Just some scattered thoughts on the Stuebenville case, if anyone was interested.

First, I'm glad the little shits are going to jail.  Frankly, I think the combined sentence of three years is pretty goddamned lenient.

Let's get some perspective here on just how lenient a sentence this was (and how lightly courts take rape cases)

• Patrick Lashung King got sentenced to 15 years in prison for pirating five movies and a CD
• Tanya McDowell was sentenced to five years for sending her child to school out-of-district

So yeah, there's that.  Pirating CDs and attempting to obtain an education for your child warrant a worse punishment than sexually assaulting and degrading someone AND video recoding it for good measure.

Second, for those who have treated this like a harmless prank, stop yourselves right there's for I do not think you know what the word "Prank" entails.

Drawing on someone's face with a Sharpie is a Prank.

Pictured: Prank Victim. Not Pictured: Jane Doe.

Similarly, placing one's brassiere in the freezer would fit the definition of a prank, provided the victim had already divested him or herself of said brassiere.

As for the asshats who are calling out the victim on being drunk and calling this a case of "Buyer's Remorse?" and implying, or hell, outright saying that the victim cried rape out of embarrassment, I have a few things to say:
* Fuck off
* we're having trouble with word meanings again. Embarrassment is what you feel when you dance with a lampshade on your head, or you smush a grape jello shooter into a white carpet at a party (Sorry K!). Jane Doe was carried from party to party, raped repeatedly and urinated on. I think the word you were looking for was Violated. Or hell, Raped. Raped works.
* Want to cut down on all those "false accusations" that everyone gets so worked up about? (All 0.6 percent of them, so i'm basically throwing the rape apologists a bone here) Don't shame women (or anybody) for enjoying, actively seeking and participating in sexual activity. Don't base someone's worth and how you treat them on how many people they have or haven't fucked.

Lastly, to the media. Once a conviction has been handed down, it's time to drop "allegedly" from your vocabulary. After a certain point, it just makes you look like an asshole.

I'm looking at you, CNN.

Today I am all out of patience.

Today I am out of patience.  Outwardly, I look okay.  Normal.  I'm going to go, do some christmas shopping with a friend, have dinner with The Well-Travelled One and go about my business, while inside I kick and scream and throw a toddler-tantrum at the sheer un-fucking-fairness of it all.

There's so much anger inside me right now.

I'm angry that, as a friend of mine pointed out, we don't show the same level of remorse and shirt-wrending heartache when we hear of children across the ocean being killed daily by bombs and artillery.  Over there are also parents who woke up one morning, kissed their child that morning only to mourn them by day's end.  We call them collateral damage and hush people who dare to mention little brown children dying when clusterbombs are dropped on school yards because we need to support the troops.

I'm angry at the people who are suggesting that the way to prevent gun deaths is with more guns, rather than less, as though arming teachers couldn't have possibly ended in more bloodshed.  I'm angry when people say that this is not the time to talk about gun control, when people are dying.   This is the perfect time.

People say that he would have found another way.  Perhaps a bomb, perhaps stabbing like the guy in China that stabbed 22 school children.  Do you know how many of those children died?

None.

Fucking ZEE-ROH.

So don't tell me now is not the time to talk gun control.  This is the perfect time. Don't tell me less access to guns wouldn't have made a difference.   Today 22 parents in China are thanking their lucky stars instead of mourning their lost babies.

I am angry at people jumping to the obvious conclusion that this man must have been 'mentally ill'.  Is it a possibility?  Yes.  But not all mentally ill people are violent and not all violent people are mentally ill. To assume so does a huge injustice to the non-violent mentally ill.  It is not up to me or you to diagnose.

I am angry at the idea that this could have been prevented by allowing God back into our schools.  We kept Him out.  We refused to let people pray.  (We refused to force people to pray, actually).

I want no part of any God who would let little children die because we do not worship as he sees fit.

I have been told, in dark moments, that God has a Plan.  Was this part of it?  Cold comfort to the families who are living a nightmare today.   I have been told on numerous occasions that he is both omnipotent and loving.   If he couldn't have saved those children because he isn't "allowed" in schools, then he is not omnipotent.  If he wouldn't, then he is not loving.

An omnipotent, loving god would have stopped Adam Lanza before he ever reached the school into which he was not 'allowed'.

Hug your babies tight.

This morning in Ontario there were parents grumbling and inconvenienced because they couldn't send their children to school due to the one-day teacher's strike.

Today, in Connecticut there are parents who will wish, possibly for the rest of their lives, that they had never sent their children to school this morning.  They will go over and over what they could have done differently.


No one should have to consider the possibility that when they send their little ones to school, that they might never come home.

Some will thank God or whatever forces of the universe they put their faith in for the fever, or the stomach bug or even the case of head lice that may have kept their child home today.

I can't even imagine what possesses a grown man to open fire on a building full of children.

It boggles the mind.

No child should ever have to see their teacher, principal and peers gunned down before their eyes.  No child should have to live with that memory.

The teachers who were on duty, some of them will live with the memory and guilt, guilt that they should not have to bear, from being unable to save the children.

It feels like there should be some kind of metaphor here, but I have nothing. It's just as well.  Enough people will use this event to political ends as it is.  I don't want to add to it.

I don't want to speculate on this guys mental and emotional state.  I don't want to talk about guns.

I just want to hold my babies.

Daniel Tosh is not being censored.

A day late, a buck short, I know.  This is all old news by now.  Whatevs, brah.

But I couldn't let this one pass.

Daniel Tosh, the so-called 'comedian' that I fully admit I hadn't really known of or paid any attention until this week, got called out at one of his shows for saying rape jokes are funny.

For the record, they're not.

He responded by making what have has been interpreted by some as a not-so-veiled threat and by others as a joke.  I'm kind of in the threat camp on this one.

After I called out to him, Tosh paused for a moment. Then, he says, “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…”

I've laughed at some pretty wrong and fucked up stuff in my time, and this didn't even make me giggle a bit. Not even in that "omigod-i-so-shouldn't-be-laughing-at-this-I'm-a-bad-person-and-obviously-going-to-hell" way.

So as it happens, this girls post has gone viral and a bunch of people have called Tosh an asshole, and a bunch of people have come to his defence, claiming free speech etc etc.

People, I cannot stress this enough.

Criticism is not Censorship.
Saying "Don't be an asshole," is not Censorship.

Saying "This thing you said, it's shitty and hurts people" is not Censorship.

Criticism is not Censorship.

Saying "I'm not coming to your performances or watching your show any more, you rape-apologizing, unfunny assbag." is not censorship.

Telling sponsors and advertisers "Hey, I'm going to stop using your services or buying your products if you keep giving money to this rape-apologizing, unfunny assbag," is not censorship.

Bringing attention to the actions of an unfunny, rape-apologizing assbags through various medium and suggesting that "Hey, maybe supporting unfunny rape-apologizing assbags is bullshit really fucking hurtful and erases victims and perpetuates a culture where rape is normalized and acceptable and seen as a joke," is not censorship.

Criticism is not Censorship.


To the best of my knowledge, no one is advocating jailing, deporting or otherwise sanctioning Daniel Tosh.  Governing bodies have not stepped in and taken away his show.  If I'm wrong, then yes, that is censorship.

But the same people who are saying that we are taking away Daniel Tosh's right to be an asshole free speech are silencing the victims, or potential victims who are trying to say "Hey, that shit is not funny."

Being a woman in public: just like wearing swastikas and shouting racist slogans

Well, I can't say I wasn't warned.

Tallulah Spankhead of the Lady Garden warned readers not to, under any circumstance, read the comments on this article about a woman who was assaulted in a well-known "problem area" in Wellington, New Zealand.

I was told but did I listen? No. So of course I was subjected to the usual victim-blamey bullshit like women shouldn't expect to be able to just walk anywhere without being assault, like actual people.

My personal favorite was Comment 19 from Scott:

Its not about blaming the victim, its about common sense about keeping yourself safe. Its like walking into south Auckland with a swastika on your head shouting racist slogans. Sure you can do it and in a perfect world it would be your right to free speech but your a dumbass if you do.

So the very act of being a woman in public is akin to wearing swastikas and shouting racist slogans? Our very existence is provocation to violence? AWESOME.

I love the "in a perfect world, but it's not a perfect world" bullshit attitude. It's not a perfect world but it's definitely not going to improve as long as people keep shrugging their shoulders and saying "Well, that's the way it is."

That's not the way it has to be. We can start by placing blame for assault squarely where it lay - on attackers.

I am a Pacifist, this is why I remember

*Originally Posted November 11, 2009

November 11th is not a celebration of war.

It is a solemn reminder of the devastation that can occur when apathy and ignorance allows oppression to spread like a disease.


It is a reminder that all these things we take for granted, our freedoms, our comfort, can be snatched away in a moment.

Now with two generations of whom most of us have never known the fear or the loss of loved ones through war, it is more important that ever that our young be educated, and that those of my own generation educate ourselves. By forgetting our past, we are destined to repeat it.

I choose to acknowledge that we cannot fully appreciate peace without recognizing the atrocities of war.

I wear the red poppy out of respect and to educate. I wear it for my grandmother who lost not one but essentially two brothers in battle - one never returned, one returned, never the same. I will wear it ever November 11th so long as our battles are fought in defense, never in offence. In the name of freedom, not in gain.

I don't know if it's in poor taste to post this video, as it is satire but I've always felt humour was something that helps people cope with horrific things they may not otherwise be able to wrap their head around.

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:

A few quick thoughts on SlutWalk (or "Oh great.. here she goes again..")

I've really been wanting to write about this, but my thoughts on the situation have been a bit muddled.  It occurred to me that many people were not clear on what the point of it all really was.

I mean, many people by now have heard the story of the cop in Toronto who was reprimanded for telling a group of women that they can avoid being victimized by 'Not dressing like sluts.'  Naturally this pissed a lot of people as victim-blaming based on clothing choice, based on how much someone has chosen to drink... well, it's all old hat by now.

The name Slutwalk is problematic, yes.  There are historical contexts around the word that hold different meanings for people of different backgrounds and cultures.  My understanding of these contexts is, well, shoddy at best, so if it seems like I'm glossing over them, it's just because I have not done adequate research into the issues behind the etymology.  In the context of the Toronto walk, it made sense.

It's not about the right to dress "slutty" (well, it is.. but slutty is a subjective term... hold on, I'm getting ahead of myself.)  It's not about the right to sleep with whomever you want, whenever you want.  It's not about the idea of taking back the word "Slut" - something I myself am less than totally comfortable with.  Yes, making a word taboo can give it power to hurt, but taking away the taboo doesn't necessarily take away the sting.

Basically what it boils down to is this:

No mater {sic} who you are or what you do, EVERYBODY is a slut in somebody’s estimation, and that means that as long as our culture makes “sluts” rapeable, it is a threat to us all.

Basically, it's the idea that one's perception of whether or not someone dresses like, or is, a 'slut' is NOT a justification for assault, and that policing women on their manner of dress, even out of sincere concern, contributes to a culture that puts the onus for risk reduction on victims to protect themselves from rape and other forms of sexual assault, rather than on the people doing the assaulting.

Basically, a Yes is a Yes.  A short skirt is not a yes. A pair of yoga pants is not a Yes.  A MuuMuu is not a Yes.

But when people say things like "Look at that girls' skirt, she looks like she's 'asking for it'" or when we slut-shame each other, we turn it into a "Yes, but..."

"Yes, people shouldn't rape, but... if (girls wouldn't dress so slutty) (didn't drink so much) (didn't leave their drinks unattended) (didn't smile and flirt so much)... they wouldn't get raped"

This is victim-blaming.  This is rape apology.  The point of the Slutwalk is not to get dressed up in your sleaziest attire and strut your stuff (although I'm sure some did), but rather was to point out that anyone, at any time, can be branded a Slut and as such, in our current culture can face blame for their own victimization.  Me.  You.  Anybody.

A 'victory' that is bittersweet, at best.

Having had roughly 24 hours to reflect on the revelations of last night, namely that U.S. special forces had finally captured and killed Osama Bin Laden I gotta say, I have some mixed emotions.  It might be fair to say I'm a little numb.

In no particular order, my thoughts:

I'm happy and relieved for the people who lost friends, family and co-workers in 9/11 who will hopefully find some sort of closure from this news.

I'm afraid of Bin Laden's martydom being catalyst for more aggression against North America.

I'm conflicted because I don't usually believe that justice for taking life should involve taking more life, especially without due process, but in this case, a big part of me is willing to give it a pass, just this time.

I'm irritated with people screaming 'America, Fuck Yeah' and 'Hooray for the good guys!' like we've won some kind of pissing contest.  It's not the Olympics.  It's not the bloody Stanley Cup Playoffs.  It's life and death.   It's not just about one man, it's about the memories of thousands lost, on both sides of the fence.  Let's show a little decorum so we can at least hold ourselves to a higher standard than those people who celebrated and rioted in the streets when the World Trade Center fell.

I'm apathetic because I know this is merely a symbolic victory.  Bin Laden's capture and subsequent death won't end terrorism, it won't end the blood spilt over conflicting ideologies.  This is a continuation of an ongoing cycle of violence with no end in site.

I'm still more than a little amused with the fact that Barack Obama's address cut into the end of Celebrity Apprentice.  Suck it, Trump.

Yeah, so all in all.. don't know how I feel.  There have been a few choice things I've read around the interwebs that addressed it nicely:

Yes, bin Laden the man is dead. But he achieved all he set out to achieve, and a hell of a lot more. He forever changed who we are as a country, and for the worse. Mostly because we let him. That isn’t something a special ops team can fix - The Stay-At-Home Feminist Mom

Osama Bin Laden is dead.  Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy. - Jill at Feministe

The world breathes a sigh of relief that the foremost terrorist leader has been eliminated, and rightly so, but let's not lose sight of temperance and grace. This is far from over and the actions we take and the words we speak today will color what happens in the future. - Everything I like Causes Cancer

ten years ago, i may have felt different.
ten years ago, i may have felt a bit of righteous and well deserved retribution.
ten years ago, i may have felt that good triumphed over evil...
ten years ago, i would have felt that we struck a huge blow to the terrorists.

i may have felt that we knew where they were and were coming for them.

not yesterday.
not today.
not tomorrow.

revenge is a dish that is best not served.
it is a dish that is best a lost recipe.

today this feels
like a lie.
a ruse.
a spin.
a hide the weenie.
a slight of hand. - Bruce's Evil Twin at Stupid Stuff I See and Hear

and this which has been going around Facebook:

I have never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure - Mark Twain

It's a wonder I'm still walking around...

This is a post written for Studio30Plus's weekly challenge.  This week's prompt is 'Risk'.  I've tried to convey a sense of suspense in this piece.  This is a true, if anticlimactic, story

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

I don't always err on the side of caution.


I've gotten in cars with strangers.  I've met men through the interwebs.  Quite a few.  I've walked through the park, by myself, late at night.  Why?  Just because I could.  Because the park at night is peaceful, and quiet, and you can hear crickets chirp.  Of you can hum dirges to yourself and scare the bejesus out of yourself. 

Get the heart rate going.  Feel that adrenaline.

One day, mid-afternoon on a brisk, sunny fall day, I find myself walking through the bushes.  The main foot and bike trail veers off and a small dirt path runs along the water, behind some overgrown fields and into a deeper brush.  The sun beats overhead, and I walk along the retaining wall which plunges deep into the dark blue Georgian Bay.  I have my iPod buds in my ears and I walk briskly along the dirt path, enjoying the music, enjoying the day, enjoying the solitude and sunshine.

Where the retaining wall comes to an end in a twist of broken concrete and corrugated iron, the dirt path veers into the bushes.  I've walked this trail a thousand times before.  It's low-traffic, and isolated.

Voices.  Over the music I can hear them.  Slipping my hand into my coat pocket, I turn the volume way down.  There's about four of them.  Male voices.  Laughing boisterously.

Aw shit.

From this vantage point, I know I'm not visible from the road.  Out here, they wouldn't find my body for days.  I slow my pace and consider my position.  Keeping to the trail will bring me right into their line of vision. 

I could cut through the brush.

No good.  I risk drawing more attention to myself by snapping twigs.  Besides, I have a better chance on the trail if I have to make a run for it.

Keep moving.

My heartbeat echoes in my ears as blood pumps faster and faster.  I'm getting closer to where they sit on the half-broken picnic table, moved to the water months previous. 

Walking by, I pretend like my iPod is still on.  I sense them gazing in my direction, and I make eye contact for the briefest moment. 

"Hello!"  I nod my head slightly, in the slightest gesture of assent.  My feet want to break into a run, but I force them to maintain their steady pace.

"I said 'hello!"

Look again.  "uh.... hi."   Keep walking, keep moving.  My stomach is clenching, and flashes of grotesque images start to flash in my brain.  The trail has curved, I've passed them now.  My back is to the group.  I can hear muttering and chuckles.  My ears, half-functioning at the best of times, are now acutely aware of the sounds around me.  I listen for footsteps approaching behind me.  I don't dare look back.

The trail takes another turn, and I know, from having walked this dirt path numerous times before never having met a soul along the way, that I'm out of their line of sight.  It's now that I allow myself to break into a full-run, feet slamming the dirt path, dodging rocks and roots, slipping on leaves, until I find myself back on the paved bicycle trail, the one that follows along the main road, safely visible to the cars that whizz by.

Bent double, I struggle to catch my breath.  Did I over-react or did I just escape a potentially life-threatening situation?  I'll never know. 

That was last fall.

Two Rape Apology Tropes that Just Need to Stop Now.

April at Ethecofem posted a great article this week on victim-blaming in society for everything from rape, to poverty, to obesity.

I made a couple of comments that I wanted to expand into a blog post, regarding common tropes used in rape apologism.

Trope #1  - Rape =/= Being hit on.

Being raped or assaulted is not the same as being hit on. I cannot stress this enough. But it seems that every time brings up the topic of victim blaming, especially in regards to someone's manner of dress, some jackass always brings up the "Why do women get all dressed up if they don't want to get hit on?"

I'll say it again.. being raped or assaulted is NOT the same as being hit on.  It's not a compliment.  Don't try to equate them.  Ever.

If I get all gussied up and head out on the town looking like a million bucks, then no, I shouldn't be surprised if someone offers to buy me a drink, or asks me to dance, or asks for my number.

THAT IS CALLED BEING HIT ON.

However, if I go out all tarted up and someone asks to buy me a drink, and then puts drugs in it, or gets belligerent and abusive if I decline a dance, or corners me in the parking lot after I leave, well that is NOT okay. No matter HOW hot/slutty/provocative (because the semantics are objective, you know) I am dressed.

THIS IS ASSAULT.  SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

This was the point that was being made by the Toronto Slut Walk last week.  It wasn't about whether or not it's cool to dress 'slutty' or whether it should be socially acceptable to do so - especially when the definition of what is considered 'slutty' is subjective, as is the perception of what the term actually means.  Personally, I think a lot of women could stand to show a little more class in how they dress.  But I do not ever think that manner of dress should be justification for being assaulted.  And that's why there was such an uproar over the OPP officers comments.

Trope #2 - Rape =/= Having your car Stolen.

Another common argument is the 'if you leave your car unlocked you shouldn't complain when it gets stolen'.  I'm just going to repost my response to the guy who made this comment on April's post:

So if a person leaves his car parked on the street with the keys in the ignition and the windows rolled down and the car gets stolen, would it be victim-blaming to say, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't have made it so easy to steal your car"?

Here is my response.  I don't really feel a need to add anything.

When you leave your car running on the street unlocked with the keys in the ignition, and someone steals it, no one argues whether the car was actually stolen or not. No one denies the validity of the claim of theft, regardless of how easy it was. No one ever says "Well, do you think they really stole the car? The car owner must have wanted them to have the car. I mean, they gave away their last car, so they must have wanted the the so-called car thief to have this one. Now they're just saying it was stolen so they don't look like fools who give their cars away."

And ultimately, yes, it's still victim-blaming, because even being dumb enough to leave a car running with the keys in the ignition doesn't let someone off the hook for saying "Hey, this isn't mine, but I'm taking it anyway."

Oh, there's that whole pesky issue of women's bodies not being the equivalent to personal property or an inanimate object such as a friggin' CAR. But I'm sure you knew that already.

So folks, can we please stop with these two incredibly lame arguments already?

No witty title here, just some seriousness.

Quick Trigger Warning.  If you're triggered by sexual assault, you may want to skip this post.  

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

A week or two ago a friend and reader sent me a link to a story that was more than a little infuriating.  It seems a convicted rapist in Thomson, Manitoba was given a slap on the wrist because the victim and her friend had "made their intentions publicly known that they wanted to party"

In the article it's noted that the judge felt that there was miscommunication and so instead of mandatory jail time, the perpetrator, Kenneth Rhodes, was given a conditional sentence, even though the Crown wanted three years minimum.

Rhodes pleaded not guilty at the trial on the basis he thought the woman had consented. Dewar rejected his defence -- but said aspects of it can now be considered in sentencing.
"This is a different case than one where there is no perceived invitation," said Dewar. "This is a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour."

At first I didn't really know how to deal with this.  Any articles I found didn't give many actual details of the evening, other than than the usual speculation of what the women had been wearing (typical, right?), the fact that they went into the woods with Rhodes and his friend, and implications that Rhodes had "misunderstood her intentions when he forced intercourse" on her.  P.S. Kenny, if you have to 'force' it, it's probably unwanted.  Enthusiast Consent, folks, it's a wonderful thing. 

Still, part of me wondered if maybe there was some mistake?  So I hesitated on commenting on the story, until later I had a 'Slap-your-forehead' moment and went "Hang on a minute!  This was a SENTENCING hearing.. not the trial itself!"  So even thought I didn't know the details of what actually went on, based on media coverage, clearly, the jury and/or judge or whatever felt there was enough evidence to support a rape conviction, a charge that, in Canada, requires jail time at minimum.  The sentence is the equivalent of saying "Okay, well *technically* you're guilty, but not really, because she had it coming, being all sexy like that.  Silly girl."

The judge on the case, Robert Dewar was later reprimanded for his comments and removed from cases of a sexual nature.

Have we not gotten over this yet, people?  Have we not gotten over the idea that someone can 'ask' to be raped? No, apparently not.

A local radio personality, Meg Whitton of the 104.1 The Dock wrote about an experience she had at a campus safety assembly at York University.  One of the Toronto police officers told the assembly they could avoid rape by not dressing like a slut. Thankfully the Toronto police chief was quick to eschew the troubling statement from his underling, but as Meg had pointed out, the issue is a lot bigger than a lack of sensitivity on the part of one or even a number of police officers.  It's a problem that is STILL rampant in society.  We constantly look for reasons to justify rape, even in the most heinous of cases.

Take this past week.  The New York Times came under fire for their wholly slanted coverage of a story of an eleven-year-old girl in Cleveland Texas who was gang-raped in an abandoned trailer by up to 18 men.  The NYT were called to task for their coverage that seemed to smack of victim blaming.  Local townsfolk were quoted asking where the child's parents were (fair question, but more importantly, where were the parents of the boys involved?).  They also quoted townsfolk about the little girls manner of dress and activities:

They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.

 This quote is my personal favorite (note dripping sarcasm):

“It’s just destroyed our community,” said Sheila Harrison, 48, a hospital worker who says she knows several of the defendants. “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.” 

I sure the fuck hope so.  I hope it haunts them in their nightmares.  I hope at least one of them wakes up in a cold-sweat, night after night, screaming and shaking with guilt over what they have done to a little girl. 


Can I just reiterate that this was an 11-year-old child?  A LITTLE GIRL. 

I'm wondering where the concern for this little girl is from the locals.  I haven't even mentioned that the men, who ranged in age from roughly 14 up to 27, videotaped the attack on a cell phone and passed it around.  This is how the situation came to the attention of the police, when one of the victims classmates told a teacher that they had seen a video of the attack.

Speaking as the mother of a beautiful, innocent, almost-ten-year old, I'm concerned for this poor East Texas girl, who may have already been dealing with issues at home or in her life, who now has to live for the rest of her life with not only being brutalized by up to 18 men, but also having the knowledge that via wonderful fucking technology, god only knows how many people have witnessed her humiliation.  And to top it off knowing that most of the community seemed to be more concerned with how this little girl may have brought it on herself.

I say, fuck that community.  They sound like a bunch of backward assholes.

Those that claim that the Times article wasn't slanted at all may wonder why they left out this particular quote, that was included in the release from the Associated Press:

"She's 11 years old. It shouldn't have happened. That's a child," said Oscar Carter, 56, who is related to an uncle of one 16-year-old charged in the case. "Somebody should have said what we are doing is wrong."

 Regardless if it's the media or a group of townspeople or the comments section in some of these articles, which I try not to read as it makes me stabby and kind of like I want to vomit, I really have to ask what kind of effed up world we live in where people will look for a reason to justify the gang-raping of an eleven-year-old girl.  That we would look for reasons such as someone's dress in order to take responsibility off of that of the rapist and on to the victim.

These attitudes not only harm women, but men as well.  Because it paints the idea that men cannot help raping women, that, if provoked by a woman (or, shit.. an 11-year-old CHILD's) attire they will have no choice but to attack.  It presents the idea that men are driven so wild by the sight of a woman dressed provocatively that they are unable to control themselves.  Which is bullshit, at absolute best. 

I know a lot of men who are fully capable of reasoning beyond the needs of their own dick.  I believe that the majority of all men out there are fully capable of this.  Fully capable of reading signals, and looking for enthusiast consent.  And the ones that aren't, need to be in prison.

I'm not sure I like the view from up on this soapbox...

I'm seeing a lot of stuff going down in the American media concerning the apparent war that the religious right seems to be waging on women's reproductive rights and all I can say is:

"What the fucking fuck, America?"

It's becoming pretty damn obvious to me that the term Pro-life is a misnomer and would be more correctly referred to as Pro-Fetus, since if you are a woman, or low-income, or both life suddenly becomes pretty friggin' neglible.

And this isn't one of those situations where I can sit back and feel smug in my Canadian-ness like I did when it came to the Social healthcare debate in the U.S. (and I did, I admit it).  Because, let's face it, as America's hat the stuff that's been going on could happen here too.  Think back a bit.. Our own PM, Steve Harper, cut funding to womens groups focused on women's health in developing nations who wouldn't "...shut the fuck up" on the abortion issue.  If old Steve-O is willing to cut funding to developing nations over a conservative ideology, well, it's just a small step before cuts start here in our own country, which is what basically happened in the U.S. today when the House voted to cut funding to Planned Parenthood because they provide abortion services, even though the funding provided cancer screening and access to contraceptives to thousands of low-income families.

As my brother-in-law, Frank, is usually quick to point out, what happens in the States stands a good chance of affecting Canada in the long run, which is why the House's decision has my panties in a bunch.

I'm sure Margaret Atwood never really thought she'd see this kind of Handmaid's Tale stuff played out in her lifetime.

First there was the issue of the nun getting ex-communicated for allowing a woman to receive a life-saving abortion in a catholic hospital, because clearly the merciful thing to do would have been to let the woman die on the off-chance the fetus might have been viable, which to my understanding, it likely would not have been.  Very Pro-Life indeed.  This story was disturbing enough, but because the situation was so entrenched in the inner workings of the Catholic church, the level of threat was not the same, because a simple solution to someone whose life hung in the balance would be don't go to a Catholic hospital.

Last week I heard a story that a law is on the table in South Dakota that would allow killing in the defense of a fetus to be considered justifiable homocide.  Now, unless it is worded very carefully this could leave a lot of holes for the killing of doctors and nurses who perform abortions.  It's my understanding that the idea is that it would protect pregnant women from being attacked in domestic disputes, but let's be realistic and admit that this law would have more than likely been used in the former situation rather than the latter.  For now, it looks as though the law has been shelved, thankfully.

This latest news about the defunding of Planned Parenthood is upsetting at best, as it presents a huge step backwards in reproductive rights and in access to healthcare for low-income people.  Jill at Feministe puts it well in saying that this goes well beyond just being about abortion and has become an all out war on our reproductive rights, as well as a war on the working class and those below the poverty line:

This isn’t about abortion — it’s about cutting access to health care for women. One in five American women has used Planned Parenthood’s services. The vast majority of care — more than 90% — offered at Planned Parenthood health centers is preventative. Every year, Planned Parenthood carries out nearly one million screenings for cervical cancer — screenings which save lives. Every year, Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses give more than 830,000 breast exams — exams which save lives. Every year, nearly 2.5 million patients receive contraception from Planned Parenthood — a service which prevents enormous numbers of unintended pregnancies and, by extension, an enormous number of abortions. Every year, Planned Parenthood administers nearly 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV — tests and treatments which save lives, extend lives, preserve fertility, and maintain reproductive health.

What the anti-choicer's are not realizing here (or perhaps they are fully aware of) is that cutting funding to Planned Parenthood is not going to save any significant number of lives, even those of the unborn.  This will not reduce the number of abortions being performed - it could even increase the number, when you consider the fallout is reduced access to contraceptives and family planning information.  What it will reduce is the number of safe abortions being perfomed.  But of course, as we touched on earlier, Pro-Life is really just Pro-Fetus, and the life of the evil, bad, dirty secks-lovin' woman is neglible, as is the rape victim, or the married couple whose condom broke.

In a rather moving speech given to the House, Rep. Jackie Speier made a bold move and spoke about her own experience in having an abortion for health-related reasons.



Speier hits the nail on the head. Most times, this is not a decision that anyone takes lightly.  And for the few who do, that is unfortunate, but the idea of choice is that we have choice, whether or not we use that choice responsibly.   I used to rail against women that used abortion as a form of birth control, and you know, it still bugs me.  But it is not my body.

I'm going to get a little personal here.  I've always maintained that being Pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion.   The idea of being Pro-choice is that a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body, under any circumstances.  It is our right to decide whether we are physically and emotionally ready, willing and capable to carry a child to term.  And this is something close to my heart because I've been there.  My ex left when I was six-weeks pregnant with my youngest daughter.  And I faced that choice.  In my heart of hearts I know I made the right choice and I wouldn't trade my baby girl for anything in the world, but the point is that is the choice I made was my own and what was good for me, is not always good for others.

It's also close to me because I know there's a possibility down the road that I could face that decision again.  After I had Reegs (and I might add I will always be glad to be able to look her in the eye and tell her she is here because I WANTED to have her..) my OB told me that carrying another child could and would likely kill me.  On that warning I took the precaution of having my tubes tied because A) dying is bullshit and B) Two kids is more than enough for the less-than-maternal type.  But even though tubal ligation is considered 99% effective against pregnancy, well, simple math states that 99% is not 100%.  There is a chance, albeit ridiculous slim, that down the road I could find myself in the position of having to choose between terminating a pregnancy or trying to carry to term and possibly leaving my children motherless.

I cannot fathom what I would do if a lack of resources, or my beliefs, or a piece of legislation were to force my hand in such a situation.

I've been frustrated as hell over the last day or two because I've been seeing all these calls-to-action to support Planned Parenthood, but being in Canada I generally have been unable to sign petitions, so all I can do is talk about it.  Access to family planning is important to everyone.  If you are able, please show your support.

On 'Schrodinger's Rapist' and the Culture of Fear.

This is not going to be a fun-filled post, so if you're looking for something fun and fluffy today, well, there's some nice menu's that will direct you to some of my other posts.

I was talking to a friend of mine about the video I posted in my New Year's post about 'How to Be Alone'.  I'm sure many of you have seen this one, it was pretty popular this year.  Anyway, we were discussing the difficulties of being a male by yourself in public versus being female by yourself in public.. namely the difficulty of being perceived as the 'creepy would-be rapist' versus the difficulty of having to be on the lookout for the 'creepy would-be rapist'.

So it struck me funny that I would come across this article on Schrodinger's Rapist (aka'd as 'A Guy's Guide to Approaching Women without getting maced') via April's year end round-up at Ethecofem.  Well, I kind of found it through the year-end round up via April's critique of the original article, which I'll get to.  Anyway, it struck me funny, because it nicely explained my argument of the risk women run being in public alone.

Although I also recommend reading the article in full, I'll give you the gist of it.  Big Bang Theory fans will know this from season one, but anyway, the concept is based after the Schrodinger's Cat experiment.  Long story short, scientist puts cat in a box with a vial of poison that will break open at any given time.  While in the box, the cat can be considered both alive and dead, since we don't know which it is.  However once the box is open, it can only be one or the other.  Starling's article applies this to the perception of a stranger in a public place (or a party or anywhere really) as a way to explain to guys who, for the most part are probably well-intentioned and only interested in striking up conversation.  However, the article points out, we as women out alone in public do not know what your intentions are, and until they become clear, you can be considered Schrodingers Rapist - that is to say, you both are a potential non-rapist and a potential rapist. 

I'll point out here that the fallacy in this metaphor is that in Schrodingers original experiment, once the box is opened the cat is obviously alive or dead.  However, in this application, taking into consideration that most rape and assault is committed by someone close to the victim, our metaphorical box is only opened once the person in question has been exposed as a rapist.  As long as they haven't raped or assaulted anyone they're still metaphorically 'in the box'  which is pretty fucking depressing, for men and women alike.  No really, it is. 

Now, I don't believe that Starling's article was meant to imply that this is how all women think when they are out in public.  At least, I sure hope not, because I know I don't... well, all the time.   I think it's offered as more of an explanation as to why some women may not be comfortable or impressed with what may be a guy's totally innocent compliment or attempt at conversation.  And although you may be a nice guy with good intentions, we don't know that.   Simple as that.  As Starling states, some people's risk threshold are higher than others.. Me, I'm one of those girls with a low risk factor.  This is probably due to the fact that *knock wood* I haven't found myself violated after being in a high-risk situation.  Some women have experienced assault, and as such, they have a no-risk threshold. 

Now, one may counter this with 'Well, I don't know if a girl's had a traumatic past...' and I'd be inclined to agree, that no, it's not up to you to know if someone has had past trauma.  But it is up to you to read cues (as mentioned in Starling's article) and know when to back-off.  Because I agree, when you ignore the 'please leave me alone' cues and continue to press for attention, you cross that line from well-intentioned friendly dude to pain-in-the-ass-douchebag to potential threat.

The downside of this article, as April argues, is that it does tend to paint this picture that all men are potential rapists, when that is simply not the case.  Let's take into consideration the rather dire stat given that 1 in 60 men will have committed sexual assault in some form in their lifetime.  Pretty fucking depressing, isn't it?  If you have trouble wrapping your head around that statistic, keep in mind that this isn't limited to the stranger-in-a-dark-alley trope... this includes date rape, coercion, having sex with someone who has limited capacity to consent (so drugs, alchohol.. even 'Hey, my girlfriend is sleeping.. now's a good time') .. basically, any sexual activity without explicit consent.

Here's the good news:  That mean's that for every potential threat, there's roughly 59 well intentioned friendly dudes' out there.  Hooray for the good guys!! 

Here's more bad news:  Sometimes it's pretty fucking hard to tell the difference, until it's too late.  And if someone has been a victim of assault before, sure as shit, they're going to have their guard up in certain situations. 

Myself, as a girl who has walked home alone late at night many a time, walked through the brush with my headphones on, occasionally forgotten to lock my door at night, flirted with guys at bars, met people I had only talked to online and *gasp* even consumed alcohol in the presence of (only) the opposite sex, all without incident, well admittedly, my risk threshold is pretty high. But every so often my spidey sense gets a tingling and I know I've stepped into a potentially volatile situation.

I once chatted online for a period of time with a guy I had met on a dating site.  One day we were talking about meeting, and I mentioned that I would like to meet for coffee because I wasn't comfortable meeting someone for the first time in my own home.  Like, shit man, I have kids to think about.   This guy got his panties in a bunch which both pissed me off, and freaked me out.  It worried me, because it seemed like such a little thing to get so agitated over, and it pissed me off because it was like "Sorry man, your hurt feelings DO NOT trump my personal safety."  I made the decision then and there not to meet with the guy and it took a few more conversations consisting of how unfair I was being and how unreasonable and how I had led him on etc before I said enough I just stopped answering the phone.   Because in my mind, at that point, he became a threat to me, the threat having been communicated through a sheer lack of regard for my personal boundaries.

And this is where I think Starling is coming from... If you ignore the 'Please leave me alone' cues, you become 'that guy'.  The guy who thinks that his desire to interact trumps a stranger's desire to be left alone.  I will however, agree with April that its unrealistic to say never approach a woman unless she's for sure open to being approached.  Some of us would like to be approached.  I know I would, once in a while.  But if you approach a girl, and she's giving off the 'please go away' vibe, then take the hint.. or you become 'that guy'.  Because let's face it.. it's 'those guys' that fuck up dating and trying to meet people or trying at all to negotiate any type of friendly/professional/romantic relationship with the opposite sex.  They fuck it up for women, who have to be on their guard and they fuck it up for other men, because now women see well intentioned friendly dudes as potential threats.  Way to go, That Guy.

Remembrance Day.. In Case You've Forgotten

First off, I'm going to say a few things that might annoy and/or alienate some friends and family.

I'm GLAD for the Red Vs. White Poppy debate.

I'm happy that someone has come up with an alternate symbol for Remembrance Day.  Why?

Because people are TALKING about Remembrance Day.  They're talking about it, about what these symbols stand for, about why we have this day.  They're actively discussing what the purpose of November 11th is, and not just going through the motions.  Tom Megginson of Work That Matters posted an excellent piece on the debate here.

Myself?  I continue to wear the red poppy, out of respect for my family members, especially my grandmother who did lose loved ones.  I've never had to experience this.  I continue to wear it, because all those things that the not-so-new White Poppy is supposed to represent, I have already come to associate with the red.

However, I do not agree with the Legion's stance on the white poppies.  Promoting peace is not disrespectful to soldiers.  WWI was supposed to be the war to end all wars, was it not?  Should we not be quibbling over something like the color of a symbol.. especially when to some, the two have almost the same meaning.  Many will argue that they fought for our freedom... so by default, we shouldn't practice it?

That's my take on it.  I continue to wear the red, but I would not deny anyone the right to wear the white.  The idea is to remember...

Here is a link to my post from last year, which still applies.


I am a Pacifist, this is why I remember

The Mrs. Lovejoys have their priorities out of whack.

You know who I'm referring to, correct?  Those that wring their hands crying 'Please, think of the children!'

Over the last couple of weeks there have been a string of teen suicides involving gay teens who were being tormented (bullying is so overused.. ) by their peers.  One kid was outed on the internet by his college room-mate.  Imagine, if you will, someone you were forced to live in close confines with playing a video of you having sex ON THE INTERNET.  Without your consent, or knowledge.  Imagine how horrifying that might be for you.  Regardless of who you are having sex with.

Dan Savage, who writes a sex advice column, came up with the brilliant idea for the "It Gets Better" project... basically, a collection of videos where gay adults can let young people who may be grappling with their sexuality know that there is life after high school and that life will get better.  Frankly, I think ANY kid who is being bullied can benefit from this.  I sure could have.  It was a huge relief finding out that all those heirarchies that exist in a high school and even public school environment DON'T MATTER when you're finally out in the 'real world'.

Of course, we get the dissent, as I mentioned yesterday like this jackass here (Again, trigger warning.)  A commenter at Here and Now pointed out this story as well:

Some School Anti-Bullying Programs Push Gay Agenda, Christian Group Says

Imma file this under "Are you F***ing Kidding me??"

"What parents need to be aware of is there are activist groups who want to promote homosexuality to kids because they realize if they can capture hearts and minds of our children at the earliest ages they will have for all practical purposes won the clash of values that we are currently experiencing," - Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family, said on recently launched website TrueTolerance.org.

Seriously?  I have to laugh at the irony of the 'TrueTolerance.org' I also love the idea one can sell a certain sexual orientation to kids.  No, sorry.. the idea is not to promote, the idea is to let kids that are having issues with their sexuality to say 'You're okay.  Be who you are'.

Now, I have issues with Anti-bullying legislature (yes, even as a former victim) because frankly, I think a big part of the problem is that parents need to stop teaching their kids to be such little shit-heads.  Seems pretty friggin' simple to me.  However, some parents refuse to do this, as I learned at a young age when the parent of the kid who spent a year throwing pine cones, then iceballs, then eventually ROCKS at me at my bus-stop until I finally got hit in the mouth, responded to my mother's complaint by saying "Well, YOUR daughter was swearing at my daughter."

SHE WAS THROWING ROCKS AT MY FRIGGIN' HEAD.  DAMN RIGHT I'M GOING TO SWEAR AT HER!!!

So, there are Those Parents who won't teach their kids not to be shit-heads, and there are kids who, for some reason or another, won't bring it to their parent's attention when they are the ones being victimized.  I was one of those kids, and why, I have no idea.  Hell, I was skipping school in the third grade to avoid the douchebaggery of my fellow classmates.  I had no reason not to tell my parents, I just didn't.  For this reason, it is necessary to have some boundaries in place in schools to prevent this behaviour.  But to say that the legislature shouldn't have any focus on one of the more marginalized groups of students because of a 'clash of values' is absurd at best, dangerous at worst.

Basically, the message I get from their stance is "What's a few gaybo's offing themselves if it means our kids don't catch 'teh ghey'."

Mrs. Lovejoy's of the world, I think you need to rethink your priorities.  Think of the children, indeed.

Think of YOUR children.  If this was your child, would you not want someone to stand up for their right to be who they are and love who they love?  As a parent, I'd rather my kid be gay than dead, any day of the week.

Maybe Ms. Candi Cushman of Focus on the Family needs to take a moment and focus on the families who are grieving right now for their lost children.. children they lost to hatred, intolerance, and bigotry.  May these poor boys rest in peace.

Billy Lucas, Age 15
Tyler Clemente, Age 18
Asher Brown, Age 13
Seth Walsh, Age 13

Happy International Blasphemy Day!

For those who are unaware today is International Blasphemy Day.  The origins go back to September 2005 when a number of cartoons were printed that depicted the prophet Mohammed, which inflamed a good chunk of the Muslim population.

Wikipedia - Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I just want to say that for me, this is not about making fun of people who hold certain religious beliefs. I know that some people take their beliefs very seriously, but that does not mean they should never be questioned, especially when those beliefs hurt others (such as this asshat here - Severe Trigger Warning. more on him later) It is about bringing awareness to the idea that no religion should be allowed to punish people (even those who are not of said faith) from questioning, critiquing and yes even mocking said teachings.  Arguments can be strengthened by being challenged - any argument than can be torn down through subjection to critical thought, probably deserves to be torn down.

In the name of blasphemy, here's a few clips I posted to my Facebook, ranging from amusing to thought provoking, and all involving some of my favorite movies, actors and writers.


Kids in the Hall - God is Dead


Dogma - Bartleby and Loki at the Airport


'Almost the Truth' about Monty Python's Life of Brian

My favorite part of this clip is John's anectdote during the Tim Rice interview:


"I remember a gentlemen coming and telling us about how very difficult it had proved to get the Bible into Tibet.  You know?  They'd had seven occasions: the first time there'd been landslides; the second time there was rain, the pages got stuck together; the third time... the third time the mules had fallen off the mountain; the fourth time there were thunderbolts.   'The seventh time,' he said 'God helped us, and we got the Bibles into Tibet.'  The obvious conclusion is that he was trying like Hell to stop the Bibles getting into Tibet."



I'll end this off with an awesome quote I heard the other day:

Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told.  Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right. - Unknown

My quick recap and thoughts on tonights UFC

So my attempt to go see some local live music with a friend tonight went kind of kaput as a result of some poor planning on my part.. finding out when the show started for instance.

In an attempt to kill some time we ended up at a pub where they were playing the UFC thing.  I've only watched once or twice before but I have a few thoughts.

That fight with the black dude in the white shorts and the white dude in the black shorts, well, I think that decision was a pity vote that stemmed as a result of that particularily nasty kick to the junk that white-shorts dude took. Plus he didn't keep his hands up.  You need to keep your hands UP, white-shorts guy.

Even I know that.

Karmic Retribution at it's finest.

Koran-Burning Pastor Hit With Giant Security Bill

This, folks, poetic justice.


Haw. Haw.


I should add, I not-so-secretly hope this guy gets hit with a defamation of character suit from another, far more awesome Terry Jones.

Quick dream recap

lots of weird dreams last night, can only remember dribs and drabs

- Making plans to bathing suit shop at the beer store with my mom
- ending up on some kind of lunch date with a mid-aged bookish gentleman who played a number of musical instruments, and kissed me passionately before leaving to play a show somewhere
- Standing in a tourist-type gift shop (I know this, because there are racks of t-shirts that have wolves and eagle designs on them) in a white teddy/negligee, ransacking my overnight bag wondering where my street clothes are
- Finding myself outside on a small residential street. Everyone is outside on their lawn enjoying the day when one neighbor decides to come out and start lobbing grenades that look like giant lead fishing weights into the street. They don't explode so much as break into a lot of pieces but I am distinctly aware of their potential to hurt the bystanders. After one nearly hits a baby in a stroller in the head, I walk over to the grenade thrower and berate him. I think I punch him too.

I have issues, I'm sure.