot of other shows).

It's hard to draw a line in the sand, because different people have different tolerance levels and are triggered by different things - imagine if you will, having trauma-related PTSD and finding  yourself with a seatmate watching a movie with a graphic rape scenes like The Accused or Precious.

I'm not sure about everyone else, but if it were me, I'd rather go a couple hours on a plane keeping my viewing at a PG-13 level or lower, than ask someone who may be easily triggered to just get the hell over it and let me watch my movie in peace, especially when considering that in most economy flights, you're practically sitting on your seat-mate's lap.

But where to draw the line?  What can be considered acceptable and what is not?  It's virtually impossible to tell these days what one may find acceptable for public viewing and what one may not.. especially if you get kids involved.  (Again, if it's porn on a plane, just don't.)

What surprises me is how few people consider simply asking their seat mate "Hey, I was thinking of watching this movie but it's kind of graphic in parts.  Would it bother you if I watched it?"  Worst case scenario,  seat-mate might actually say "Actually I'd really appreciate if you didn't."  Or they may say it's okay but decide since you have spoken to them that they want to be your bestie now and chat you up when all you want to do is watch your movie.

In the name of courtesy though, I'd be willing to take that risk.

As a society we seem to be developing a phobia of actually talking to people and creating dialogue.  We'd rather draw hard and fast lines of etiquette in the sand than actually reaching out to each other and creating dialogues around personal boundaries.  Respecting one's boundaries is a way of being empathetic.. to say "Hey, I get it, you're not cool with this and I respect that."

Another post having to do with boundaries I found interesting was in regards to not forcing children to hug and kiss relatives and friends at Christmastime or other gatherings.  We've all known a kid that doesn't like to hug or be hugged, and it's common for such a child to be admonished for being rude to not accept hugs and kisses from family members.  However, in trying to prevent abuse it is important to teach a child that their body is their own and that no one is allowed to touch it without permission.  So I think it would stand to reason that it might be confusing to a child to encourage bodily autonomy while simultaneously say 'but you still have to kiss Grandma'.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think rudeness is acceptable and if my kid refused to hug or kiss someone, I'd let them know that they still have to say hello or thank you or the appropriate acknowledgement.. but if they don't want to be hugged, that's okay.  Some people are very uncomfortable being touched.. whether it is tied into psychological issue or a physical issue - some are very sensitive to touch and it can be over-stimulating.

Respecting a kids boundaries also teaches them to understand and respect the boundaries of others.  Paying attention and respecting a child's boundaries can also help a parent be aware of issues.  My oldest daughter, as a toddler/preschooler was ridiculously affectionate.. WITH EVERYBODY.  She even wanted hugs from strangers.. anyone who made eye contact with her, pretty much.

I remember her running up to an elderly lady pushing a walker and exclaiming 'Up! up!'.  Another time in a bank, she ran up to a young boy who was probably no older than eleven or twelve and threw her little arms around his legs.  This poor kid looked like he was going to die of embarassment on the spot.

Being such an affectionate little thing, I paid attention when she didn't want someone to hug her.

There was a time when the ex-hub and now-wife had some company over including one or two people they didn't know.  My usually exuberantly affectionate preschooler refused to give this one guy the time of day. Instead of vying to have attention lavished on her, she quietly guided her sisters into another room, away from the company.  I don't know the details, but this one guest ended up later saying things to now-wife that had crossed a few of her boundaries and left her quite upset.  I have little doubt that T. picked up some kind of vibe from this guy.

I think small kids can have the ability to read adults better than we can of each other, because they have not yet been socialized into prejudices about different people, and may be able to better follow their instincts when it comes to getting 'bad vibes' from someone.

Just like we should listen to those around us in order to show courtesy and respect boundaries, with kids while there are times to teach, there are also times to listen.

Sorry.  Couldn't Resist.

There's about 1000 Penn State Students that need a good hearty Throat-punch and a number of staff that need way worse than that...

SEVERE EFFIN' TRIGGER WARNING LIKE WHOA FOR SEXUAL ABUSE.


I've never cared much for football.  The only things I care less about than college football are NFL Football and to an even lesser extent, CFL football.

I care a shit-load about kids though.  Which is evidently more than I can say about the jackholes at Penn State that were rioting in protest over the sacking of long-time coach Joe Paterno after he was fired for helping cover up for a former player after the player was caught raping a small child in the locker room.  TWICE.  Over ten years ago.

Let's let that sink in for a moment, shall we?

Mike McQuery, assistant coach, walked into a locker room sometime in 2002 and found Jerry Sandusky sodomizing what looked like a 10-year-old boy.

Again, take a second and think about the build of your average football player.  Now think about the size of the average 10-year-old boy.

Yeah.

McQuery, in all his wisdom, turned around and walked out.  Now, call me crazy, but I think the proper response in this situation may have been a physical intervention in the 'GETOFFTHATLITTLEBOYYOUTWISTEDFUCK' vein.  That's just me.  Seems a little more pro-active than 'Oh.. hrm.  I need to go think, but as you were, gentlemen.'

Instead he walked into Paterno's office, told him and was effectively told "No, we're not going to call the cops.  We'll let the administration take care of it."  Then both he and McQuery washed their hands of the situation while the administration handled it to the effect of telling Sandusky "Hey, Jerry.. if you're going to rape little boys, can you please not do it on campus.  Mmmkay, thanks."

It gets even better when you consider that this was NOT the first report of Sandusky's misdeeds.  In 1998 a janitor stumbled across Sandusky performing oral sex on another small boy in the locker room.  And again, walked out.

What the fucking fuck?

Now it seems that Sandusky took his dirty work somewhere off Penn State campus and got caught.  Someone decided NOT to sit on their hands and in the wake, the dirty details of the other children he victimized have come to light and Penn State University is in a world of shit, because they've been covering up for Sandusky all these years.  Because football, you know.  Way more important than preventing child-rape.  Clearly.

*swallows bile*

So the President stepped down, and Paterno has been fired, as he should be.  Penn State students are rioting.

Are they rioting because it took so goddamned long to bring these allegations to light, and fire some of the people responsible for covering up?  No, it's because their precious coach got fired and who's going to coach the big game now?  Each one of the kids crying over Paterno and the good name of Penn State being ruined should be punched in the throat.

Fucking hell.

A commenter on Feministe's article tried to paint Paterno as sympathetic and torn between conflicting ethical dilemmas.  Protect the school's good name or potentially put a child-rapist behind bars.

"We all have to balance competing ethical obligations all the time, let’s at least do each other the courtesy of admitting that it’s difficult.  I’m not saying what Paterno did was right, I’m saying it was understandable."

Um. No.

Full Stop.

There is no way that not calling the police after witnessing a child rape, or not INSISTING on calling the police after someone else witnesses a child rape, does not make you the worst person in the whole fucking world (outside of the rapist themselves).  There is no 'competing ethical obligation' here.  The only ethical obligation was to those kids who were victimized by Sandusky.  Not to the University, not to the team and definitely not to Sandusky.

To the Penn State rioters:  Paterno is NOT the victim here.  He is culpable, just as the school president is culpable, just as McQueary is culpable as they KNEW that Sandusky was a predator and they looked the other way to protect the 'good name of the school'.

Every time you whine about the 'witch hunt' you are figuratively slapping a nameless little boy in the face and saying "We don't care about you.  You mean nothing.  We only care about the game."

Disgusting.

Edit:  For future reference, other universities or organizations may want to use this handy, simple flowchart for reference, care of Adulting:

UPDATED: Yeah. Not impressed.

So, I got a letter home from the school the other day letting us know that the Gideons have asked to come and speak to our fifth-graders (of which mine eldest spawn is one) and provide them each with a free Bible.  At the bottom of the letter is a disclaimer stating that this is not an initiative of the local school board.

I'm not real thrilled about this, so I sent the form back with a note that I did not wish for my child to participate.

I had very little religious education growing up, beyond what I sought out for myself over the years and what I have seen has not impressed me.  At this point in time I consider myself pretty much an Atheist, and my children have been taught a moral code based simply on the idea of being empathic to others' feelings and respecting their bodily autonomy.  Pretty simple.

I've had my kids enrolled, albeit reluctantly, in a few Bible camps due to the fact that church funded kids activities tend to be a hell of a lot cheaper than other kinds of day camps so I justified it using providing the kids with a social outlet.  But I always felt kid of squicky, especially when my daughter went to her dad's and told her stepsister that she wouldn't go to Heaven because she didn't believe in god.

The ex-hub and I had a little chat after that and came to the conclusion that we'd seek other social outlets for the kiddies.

So yeah, I'm not thrilled.  I wasn't going to even mention it here, but a friend of mine posted the question to Facebook and a discussion ensued.

I'm of the belief that one's spiritual and religious beliefs are a personal thing and are not suitable for the school environment.  One woman made the comment that this would provide a moral compass to kids.  I replied that one can teach children morals and ethics without relying on the Bible.

I think that what bugs me most is not the fact that if I wanted to indoctrinate my kids I'd be sending them to church, or at the very least a Catholic school (please don't get me started on the fact that we still have a Catholic school board) but it's that I have the feeling that in our rather white-bread community, I'm not sure I'd see it going over well if say, a Muslim group wanted to talk to the school and hand out copies of the Qu'ran - although, incidentally, the public library did recently hold a Question-Answer type period on Islam that I was tempted to check out and then I completely forgot about it...

Anyway, I digress.. I'm not sure that would go over so well.. or what if one of our many local members of the Pagan community wanted to come lecture the kids?  Or.. what if I wrote to the School board and asked if I could come in and lecture on Atheism and hand out copies of writings by Nieztche or Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion?"

Would they be as welcoming then?

I'm almost tempted to write a letter suggesting just that...

In other news, I have now have the school board to blame for the fact that I've had Rocky Racoon stuck in my bloody head all day long.

UPDATE:  Holy hell (*snicker*) I just remembered another reason why this pisses me off.  Because this is being hosted by the same school that has had 'Orange and Black day' in place of Halloween celebrations, so as not to offend the poor widdle Christian (and other) kids whose parents don't let them celebrate Halloween.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Disinformation, Douchebags, Disney and Why You Shouldn't Fuck with Saskatchewan.

The new Facebook newsfeed has some downsides (gee, really?), one of which is that from time to time I'll get something on my newsfeed that a friend has commented on.  I want to weigh in, but since the original poster is not a friend of mine, I can't.  Once again, in the wake of the new changes, we're getting the ridiculously asinine reposts about how Facebook is going to start charging and blah blah, repost and you won't get charged.

And people repost this shit.  It's enough to make my head explode.  But here is what I have a real issue with:

Newsflash, commenter number 1:  Spreading misinformation does not make you smart, it makes you an asshole.  Check your sources before reposting this inane shit, thankyouverymuch.  The friend of mine that commented on this, thus exposing me to this other person's dumbassery via my newsfeed, had a very reasonable suggestion - check snopes.com if you are unsure. At LEAST take the time to do a quick Google search.

Again, it is NOT smart to repost shit 'just in case' if you don't have your facts straight.  In a case like this the worst that will happen is that you'll piss off some people, and maybe lose a few e-friends in a fit of annoyance, but the possibility may arise that someone will re-post something that is hurtful, oppressive or downright untrue and may be harmful to others.  Adam P. Knave posted a great article about the dangers of spreading misinformation through social media last week and puts it more eloquently than I have here.   Recommended reading, indeed.

******************************************************

Source

As a sociologist with a great interest in popular culture, it's usually a lot of fun to Disney bash, what with the various Disney princesses and their tropes and unrealistic messages of storybook romance.  However, in watching an older DVD with my kids tonight, I was reminded that they're not all bad.  Disney, after all, also gave us Kim Possible which to date is one of my favorite female fictional character geared towards kids.  She's loyal, smart, ass-kicking and genuinely wants to help people.  And although Ron plays the mostly bumbling sidekick, he has his occasional moments of glory, and is secretly a highly-trained ninja, and is often the more zen of the two (except in the face of monkeys).  I love that they end up together without a lot of the typical nice-guy-pines-for-hot-girl-and-continuously-cajoles-her-into-seeing-what-a-great-catch-he-is-because-he's-so-nice storyline.  No, Ron values Kim's friendship and happiness overall (and vice-versa) and that desire to see her happy is his motivation. 

He's like the Ducky (from Pretty In Pink) of the coming generation, without getting fucked over for boring-as-drying-paint Andrew McCarthy.

Did I mention that the main villainess is pretty effin' cool as well?  Of the many cartoon villains I've seen in my time, Shego remains one of my favorite, with the best villainous one-liners - ("Pleased to beat you!").  She's kind of an interesting commentary on the glass ceiling and being taken less seriously in her field as a woman in spite of the fact that between her and Dr. Drakken she's clearly the brains AND the brawn of the operation, but is woefully under-acknowledged and mocked for being a mere sidekick.  I love when she gets to rule a particularly dystopian future in A Sitch In Time.

I will add that everytime I image search Kim Possible, some of the fan art never fails to destroy my soul, piece by piece.

*************************************************

Based on this post, it has become clear to me that we have a need for a new genre of music which I have decided shall be called 'DoucheRock'.  Theory of a Dead Man is the latest to delve into the land of mysogynist arena rock, which frankly, hasn't been remotely cool since Axl started braiding his hair.  I'm not surprised when you consider how heavily they take their influence from Nickelback.  I'm glad I stopped listening to Rock Radio (ie Rock95, I'm looking at you) so I don't have to hear this kind of crap. And I thought Buckcherry's "Crazy Bitch" made my teeth itch.   *shudders*

************************************************

Lastly, I got a good giggle at this video posted at the Fuck Yeah CBC Tumblr.  My future husband, George Strombolopolous finds out the hard way that a) you don't fuck with Saskatchewan b) You definitely don't want to make 'flat' jokes and c) Word travels fast (and haphazardly) in the Canadian entertainment industry.  This clip was the intro for the 2007 Gemini awards.  It's got a lot of awesome cameos from Brent Butt and Eric Peterson of Corner Gas, the cast of Little Mosque on the Prairie, Sue Johansonn (aka Sunday Night Sex with Sue), Colin Mochrie, Rick Mercer and more.