tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11639284543571039542024-03-22T01:21:17.647-04:00Evil Feminist WitchI'll get you yet...and your patriarchy, too..Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-43352321467088385932010-01-07T14:37:00.000-05:002010-01-07T14:40:01.216-05:00Letter from the Toronto Women's BookstoreI'm re-posting here a letter for help from the Toronto Women's Bookstore that they released over the holidays. Thought I'd put it up here any case anyone still comes across this blog and can offer a helping hand to a struggling but important independent bookstore in Toronto. See the TWB's plea below:<br /><br />Dear TWB community,<br /><br />The Toronto Women's Bookstore is in crisis and we need your help!<br /><br />Independent businesses and bookstores have been closing their doors this<br />year, and after 36 years it is possible that we will have to do the same if<br />we are not able to raise enough money to survive. TWB is one of the only<br />remaining non-profit feminist bookstores in North America, but despite all<br />of the events, courses, workshops, community resources and additional<br />services we offer, the fact that we are a store means that we do not receive<br />any outside funding and rely entirely on sales and the support of our<br />customers to stay in business.<br /><br />Over the past few years, our sales have not been enough to sustain us and<br />this is why we are coming to you, our community, for help. If every one of<br />you donated $10 we would raise enough to keep going for 3 months, $20 each<br />would keep us in business for 6 months, and $30 each would be enough for us<br />to keep our doors open, hopefully for good. All donations will go directly<br />towards covering the bookstore's costs, and are a part of a larger plan of<br />action and structural change to make the business sustainable in the current<br />economy.<br /><br />In the past, when feminist bookstores were closing down all across North<br />America, the support of the community is what kept TWB alive. You are the<br />reason that we are still here today, and we believe that with your help we<br />can once again work together to save this organization where so many of us<br />as readers, writers, feminists, artists, and activists have found a home.<br /><br />You can make donations over the phone, on our website<br />www.womensbookstore.com (paypal link available soon), or in person at the<br />store. As a non-profit store we are not eligible for charitable status and<br />cannot offer tax receipts, but we are hoping to be able to offer tax<br />receipts for donations over $100 in collaboration with a non-profit charity<br />who shares our mandate, and we will have that information available on our<br />website and in store as soon as possible.<br /><br />You can also help by spreading the word to your friends and community,<br />contacting us if you know of any funding we might be eligible for, promoting<br />this fundraising drive in your paper or on your blog, website or radio show,<br />organizing your own save the bookstore fundraisers or just passing the hat<br />at your holiday parties, giving a TWB donation as a gift, and of course,<br />coming in and bringing all your friends to the store for some holiday<br />shopping!<br /><br />Thank you all for your support,<br />The Toronto Women's Bookstore Board, Staff & Volunteers<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-7610128166731457032009-11-29T18:32:00.001-05:002009-11-29T18:32:36.474-05:00Depressing News of the Day<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x4WkEc21MWg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x4WkEc21MWg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-70204455120693541762009-11-25T01:09:00.004-05:002009-11-25T02:35:31.482-05:00Orgasmatron: No longer just a Motorhead songNo, really: the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jL2GYmg938">Orgasmatron</a> is now a bonafide treatment-in-development for the brand-spanking-newest woman's health issue: FEMALE SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION!!!<br /><br />My sister just directed me to a doc that's right up my alley (I am very interested in Big Pharmaceutical Ploys, and, well, sex is always awesome): <a href="http://www.orgasminc.org/">Orgasm Inc</a>. I'd like to direct any curious *Canadian* (sorry, I really doubt that this streaming works outside of Canada) eyes to this video about the (erm) <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/ID=1340844703">treatment of <i>Female Sexual Dysfunction</i></a>. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I haven't been able to finish watching the documentary. So far, most of the criticism of the pharmaceuticals is applicable to many topics other than women's health - the creation of a new "disease". Not that maybe women aren't as encouraged to do things like ...masturbate... like men are. Or that the media really misrepresents women's sexuality... it's a medical problem. No, really. A disease. A dysfunction. <br /><br />Apparently the only conclusive thing that drug trials for these new female sexual dysfunction drugs have found are: actually women, in general, DO like porn. <br /><br />Also, I learned a new term for orgasm: "hysterical paroxysms". Sounds sexy, no? It dates back to the time when rich Victorian women who were having hysterical fits would go to their doctors and be stimulated with a vibrator as a cure. <br /><br />Anyway, this doc is very interesting if you're interested in female sexuality... but also if you're interested in the creepy ass techniques of pharmaceutical corporations and how they really make themselves some cash moneys.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-88964466763959935732009-11-16T15:42:00.001-05:002009-11-16T15:53:32.195-05:00Keep Sex Safe<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AF14A20091116?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604">Abstinence-Only</a> produces results. <br /><br />I just went through a brief obsession with the early years of the AIDS crises. As far as STDs go, HIV/AIDS seems to be the ultimate one. It was first noticed as a mysterious rash of illnesses such as Kaposi's Sarcoma striking young men, causing them to suffer and die from ailments that were usually associated only with older men (from CBC Archives). <br /><br />At this time, we have many ways of treating HIV/AIDS. We have drugs that control it for many years, and allow people who have contracted it to live fulfilling lives, so it's not the death sentence it was in the '80s. We're even making <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/10/19/hiv-vaccine.html">major advances</a> as far as prevention goes. But a CONDOM remains the only way to really contain the virus. <br /><br />We all make stupid decisions sometimes when we're drunk. Or young and easily bullied. Or whatever. I think most people who are sexually active have slipped up at least once and had unprotected sex. At least we're usually vaguely aware that it's a BAD idea. <br /><br />But listening to the different bits about the early years of the AIDs crises on <a href="http://archives.cbc.ca/health/public_health/topics/413/">CBC's archives</a> was <i>frightening</i>. How terrifying it would have been, to be a young person, hearing about this virus. Or to contract it. And yet, the easy assumption that it was a "gay" or "junkie" disease - made bitterly obvious by people saying, as I've heard very occasionally today "Oh, I don't sleep with people who hang around people like that".<br /><br />I suppose the rash of musicians and celebrities dying from AIDS at the time helped make people feel frightened and worried about the virus. <br /><br />And, it seems that the advent of HIV/AIDS at least helped to push people towards a more public and more comprehensive sex education, even with all the shock that sexuality was even <i>mentioned</i> on public media. <br /><br />I've been ranting about this a lot lately, it seems. One reason why I cannot bring myself to <b>ever</b> support religious world charities, <i>especially</i> if they're working in Africa. The movement for abstinence as a solution to the spread of AIDS (which isn't just a crisis in Africa, it affects many developing countries, Africa is just the most publicized) is, in my opinion, a crime against humanity. The consistent blocking of Sex Education, in the face of the AIDS virus (as the US government spearheaded under George Bush, as the Catholic Church strongly supports, and many other Christian charities) is a fucking travesty. But hey, it's making LOTS of money for the big drug companies!! (Go team "morality"). Condoms are cheaper than life-long drug treatments - but what is it we invest in?<br /><br />But it's frightening that people are talking about Abstinence-based sex education. Even though, everything suggests that Ab-Only is a BAD idea - at least in the States it has been. It's bad enough that many religious groups like to make people feel guilty for wanting or having sex. How fucking sinful it is to have a libido. But to willingly deny people the information and ability to take care of themselves, is criminal. It worries me that Obama hasn't done much to repeal the mistakes of Bush in that arena. And it worries me that Canada often likes to follow the US's mistakes like a lost and stupid puppy. Our <a href="http://www.lawtimesnews.com/200806304140/Commentary/The-Hill-Back-door-abortion-law">current prime minister</a> has a hankering for more Christian "morals" in our government and school systems (think about some of Alberta's more questionable policy shifts lately. <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/06/02/teen-sexual-health-survey.html">We're not as well-educated as we should be already</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-66666104464087426172009-10-01T17:11:00.004-04:002009-10-01T17:59:56.329-04:00Fuck You, Roman PolanskiFew things have annoyed me as much as the recent outcry about Roman Polanski's arrest. After I bit my lip and didn't say anything to a customer who was ranting about how Polanski deserves to not go to jail, (13 year olds, back then, they weren't really children the way they are now [forgot to mention the bit where he drugged her first, I guess]) etc, I picked up (by chance) the Globe and Mail from last Tuesday (September 29th). They published some in-support-of-Polanski quotes. <br /><br />I am going to take this time to respond to them. <br /><br />Emphasis is added by me. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debra_Winger">Debra Winger</a>: "Despite the Philistine nature of the collusion that has now occured, we came to honour Roman Polanski as a great artist ... We hope today this latest order will be dropped ... It is based on a three-decade old case that is all but dead <b>except for a minor technicality</b>"<br />* By "minor technicality" I suppose you mean the bit where he actually <i>drugged and raped</i> someone. A someone who was still a child. And then, he fled from his sentence? That's called <i>breaking the law</i>. It's <i>not</i> a "minor technicality". <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein">Harvey Weinstein</a>: "Whatever you think about <b>the so-called crime</b>, Polanski has <b>served his time</b>... I hope the US government acts swiftly because filmmakers are looking for justice to be properly served". <br />* Mr. Weinstein, I am going to deduce, from your statement, that drugging and raping a child is not a crime in your eyes. And he certainly has served a good 30 years, partying, living the good life, travelling, ...oh... wait. That's NOT the same thing as serving time. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Mitterrand">Frederic Mitterand</a> (call me English swine, I have no idea how to insert the proper accents to his name): "To see him like that, <b>thrown to the lions because of ancient history, really doesn't make any sense</b>. There is an America that we love ... <b>There is also a certain America that scares us</b><br />* Your analogy doesn't make any sense - unless you count pedophiles brought to justice as martyrs. And this <i>isn't</i> crazy wingnut America. This is actually - at last - America, the democracy in play. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kouchner">Bernard Kouchner</a>: "A man whose talent is recognized aroudn the world, recognized especially in the country that arrested him, <b>that's not nice</b>. <b>This story, frankly, is a little sinister</b><br />* Oh, Monsieur! That last sentence, I almost agreed with you! This story isn't just a <i>little</i> sinister, it's <i>really</i> sinister that a rapist is so soundly defended after he drugged and forcibly shoved his dick into an unwilling 13 year old girl.<br />You know what's even less nice than Polanski being arrested? RAPING A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL. <br /><br />*The following two "quotes" are from petitions, and the people they are "attributed" to are merely people who <i>signed</i> the petition, not wrote it. <br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Almod%C3%B3var">Pedro Almodover</a>: "<span style="font-weight:bold;">Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision</span>."<br />* Well, I'm thinking that if filmmakers feel that it should be their <i>right</i> to commit heinous crimes, such as raping a child, they should quit beating around the bush and just <i>say it</i>. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie">Salman Rushdie</a>: "<b>Apprehended like a common terrorist</b>... Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison." "We ask the Swiss courts to free him immediately and not to turn this ingenious filmmaker into a martyr of a politico-legal imbroglio that is <b>unworthy of two democracies like Switzerland and the United States</b>" (Globe and Mail attributes this one to the Huffington Post). <br />* No, Polanski is not apprehended like a common terrorist. He is apprehended like a common criminal. Which, by the way, he is. And it is actually totally appropriate for two modern, enlightened democracies to apprehend a child molester. It's truly unfortunate that other "modern", "enlightened" democracies (*cough* France) wouldn't do the same. <br /><br />Seriously, I understand that the man's a great director. I understand that he's a holocaust survivor, that he lost his wife in a traumatic way, that he's a European citizen, and he's had a very hard life and blah blah blah. <br /><i>That does not excuse the act of drugging up a person and forcing your penis inside of them while they tell you NO.</i>. Sorry. It just <i>doesn't</i>. Polanski <i>deserves</i> to go to jail for it. He's a rich white man, and a celebrity, so he's not exactly going to be dumped into jail the way any other pedophile would be. He's going to get special treatment, and a very short sentence <i>if</i> he even goes to prison. <br /><br />So, basically, what I'm saying is GET THE FUCK OVER IT. Polanski deserves a hell of a lot worse than whatever he's going to get. He is a PEDOPHILE. Even if she wasn't still a child, he is a RAPIST. He could have accepted his sentence in the '70s, which would have undoubtedly been a comparable slap-on-the-wrist, since the world doesn't take rape seriously when it is committed by rich white men. <br /><br />Oh, and really, if I run into <i>anyone</i> wearing a "Free Polanski" button, I'm going to ask them, straight up: "Do you support amnesty for all pedophiles, or just the ones who've won an Oscar?"<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-20137625999486561332009-04-14T17:03:00.003-04:002009-04-14T17:15:00.510-04:00When A Man is the Victim...In part procrastination of my own essay-writing but also because this is important to consider and also extremely thoughtfully written, I'm directing everyone to this post about the interlockings of race and gender and other sociological factors in considering sexual violence and rape in general as well as sexual violence against men when it perpetrated by women. It is taken from Racialicious, and was originally posted at the Curvature. I can only hope to write as intellegently and accessibly about such an important issue as Cara does here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.racialicious.com/2009/04/14/when-a-man-is-the-victim-a-second-study-in-rape-apology/#more-2371">When A Man is the Victim</a><br /><br />I never liked that movie 40 Nights (or whatever it was called) with Josh Hartnett because it pretty much played off a rape scene between his character and his ex-girlfriend as something that was supposed to be funny, as well as something that damaged his current relationship with Shannon Sossoman's character not because he was <i>raped by his ex</i>, but rather because it was constitued as <i>him cheating</i>on his new girlfriend. I read no reviews that brought this up even when they shot down the film, and I only had ONE conversation with someone who also saw this as rape. So I think this article is important, as it rightly points to masculinized norms of sexuality and assault in the downplaying of sexual assault (whether cross-gender or same-sex) towards men, an issue of gender, that crosses race, the normalizations of sexuality and violence and other sociological factors, that feminists and anyone concerned about social justice should think about.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-400486746685861082009-03-08T21:36:00.000-04:002009-03-08T21:44:33.893-04:00Hello HelloWell, I guess this is the first post of the year over here. Been awhile...but I guess that's what's sort of appealing about blogging in the first place...picking up and leaving when and where you can...<br /><br />Grad school has been a blur of emotions, tensions, egos (mostly deflating), and struggle, some good and some bad, most of them necessary, but often a bit soul-crushing...It's like finally lifting your head out of the sand to feel the world better, then desperately wanting to sink it back in only to find the sand is now glass.<br /><br />I'm sure I'll feel differently once I'm distanced from the day to day experience of it, and when I look back at the people I've met, and the knowledge(s) I've both gained and problematized (hopefully, anyway) I'll think it worth it in the end (I just hope for the end to come real quicktimes). Its just hard to see clearly when you're too close, I guess.<br /><br />At any rate, the point of this blog was not to indulge so much in my grad school anxiety as much as it was to send out love on International Women's Day. I've spent this weekend attending conferences, alternating between art collaborations and feminist theories of the state. I got to spend my Women's Day weekend hearing Gita Sen from DAWN speak, and put out the call for a feminist interrogation/action in regards to the financial crisis (of which so far have been few) as well as a plethora of intelligent, relevant and heartfelt discussions on welfare, compensation, and the interlocking oppressions that gender and race and class bring into this world...and here from a perspective of hope.<br /><br />To Hope. Everyday.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-71692001683999969362008-12-14T14:00:00.006-05:002008-12-14T15:32:40.099-05:00Masculism (or what the hell are men so scared of?)Lately I've been noticing (more and more) sources of "Men's Right's" Groups. It's a really disturbing trend. <br /><br />The first time I ever heard the term "masculist", it was through a friend, who said that it was being used to describe men who wanted gender equality - but didn't want to be called feminists because they weren't women. Even then, that entire argument has never been a very good one for me. First of all, it's <i>feminism</i>, because the movement is to equalise the rights of women and men. And women are the group that has been systematically disenfranchised for about as long as we've had recorded history; and probably since before. Secondly, the "dirtying" of the <i>word</i> feminism has been going on for far too long. Trying to use the word "masculist" for a so-called feminist man is simply avoiding a coherent connection with the movement one claims that they support. Thirdly, if all men have to be "masculists" and all women have to be "feminists"... well.. doesn't that just reinforce the "traditional" gender structures we've always had? Oh, yeah, it also disenfranchises everyone who isn't specifically male or female. <br />Not long after hearing the term for the first time, a friend and I were chatting to a few guys about philosophy, and it was mentioned that we were feminists. One of them immediately said something along the lines of "Oh, you're a feminist? Well <i>I'm</i> a masculist." When asked what that meant, he couldn't define it. But the use of that word as a antithesis to feminism simply made me angry. If he was pro-feminism, why couldn't he simply say so? If he was trying to make a joke, it was incredibly misplaced. If he was "masculist" as in "men's rights advocates" then I'm truly sorry I didn't tell him off in very strong words. One way or the other, his attitude towards feminism ended the conversation for me - how do you argue with a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX8KWSuEhIc&">fo</a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=didMhd-gFgg">ol</a>? You either drop down to their level and scream and shout and repeat and shout and scream and use profanities until someone's completely drowned out, or else you walk away because you're not going to change the attitude of someone who doesn't care what you think, but just wants to out-yell you. <br /><br />Lately, however, the term masculist has had a much more chilling definition to me: the group of men who seem to think that the goals of all feminists are to disenfranchise the rights of men. According to some guy's (<a href="http://www.geocities.com/qim/masculisttrinity.htm">really really crappy geocities webpage</a>): "Definition of Masculism: A men’s movement ideology that advocates for the abolition of political and cultural assumptions of equality between sexes. A realistic approach to sex differences that attempts to identify those differences and how they are best expressed in the social and political melieu. Supports the establishment of a modern partriarchy and assumes that we are now living in a matriarchy." (Spelling and grammatical mistakes copied-and-pasted direct). In the case of this website, I don't really want to take it too seriously, because, well... really it's an amazingly poorly done website - which means that a) due to spelling and grammar errors, I have to assume the author isn't really all that bright" and b) he doesn't have much of a support group. But then there's <a href="http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/">this</a>, which tries to suggest that men must be relieved of parental duties if the pregnancy was undesired or accidental. <br /><br />Now, the issue of paternal child support is <i>really fucking big</i>. Women are paid less. Any way you paint it, any country: women are paid less. In Canada, on average, including all salaried jobs, women generally get 70.5% of what men in the <b>same</b> positions make. Oh, yes, I'm sure there's a few power-suited women in corporations making bucket loads more than your average man. But on the whole women are paid less. Women also generally end up taking care of the children in a marital breakdown. (This <i>is</i> an issue that should be addressed separately, but I think that parents should be getting joint custody far more often, and I believe that the court systems have a bias towards giving women the children to care for that should be removed - whichever parent, mother or father, is <b>best able</b> to care for the children should be caring for them). Wait a second, 1+1 = Oh yeah, women, especially single mothers, tend to be <a href="http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/resources/consultations/ges09-2005/poverty_e.html">under the poverty line</a> more often than men. So, seriously, a man, living on his own, with no significant expenses (other than the children his estranged wife has been caring for) should fucking pay his child support. (And I added "fucking" there to emphasize, this is an issue very near and dear to me - as a child who's grown up with a single mother. No... my father wasn't deadbeat, but he came pretty close sometimes). It doesn't matter if a child was accidental or not. If <i>you</i> bring a child into this world, <i>you</i>'d better be helping to raise that child. If you don't want to do that... well, <u>wear a condom</u> (and know who you're sleeping with). <br /><br />I titled this entry as I did because, a few weeks ago I followed the link to <a href="http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/">This is Not an Invitation to Rape Me</a> through <a href="http://www.feministing.com">Feministing</a>. I loved the campaign (wish it was happening here too), and then I read the discussion board. The numbers of guys who took major offense at the ad campaign was ridiculous. <br />First and foremost was the assumption that the ads somehow label <i>all</i> men as rapists. (Ok, but if that's how men react to <i>those</i> ads, good thing the poor muffins aren't treated the way women are treated in advertisement...). Nevertheless, maybe not all men are rapists, but most girls (including myself), have been told to watch out for men who are: strangers, relatives, boyfriends, husbands, acquaintances; the last four being the most likely men to rape you, according to statistics. No, I don't think every man in my life is a potential rapist, but the point here is rape is such a common crime that girls (especially) are <i>always</i> told (with a certain amount of good reason) to be really careful. No, I don't want to label all men as rapists, but maybe there's a little bit too much ...well... social support for a guy who's committed a rape. <br />And then there was the reaction of "Well, women yell 'rape' all the time, they must be lying!". So maybe that happens once in a while; it's a big world, I'm sure someone somewhere has done so. <i>But</i> what about how many women get raped (1/3 in most Western countries). "But men get raped too!" And if men get raped, they should come forward about it. Luckily for them, men don't get raped nearly as often (1/22). So yeah, although I'm sure there is the very odd woman who's willing to get herself subjected to all sorts of abuse through the police, through the court, through the lack of support of relatives and friends... etc, etc, more often than not, I'm pretty sure if a woman comes forward about a rape, she's not kidding around. She's going through about as much (or more) social exclusion as the rapist. <br /><br />In the end, what masculism appears to be (to me) is a frightened yelp of an over-enfranchised group who must learn to share. It's like a child who's always had exactly what s/he wanted, and suddenly s/he must share with another child. Feminism has <i>never</i> been about disenfranchising men. It's <i>never</i> been about hating men either. Feminism has accomplished great things, and will continue to accomplish great things. Enfranchising women (just like enfranchising any other group) has done amazing things: most importantly, allowing large numbers of incredibly intelligent and amazing people to participate fully in society, free of numerous social inhibitions. Women are still on an unequal playing field with men. But women don't hate men for it (It's funny, but most of the "boys are dumb" or "guys smell" stuff [in my experience] comes from women who wouldn't call themselves feminists). As a feminist, what I want is neither a "patriarchal" or a "matriarchal" society - those are lofty and foolish goals. I want a society that will accept <i>anyone</i> regardless of gender, race, creed, nationality, etc, etc etc, on an equal level. I don't appreciate a bunch of frightened "masculist" men (that very group that has been in power for so many centuries) trying to overthrow or protest that ideal because they're scared of having a level playing field - and unhobbled competitors.<br /><br />Guys, you've had millenia to control the world. Yes, losing small amounts of that control is a very big, frightening change for you. But it's time to simply MOVE OVER.<br /><br />Post Scripted: And everything I wanted to say is summed up very quickly, astutely and beautifully <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTLDb-flVNE">right here</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-49351459687027722022008-12-08T22:03:00.003-05:002008-12-08T22:10:47.102-05:00Naomi Klein Talks About Coalition<a href="http://rabble.ca/news/naomi-klein-%E2%80%98we-cant-lose-moment">Naomi Klien: We Can't Lose</a><br /><br />Some key points in this interview with Naomi Klein: understanding what "Liberal" actually means and what histories and legacies it points to, holding the Coalition accountable in this very exciting moment, challenging our political process and the borders around democracy. She's right, talks of this coalition being a political coupe is bad Tory PR spin on the situation. Let's talk about the ways this exciting moment potentially opens doors for a truly progressive change in politics and nation-states like Canada. I don't think Harper even represents most conservatives (much less anyone else) in Canada--he's just their only choice. <br /><br />The Article Here:<br /><br />Kim Elliott: As you outline so well in your book and in various interviews in the U.S. media, the current financial crisis holds the possibility of being one of those moments when the shock doctrine can best be applied. Can you comment on both the Harper government's economic and fiscal statement introduced last week, and on the Opposition's response to that - that is, the formation of a coalition - in the context of the shock doctrine?<br /><br />Naomi Klein: Yes, absolutely. What I think we are seeing is a clear example of the shock doctrine in the way the Harper government has used the economic crisis to push through a much more radical agenda than they won a mandate to do.<br /><br />At the same time we are seeing an example of what I call in the book a "shock resistance," where this tactic has been so overused around the world and also in Canada that we are becoming more resistant to the tactic - we are on to them - and Harper is not getting away with it.<br /><br />What I think is really amazing about this moment is whatever happens next - whether we end up with this coalition or not, we will have an extremely chastened Harper. So the attempted shock doctrine has failed. I think we can say that decisively.<br /><br />Just to be clear, what I mean by the shock doctrine, as you know, is the use of crisis to push through unpopular pro-corporate policies. This bundling of a whole package of policies: denying the right of public sector workers to strike, the attack on public financing of political parties, with the economic program - that is what failed, and people were offended by the opportunism of it.<br /><br />This is what so many of us were worried about during the election - the context of a Tory victory in an economic crisis, because we know that there is this pattern of using an economic crisis to push through policies that were nowhere during the campaign.<br /><br />KE: This coalition gives us lots of opportunities, but it also poses some risks if it is successful. I'd like to ask you about that. In an interview you had on Democracy Now!, you said that part of the reason that Obama was appointing a host of neo-liberal economists was because there was a lack of "intellectual honesty" among progressives about the real legacy of the Clinton years. Does the Canadian left, in a Liberal-led coalition, risk losing our understanding of the neo-liberal legacy of the Liberals, who during those same Clinton years were ripping up Canada's welfare state, cutting social spending etc?<br /><br />NK: I think it is really important to remember, and I've written about this in the book, and Linda McQuaig has written about it extensively, that it is the Liberals who actually implemented what I'm describing in Canada.<br /><br />They were elected on an economic stimulus platform in 1993, with a huge mandate. The Tories were wiped out in those historic elections. And then they caved to pressure from Bay Street, from the corporate media and from the right-wing think tanks in the face of the debt crisis. They turned around and broke their election promises when it came to NAFTA, when it came to job creation, and the famous 1995 Paul Martin budget came down which did so much damage to unemployment insurances (which makes it particularly interesting that a key piece of the agreement for the coalition is about strengthening unemployment insurance). So we need to have long memories about the Liberals, because they have done exactly what Harper has just done, in terms of using an economic crisis for a neo-liberal about turn.<br /><br />That said, what I find most exciting about what is going on right now - beyond just getting rid of Harper, which is exciting in and of itself - is that we have this opportunity to show what proportional representation (PR) would look like, because all of this talk that this is a coup is a joke.<br /><br />What is being proposed by this coalition is much closer to representative democracy than what we have right now, which is a government that has [slightly more than] 35 per cent of the popular vote in a turnout that was historically low, of 59 per cent of Canadian voters, which means that even though the Tories won more seats they had fewer actual votes than in the last election.<br /><br />I think it is really important to talk about democracy, about what it actually means in this period. In some ways I think it is even more important than talking about the policies, because our electoral system is broken. Because of the Tories' extraordinary opportunism and terrible calculation we now have an opportunity to see a better version of democracy and see more people represented in government.<br /><br />To me the best case scenario that could come out of this is, one, you get the coalition, and, two, the NDP uses this moment to really launch a national discussion about why we need PR and that that becomes one of the things that comes out of this crisis.<br /><br />Now, they don't have the mandate for that right now, but we could come out of this with a national referendum on proportional representation. People might actually like it, which would be really, really exciting.<br /><br />KE: That is a very exciting possibility, and I wanted to ask you, if this coalition is successful, what are the two or three key issues that the NDP should focus on, the kinds of issues that were not covered in the agreement?<br /><br />NK: They've put in writing what they've agreed to. I think it is going to maybe be up to the NDP to make sure that the EI improvements are protected.<br /><br />KE: I'm thinking of those issues that were not in the agreement like PR, or like withdrawal from Afghanistan - those issues that were not nailed down in the agreement.<br /><br />NK: Those issues weren't nailed down because there isn't agreement on them, and that I think it is not really about whether the NDP holds the line on these issues, but about how the NDP uses this platform. It is a historic opportunity, I think, to be very bold, not just because of what is happening in this country, but because of what is happening globally.<br /><br />Another important role for the NDP, beyond putting proportional representation on the agenda, withdrawal from Afghanistan, is also the terms of the bailout. The bailout for the auto industry is part of their agreement, but we don't know what the terms of that agreement are going to be, and that is going to be really important in terms of negotiating a progressive automobile industry bailout - a green auto industry bailout, if such a thing is possible. So that is a very important role that the NDP could play.<br /><br />I think the best analogy, in terms of the kinds of concerns you are raising in regards to the Liberals and neo-liberalism, of being the party that continued and deepened Mulroney's neo-liberal economic program, is to look at Gordon Brown. He was finance minister for Tony Blair, really the face of neo-liberalism in Britain. He is now overseeing what many are calling the death of New Labour, and the return to Keynesian economics in Britain. That is because he is fighting for his political life. That is because he was going down, until he started talking this way. That is really what is at stake for the Liberals, I think.<br /><br />This is also why I think the issue of political financing for political parties is so key. The reason there is a little more latitude in Canada on these issues is because our political process is not massively owned by corporations as it is in the United States.<br /><br />The way in which public financing for political parties has been presented in the press is "oh the politicians, they just got mad when they went after their money," right? This is another key point that I think is somewhat related to the issue of proportional representation. We need to be talking about our political process here, and the issue of public financing for political parties in elections is key to protecting and deepening democracy in Canada, and for keeping it out of corporate control. It is not for nothing that the Tories are attacking that. They see attacking public financing of political parties as a way to entrench their power.<br /><br />KE: Should this coalition become government, what should we as progressive movements be doing in terms of using this as an opportunity to promote these kinds of progressive agendas, to support the NDP in a predominantly Liberal caucus?<br /><br />NK: I think it is PR, I really think that is the way in. By pushing PR then it is not just about this one crisis. It is about leveraging this situation to have a more democratic system. It means that if the NDP does deeply disappoint us in this moment we could still end up with a better political system.<br /><br />KE: Should the coalition happen what do you see as the long-term fall-out in terms of western voters in Canada?<br /><br />NK: I really think that we need to fight back this strategy. We know what the talking points are from the right and from the West, and it is about playing up this idea of making a coalition with the Bloc, "with the separatists."<br /><br />What to me is so extraordinary is the temper tantrum being thrown in Alberta right now at the prospect of having to be ruled by a majority - by a coalition of parties representing the majority of the people in this country. I really do think it is worth asking who the real separatists are, because of course the undercurrent of everything they are saying is that they will take our oil. So who are the real separatists? <br /><br />KE: Do you agree then that we should be out there supporting the coalition? Attending rallies, mobilizing letter-writing campaigns?<br /><br />NK: Absolutely. Listen, we've been given a second chance, after these elections. What is exciting about it is that a lot of people did get involved in the election to try to beat the Tories. Maybe it started a little bit too late. We were surprised a bit by how quickly the election happened, but you saw a lot of people getting involved in things like voteforenviroment.ca and the Department of Culture.<br /><br />That was very much the spirit of it, it was anything but the Tories and it was kind of building a PR system without the cooperation of the political parties that got a lot of people excited during this election. It was about just doing an end-run around the political parties who were not cooperating to try to keep out the Tories.<br /><br />So, what is exciting about this political moment, and how people can get involved, is that this is building on that. The political parties caught up with the grassroots movement that was happening anyway with those initiatives like voteforenvironment.ca, Department of Culture, and people like Murray Dobbin who have been making these arguments pretty steadily outside of the political parties. Now it is happening, and it is happening thanks to Stephen Harper and his extraordinary arrogance and over-reaching. We can't lose this moment.<br /><br />I just want to emphasize this point: If even through smart tactics, Harper pulls this off, if he prorogues Parliament; if the Governor General lets him get away with it; if the Liberals lose their nerve over Xmas, then the Harper we will have in January will be a deeply chastened Harper.<br /><br />What everybody agrees with is that he made a massive error, that he massively overreached, and his own party, his own base agrees with that. Worst case scenario we dodged a bullet here. Best case scenario, we leverage his overreach, his attempt to use a crisis to push through his ideological pro-corporate agenda to have a deeper democracy in our country, and to prevent forevermore a situation where a party with 35 per cent of the vote is government.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-14893681366268731852008-12-06T01:54:00.006-05:002008-12-06T02:34:51.648-05:00Remembering Violence Against WomenI just wanted to take a moment out to add to Medea's post, especially since today also marks a national day of rememberance on violence against women.<br /><br />Violence against women happens under various conditions but what we know of it and how we know of it gets mediated by the fact that we live in a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, able-ist society--so only certian kinds of violence against certain women gets acknowledged, and paints a particular, limited picture of the issues, when the reality is that there are an abundant. So many histories and conceptions of what we think is a 'liberal'* (read: our) society drastically change when we bother to look under the rug.<br /><br />So while we remember importantly the Montreal Massacre, let's also remember to read <a href="http://www.southendpress.org/2005/items/Conquest">Andrea Smith</a>,<a href="http://www.btlbooks.com/Links/razack__interview.htm">Sherene Razack</a>,<a href="http://womenshistory.about.com/od/aframerwriters/p/angela_davis.htm">Angela Davis</a>,<a href="http://www.geog.psu.edu/people/wright/">Melissa Wright</a>. Let's remember to watch <a href="http://www3.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/?lg=en&id=52581&v=h">Finding Dawn</a> and <a href="http://www3.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/?id=33077">The Sterilization of Leilani Muir</a>. Drop by <a href="http://womenscentre.sa.utoronto.ca/">The Centre for Women and Trans People (University of Toronto)</a> and have an important conversation. <br /><br />There's so much more out there.<br /><br />Note how many of those few sources I listed point to a Canadian history--including the Massacre. Let's look under our own rug.<br /><br /><br />*a big problem is understanding just what exactly we mean and politically support when we say 'liberal' in the first place...<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-71203301694121342642008-12-06T00:19:00.002-05:002008-12-06T00:31:15.103-05:00Montreal MassacreI just wanted to make a point of noting that today (December 6th) is the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, almost 20 years ago now, but still just as shocking. <br /><br />If you haven't heard of this before, go to the <a href="http://archives.cbc.ca/society/crime_justice/topics/398/">CBC Archives</a>. A lone gun man, Marc Lepine shot down 14 women, to get revenge on them because he was unable to get into engineering school. He blamed the women because he felt that they were taking up spaces he could have taken in school. He felt that women going into the workplace were taking all his opportunities away. Lepine deliberately separated men and women, and targeted <i>only</i> women. <br /><br />It's just as heart wrenching, sexist and terrifying today as it was in the 1980s. This happened in a liberal country, at the end of the 1980s, at a time when people were already saying that feminism had run its course, and was "no longer necessary".<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-15029219060659964242008-12-04T21:26:00.003-05:002008-12-04T23:26:09.655-05:00Stephen Harper<img src="http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e197/mostpeopleare/babywantsapacifier.jpg?t=1228444025"><br /><br />Harper got his prorogation. I'm not pleased about this. It just gives him a bigger chance to launch attack ads and be a jerk. <br /><br />Hopefully, this won't stop the no-confidence vote from going through, and the much more respectable coalition government from coming into power in January, when parliament reconvenes. <br /><br />(Feel free to use this image where ever you like!)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-41698772940472779202008-12-03T19:50:00.004-05:002008-12-03T20:16:21.970-05:005 Reasons to love the coalition5. Most of us didn't vote Conservative. Even if you ignore the popular vote, conservatives <i>did not</i> reach a majority. So, yeah, a coalition is <i>not</i> undemocratic. In fact, it's more democratic than a minority government, because it <i>forces</i> parties to work together and negotiate - giving the public more of what most of them <i>actually</i> voted for. <br /><br />4. The bill that Harper was trying to put through included: 1. Removing public funding for all the parties - which would give the Conservative Party a huge and undemocratic advantage. 2. Removing the right of public service workers to strike. That's not exactly pro-democracy. <br /><br />3. Harper really doesn't give a damn about advancing the equal rights of women, visible minorities, and LGTB people. Remember how Harper cut funding for shelters for battered women? I know most people cringe at the word "feminist*", but if I add that usually kids get battered when their mum gets battered, does that mean you'll actually give a damn?<br /><br />2. Global warming is not a joke, nor is it something that should be kept on the back burner. The environment is <b>life and death important</b>. We need a government that <i>actually</i> gives a damn.<br /><br />1. Stephen Harper is an immature lout. He accuses the proposed coalition government of being undemocratic - well, then the rule of the majority is undemocratic. He rails about the Bloc Quebecois as a "separatist" party - he is simply pushing Quebec further and further away. Oh, <i>and</i>, whoops, forgetting his attempts to work with them to pull down the Martin Liberals. Instead of speaking about budgets, about policies, he merely insults the proposed coalition. Instead of trying to compromise with the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc, he refuses to take responsibility for the house's loss of confidence in him. Harper governs like a schoolyard bully, with little understanding of what the <b>majority</b> of Canadians want. <b>Get him <u>out</u> of power</b>.<br /><br />Bring on the Coalition!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />* For the ten millionth time: Feminist does <i>not</i> mean man hater.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-83241481341239095542008-12-03T18:10:00.003-05:002008-12-03T18:12:40.968-05:00Cars, Subsidies and Canoe Races... (definitely not an essay)<span style="font-weight:bold;">I don't know who actually wrote this; it came to me in an email. Just kinda true...</span><br /><br /><br />A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River . Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.<br /><br />On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.<br /><br />The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.<br /><br />Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.<br /><br />Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.<br /><br />They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.<br /><br />Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.<br /><br />They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.<br /><br />The next year the Japanese won by two miles.<br /><br />Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.<br /><br />The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India .<br /><br />Sadly, the End.<br /><br />Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages.<br /><br />TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US The last quarter's results:<br /><br />TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.<br /><br />Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses...<br /><br />IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY <br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">THE GOVERNMENT IS ASKING THE GUYS WHO MAKE MINIMUM WAGE AND PAY TAXES TO SUBSIDIZE THE WAGES OF THE GUYS MAKING REALLY BIG BUCKS.<br /><br />THEY ALSO WON'T ALLOW THE CAR COMPANY OUT OF QUEBEC THAT IS MAKING ELECTRIC CARS AND SELLING THEM ALL OVER THE WORLD TO SELL THEM IN CANADA.<br /><br />THEY ALSO CONTINUE TO CREATE (TOWN PLANNING) COMMUNITIES THAT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO DRIVE LONG LONG LONG LONG DISTANCES TO GET TO WORK.<br /><br />WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OLD FASHIONED TOWN PLANNING WHERE YOU COULD WALK TO WORK?<br /><br />AND THEY CALL IT DEVELOPMENT<br /><br />THE BUILDERS THEY CALL DEVELOPERS ARE ACTUALLY COMMUNITY WRECKERS AND THEY ARE RUNNING OUT TOWN HALLS ETC.</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-66648547341076706512008-11-17T23:33:00.003-05:002008-11-17T23:37:37.755-05:00Way to Ruin a Good ThingSo, this commercial pissed me off especially because I the first whiskey I started drinking was Wisers. <br /><br />Too bad I ain't male... <br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D-sie_VfgFU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D-sie_VfgFU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />Luckily, I've gotten over Wisers, and moved onto things much better. <br /><br />I'm just annoyed at the sexism inherent in umpteen alcohol advertisements. GAWD, if I decided to boycott all alcohol based on sexist ads, I'd probably be stuck with no choice but making moonshine. <br /><br />...Luckily my favourite wines don't need to advertise.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-38393787364679501542008-11-11T12:30:00.004-05:002008-11-11T12:55:41.422-05:00Bloody PoppiesSo, it's that time of year again - that time when talk of the world wars suddenly rises from the ashes and we all wear poppies to support the veterans of those wars. <br /><br /><a href="http://evilfeministwitch.blogspot.com/2007/11/no-poppy-for-forgotten.html">Last year</a> I posted about why I don't wear a poppy. This year, again, I am not wearing a poppy, but still remembering. But I <i>have</i> noticed that the collective minds of the masses seems to have decided either in favour of my direction or to simply forget. <br /><br />To reiterate what I said last year: Ever since September 11th rhetoric started to get mixed up with world war remembrance rhetoric the poppy turned just didn't do it. Even if you listen to the straight-up nothing but "remember the 'Great' Wars" rhetoric, we're getting into foggy territory. Yes, it is important to remember the terrible losses (by which I mean hundreds of thousands of deaths, <i>not</i> "casualties") but to what extent are we glorifying the very act of war with this remembrance? The poem that the poppy symbolism comes from states, <i>very</i> clearly: "Take up our quarrel with the foe:/ To you from falling hands we throw/ The torch; be yours to hold it high." (McCrae 1915). That's a pretty clear statement of "Keep this damned war going."<br /><br />Another issue I keep taking with the Remembrance Day deal are our "new" modern wars. Sure, people said that World War I was "the first modern war" - but was it really? It seems to me that World War I and World War II were really the exception. Modern Wars seems to be the ability to inflict as much damage on the "enemy" with as little damage on your own troops - current wars, Afghanistan and Iraq as our primary example (where's the talk about these places, now that suddenly the US is in an era of progression?). "Our" side, the "good guys" have a death toll of something like a mere tenth of how many of "Their" side, the "bad guys" have had? Is that war, or is that a one sided slaughter with the victims doing their best to fight back? <br /><br />YES, we <i>must</i> remember the lessons of World Wars I and II. But we've <i>very</i> obviously already forgotten them, and remembered absolutely <i>nothing</i> but the bloody poppy! Wars today are being fought for the same reasons they were being fought back then. It's very much colonialism under a vague flag of "We're democratic, let us <i>free</i> the victims of these totalitarian states" and "Bringing Free and Democratic Trade to the land of the oppressed!". But we are setting ourselves in the space of the oppressor, and maybe they can vote on their government, but these countries, set up as they are being set up - even if they were able to emerge peacefully (and I beg you all to remember that if Canada or the States were thrown down into a state of Anarchy by another country, we would <i>not</i> emerge any more peacefully than Iraq or Afghanistan or <i>any other country</i> has in <i>history</i>), World Trade sanctions and unfair trading treaties are already being placed on them - making it pretty much impossible for them to emerge in a state of anything but poverty. <br /><br />So, again: I cannot wear a poppy that stands for "remembrance" of previous wars, when the bloodthirst of my own nation (and its closest ally) is so apparent. I repeat: we have not retained anything except this bloody poppy. So maybe it's time to start a <i>new</i> way of remembrance, one that ties itself to remembering why we <i>shouldn't</i> be invading other countries for colonial purposes.<br /><br />Or maybe we should strip back this artificial veneer of pretending we remember and recognize the sacrifices of World War veterans and start <i>actually</i> remembering and recognizing their sacrifices - <i>as well as</i> the sacrifices of so many millions of innocent victims who did not <i>fight</i> in these wars, but were merely <i>killed</i> in them.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-50686626632029473422008-11-07T13:11:00.005-05:002008-11-07T13:44:05.972-05:00Anti-Gay is Anti-Human RightsI posted last night about the American election. Although I am no American, American policies often affect the policies in my own country (Canada, if you cannot already guess). This is why Canadians so often have their noses right into American politics. And I've had a number of American friends who, while coming up here because they can't stand their own country, get bent way out of whack when we criticize American policy that affects us. Because <i>a lot</i> of it does. <br /><br />One thing that terrified me in this American election was the number of Woman's Choice issues on the block for decision. I say this because, although Canada is a fair deal more liberal than the states, the border is, after all, only a line created by politicians and bankers. We <i>do</i> have our own Anti-Abortion activists here, and don't you worry one bit, we've got our fair share of Christian Fundies. If the anti-choice give-embryos rights legislation were to have passed, it would have given fuel to <i>our</i> own Anti-Choice types (who actually get a good deal of funding from the <i>American</i> Focus on the Family group**). Which, as someone who grew up in a small town that has a fairly strong anti-choice climate, is frightening. I'll admit, it terrified me that those rights that women had fought for were being marched towards an executioner's block. <br /><br />Gay rights in Canada are a fair bit stronger than those in the States. In all honesty, I think here, too, it's a good deal shakier than womens' rights. Of course, it's not perfect for homosexuals or transexuals (henceforth referred to as queers). In all honesty, no where is. In small town Canada, young queers face the same sorts of discrimination that young queers face in small town USA. (I saw it happen to friends in highschool). Most of them didn't come out until they had moved to a larger city, someplace like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. But Canada still has a large populous that doesn't support gay rights, and the rights that queers have are still shaky here. <br /><br />Which is why it disturbs me so much that <i>all</i> the anti-gay legislation in the States passed on Tuesday. <br />It makes me happy that the queers in the states aren't taking this sitting down: <br /><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="400" height="400"><br /><param name="movie" value="http://current.com/e/89501098/en_US"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://current.com/e/89501098/en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="400" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object><br />And I am writing this to express some form of solidarity (as weak and fleeting as digital words are) with the American queers. It is absolutely disgusting (<i>still</i>) that a country that can spend so much time talking about their so-called "freedom" can unblinkingly treat its own citizenry so poorly.<br /><br /><br /><br />** the first time I heard of Focus on the Family was actually when they were campaigning against gay marriage in <i>Canada</i>, like before we had granted queers that right. It was an ad in the Hamilton Spectator.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-35864110924896892302008-11-06T18:31:00.003-05:002008-11-06T18:54:03.934-05:00Ok, so, just a two days ago, the United States of America elected their very firstest ever non-white prezie, and the rest of us in the world are cheering this shit on. I work in a cafe, and the entire day went a little like: "We love Obama!" "So glad Obama won the election!" and "What a momentous day that the first black man is elected president!"<br /><br />Hells, you could almost believe that this cafe was, you know, like a full border south-wards. <br /><br />But, as Pierre Trudeau said, living next to the US of A is like sleeping with an elephant, and since the US of A has extended its enormous tentacles worldwide, the rest of the world, we're all sleeping with the American elephant... and we all feel <i>every single tiny twitch</i>. So, although the entire world is disenfranchised and without a US Ballot, every single person on the planet had a lot riding on this election too. <br /><br />So, as a Canadian, my hopes and fears about Obama's presidency. <br /><br /><b>Hopes</b><br />So, yeah, let's start this off positively, shall we?<br />1. I hope that Obama begins to bring some much needed education and sanity to much of the American populace. That much ridiculousness starts to rub off after a while. <br />2. I hope that Obama's only sort of less right wing policies help to keep the majority of Americans out of third-world style poverty. As much as the US likes to call itself a land of the free... I ain't never seen slums like America in Canada or Europe. It's an absolute disgrace that such a wealthy nation decides to treat its own citizens so poorly. <br />3. I hope that Obama is the start of meaningful, long-lasting change in American policy. <br />4. I hope that Obama does decide to roll Free Trade back, but also that he waits until we don't have a treacherous Conservative slug for a PM. (Yeah, Harper, I mean you... I see you licking your greasy lips waiting for the sell Canada to the US moments). <br />5. I hope that Obama is helluva a lot more radical than he actually sounds like he is. <br /><br /><b>Fears</b><br />And now the gross stuff...<br />1. I fear that Obama will get blamed for the shit-storm that will be heaped on him when he takes up the presidency. By this I mean: Bush may only be president for a gruelingly long 8 years, but his peoples' policies aren't exactly going to go away when they do. Obama's going to have a tough shit fight. <br />2. I fear that the United States SuperRight Psychos will assassinate Obama. <br />3. I fear that Obama is <i>still</i> an American president. And, as we all know, American presidents don't really give much shit about the rest of the world... we love the fact that he's not McCain, but I'm not putting money on Obama's social conscience. <br />4. I fear that this is the first time I've really been more ok with the American President than the Canadian Prime Minister. Oh, I know that Stephen Harper is a fluffy kitty compared to John McCain, and that Obama's policies still lie pretty close to Harper's... but it's just the US pulled up and made the better choice, why didn't <i>we</i>. <br />5. I fear that the scary shit that McCain ran on is not going to be buried just because McCain didn't win. <br />6. I fear that I may hear Sarah Palin's name again.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-58670203050288548352008-10-15T10:57:00.003-04:002008-10-15T11:32:02.263-04:00Blue Country - Post Election NotesSo, as was fairly predictable, Canada dropped the ball again and elected Stephen Harper, our ultra-conservative angry man, who really belongs more to the States than to us. <br /><br />What wasn't predictable was Harper came very close to a majority government, and I spent a good deal of time thinking about all sort of things he was likely to go after, including, but not only: freedom of speech in the arts (oh, yeah, and the arts), gay marriage (he really never liked it), women's rights (who cut nation-wide services that fund women's shelters?), the environment (which to me, is actually the most important, doesn't matter how bad things get, the land can save you)... <br />I've never been happier to return to a status quo that I really don't like. All I can say is: Dion, Layton and Duceppe had better make good on their promises to stand up against Harper. Don't keep this parliament running longer than it needs to be; I know it's an unpopular decision to kill a minority, because no one likes an election... but hey. <br /><br />For those of you who don't quite get Canadian parliament: We have a total of 308 seats in parliament. Any time a party wins 155 or more of those seats, they get a practical <i>carte blanche</i> to do whatever they like. Anything less than 155, they end up with a minority government, which can be toppled by the other parties by voting against a movement in parliament. I'm willing to bet that Harper's confident enough by his almost-majority (143 seats) to try to push the buttons of the other parties: If they topple the government within the first year, they'll be blamed for the ensuing election. He's going to push for things they don't want NOW. But, he will remain acting like HarperLite, because he doesn't have the power to push his more controversial agendas. <br /><br />Anyway, checking voter turn-out this morning and guess what? Turnout is down to <b>59.1%</b>. In other words - not so hot. That is a record low, according to CBC. A large chunk of that is Newfoundland, ConLand, where the Conservative Premier stated that Harper's Conservatives were not good for the province, suggesting the catchy "ABC" Voting Strategy - Anything But Conservatives. I expect a lot of people just didn't really know who to vote for. <br />The other place I <b>expect</b> (don't have anything to back this assumption up) voters didn't show was Alberta. Oh, Alberta. So many new people have moved there, but everyone who votes central-to-left seems to think that since they don't have a chance, they just don't need to try. Well... thanks a lot, left-of-right Albertans. Your lack of voting is really what's screwing the rest of us over on a national level. You need to take responsibility and just elect someone Lib or NDP or, hell, the Greens would have a big fight there, but them too! I know Alberta's not really a great place to live these days. We all know that. You could be making $20/hour and still not be able to afford a house... but you gotta elect a party that's going to help rather than encourage Alberta to degenerate into a cesspool of poverty, oil and crime.<br />Nevertheless, we're taking our right to vote for granted. It's pathetic. <br /><br />Finally, remember last year, when all the young voters didn't bother on voting for proportional representation? If you had bothered voting for that, we wouldn't have such a big problem on our hands with the current government. <br /><br />Popular Vote vs Percentage of Seats (ie. Real Power) in Parliament: <br />37.63% vs 46.42% Conservative<br />26.24% vs 24.28% Liberal<br /> 9.97% vs 16.23% Bloc Quebecois<br />18.20% vs 12.01% New Democratic Party (NDP)<br /> 6.80% vs 0.00% Green Party<br /><br />Just bothers me some that almost 20% of voters aren't properly represented (Helps that I'm one of them).<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-76108888163375266152008-10-13T18:02:00.003-04:002008-10-13T18:05:15.311-04:00DON'T FORGET TO VOTE TOMORROW!THIS THANKSGIVING MONDAY IS THE EVE OF THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS IN CANADA.<br /><br />THIS POST IS SERVING AS A REMINDER FOR EVERYONE TO GO OUT AND VOTE TOMORROW.<br /><br />HENCE ALL THE FRIGGIN' CAPSLOCK.<br /><br /><br />DON'T FORGET!<br />OCTOBER 14TH, 2008 IS ELECTION DAY!<br />GO AND VOTE!<br /><br />VOTE!VOTE!VOTE!VOTE!VOTE!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-36040316378988744352008-10-10T14:37:00.004-04:002008-10-15T11:34:27.655-04:00Last Post Before Election!MORE IMPORTANT THAN READING THIS: GO OUT AND VOTE ON OCTOBER 14th. NO EXCUSES, JUST VOTE!<br /><br />So, with just one day left until elections start, I'm going to give my personal run-down of each of the parties - something I <i>meant</i> to do, heh, a day or two after the Leader's Debate(s). <br /><br />So. First off, I'm going to start with our current (crap-for) government. I'm trying hard not to let my own biases get in the way of sounding balanced and sane, but I hold a lot of hate for the Conservative Party of Canada. I hold a lot of hate for Stephen Harper, and I really hope that the majority of Canadians remain ever vigilant and cautious about this grade-A douchebag. Watching the debate, I really just wanted to smack Stephen Harper's smug "I-think-I-got-it-in-the-bag-therefore-I-won't-actually-<i>debate</i>" smirk off his face. <br /><br />To start, here's a Conservative TV ad, swiped from the Con's channel on YouTube:<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RSwZB98nd98&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RSwZB98nd98&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />I chose this ad because it really stands as a shining example of why the Conservatives are a terrible choice for leadership: they assume that they don't need to worry about Canadians having enough brain power to want to hear about -what's it called...- issues. Hell, they figure, just smear Stephan Dion's name enough and all will be well. <br /><br />For this entire bloody campaign, they have been smugly going on about how terrible the other parties are - how their economic plans are flawed, etc, etc. What they continuously forget to mention is that it seems that the Cons always give up the government just after they've used up the surplus that the Libs created. That's right, Libs and Cons may both be scheming, lying bastards, but at least the Libs balance the bloody budget. This year, the Cons also, oops!, forgot!, to release their platform until last week. At this point, I haven't actually made the time to go over it - it's a pretty basic Con platform. <br /><br />It goes a little like this: tax cut here, tax cut there, give a little tax cut everywhere!!! Now if you're lower middle class or impoverished, you're saving something like $200 a year - but to afford these cuts that make your nobility (oops, I meant, the upper-middle class and the rich) <i>lots</i> of extra money... oh, yeah, about those arts programs, the environment, hell, even the whole job issue... let's just SLASH. Oh, yeah, good luck with the pending economic DOOM!<br /><br />And, next up to bat, the Liberals! Oh, those good old classy Liberals, the ones who have provided my two favourite PMs in Canada's history: Pierre Trudeau for his policies, social reform, all round "good-guy" appearance in Canada's history (except when you remember that small occurrence in Quebec... ), and awesome sass: "The government has <i>no place</i> in the bedrooms of the nation!", "Just watch me!" and so forth; and Jean Cretien for his absolute ridiculously inappropriate sass and willingness to mock himself on the Mercer Report, even if he was a corrupt bastard. (I'd like to see Cretien kick Mercer's ass, actually, but hey, can't get all my wishes). Stephan Dion might actually be my favourite party leader these days - well, he was, up until the Leader's Debate. Get into that later. <br /><br />Here is the Lib ad that, for me, most summarizes what the Libs have been saying:<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wZBqM6Uwt4g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wZBqM6Uwt4g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />Now, some people say that this is just as smeary as the Cons' ads, but I'd argue that this is <i>fact-based</i>, rather than an all-out "Gamble on Dion and die" approach. Because these things <i>did</i> happen. I remember it happening - especially calling Ontario the last place in the world to invest. God, Ontario actually needs to start crucifying its Conservative party members, the way that they have been treating us. But, outside of Toronto and the other major cities, most people seem to have the ability to clamp fists on their ears and yell "LALALALA". <br />Nevertheless, to talk about the Liberals: I like the Green Shift plan. It's not perfect, no, but it's a step in the right direction, which is a hell of a lot more than the Con plan is (reduce 20% of emissions by 2020? Right, by then we've all asphyxiated already). And there really is no perfect way to reduce emissions, other than going back in time and stopping "progress" in this direction. <br />Now, social programs, not bad. Support for the arts? Not bad. Economy? Not the classic <i>laissez-faire</i> approach, but hey, that approach certainly didn't help the poor fools who elected Conservative governments in the 1930s, did it? It was the more left-wing, "socialist" approach that saved <i>that</i> day, and I strongly believe the same goes for this day. Most of this, however, can be applied to the slightly less corrupt NDP and Green platforms. <br /><br />The other thing I'd like to say about the Libs is about their leader, Stephan Dion. I honestly believe that Dion is the best federal Liberal party leader since Trudeau. He might not be overtly heavy with the party whip, and keeping his party in perfect line, but <i>that</i> is what democracy should be, baby! Now, I don't think Dion has everything to be desired, etc, etc. But what has driven me crazy about this election is that he has been facing slander from all sides - and yet he slugs on. The Cons slander him. The NDP slanders him. The Green party... well, they really haven't insulted anyone except Stephen Harper, and I think it was just. Hell, even some members of his party have been insulting him (quietly since the election was called). Most of all, though, ALL THE MAJOR NEWS NETWORKS IN CANADA have been saying: "Stephan Dion is a weak, uncharismatic leader" <i>constantly</i>. And it changes people's opinions. I've heard people quoting, over and over again, these reports. And you know what? I think Dion's got charisma. And I think that he's shown fortitude, maturity (which many world leaders tragically lack), the way he <i>continued</i> to stand strong against this shit, and really hasn't whined about it. So, I say: "Stephan Dion, you have my respect."<br /><br />On to the NDP! <br /><br />I'll be honest. I like Layton's politics, I like Layton's party... I just have never really liked Layton himself. I don't know why. He's just never really captured my heart... Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Layton shares the same policies as his predecessor, and yet, he's not called names, like "Sausage Face" on talk radio. Oh, wait, she was a <i>woman</i>. This makes her policies unimportant, instead, her appearance takes precedence! (I'll add a full blog about this eventually, I've got a list of female politicians in this boat).<br /><br />Anyway, NDP is the party I'm most likely to vote for. And here is an ad that, for me, summarizes the campaign. Enjoy:<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C5UDpj4ptEo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C5UDpj4ptEo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />The NDP is probably my favourite party in Canada. Unfortunately, they never win, and when they finally do win, they are far too surprised themselves to deal with their own political success. In fact, I think that they do best in coalition with the Liberals, because the Liberals keep grounded in the Capitalist reality. <br /><br />Anyway, this election, they're yammering on about just about everything that I feel is important to me. Things like... oh, creating <i>Canadian</i> manufacturing jobs. You know, maybe Canadian companies, making Canadian goods? Instead of letting companies like General Motors fuck us over again and again and again? Oh, yeah, and doing things to help create a bit more social justice? Like, you know, <i>closing</i> the gap between the rich and the poor? Sounds good, don't it? <br /><br />Oh- yeah - the cap and trade versus the carbon tax? Same policy, different phrasing. Layton, Dion and May need to get the fuck over it. They're basically all proposing the same thing - except the Liberals are, indeed, central rather than left wingers. <br /><br />Well, try telling that to people in my riding... <br /><br />Finally, last but not least, the Green Party! (I'm going to add - there is also the Bloc Quebecois, but they really only run in Quebec, which is roughly a 10 hour drive from my current location, speeding the whole way. Nevertheless, I respect them, and don't hate them for wanting to protect Quebec culture). <br /><br />Anyway, the Green ads are really low budget in comparison, so... enjoy!<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7S25RHYaRc4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7S25RHYaRc4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />To start, Elizabeth May is probably my favourite party leader this time around. She approaches things in a level-headed way and responds intelligently. She seems to honestly believe in making Canada a better place, as well as the world. <br /><br />The Green Party platform seems like a proposal to create Utopia. It is, unfortunately, absolutely impossible without the support from the entire world, by which I mean, most of all, the world's big "superpowers", ie, United States and China (yes, I think China is going to have its say in the future). <br /><br />Last election, the Green Party almost stole my heart from the NDP, until I read their platform. Last time, it was a <i>very</i> Conservative platform, and I was angry at it leeching votes off of some of the NDP's less attentive flanks. I maintain, actually, that it would be for the best if the Green Party and the NDP merged - NDP keeping a strong focus on social justice and the Green half keeping a strong focus on environmental justice. And, yeah, slap May up there instead of Layton, because Layton's just never been an excellent speaker. He makes me cringe sometimes. (Although don't get me wrong, I do respect him... I just respect Elizabeth May <i>more</i>). It would be nice to have some measure of guarantee that the Green Party won't blur itself into the right wing end of things. <br /><br />In conclusion, I'd like to see Harper lose by winning an extremely narrow minority, opening the show for a coalition between Dion and Layton's parties. I'd like to see May get a few more seats, but not if it means throwing off the NDP's base. <br /><br />I feel, however, that I support the classic ABC Voting Strategy - Anything But Conservative. I'd rather have another Liberal majority and a Conservative one. <br /><br />And to complete this, some messages from a not-quite major party contender: Neorhinos!<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Zki8du1bxY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Zki8du1bxY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8uzJIu-577U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8uzJIu-577U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />My French is not astute enough to understand all of this, but it's still awesome: <br /><a href="http://archives.radio-canada.ca/politique/partis_chefs_politiques/clips/15725/">Neorhinos on CBC</a><br /><br />Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find their "Cubeq" ad, in which they propose to merge Quebec and Cuba to create a new national drink- lots and lots of Cuban rum with just a touch of maple syrup. <br /><br />I <i>love</i> the Neorhinos!<br /><br />And a wonderful reason to avoid the Cons: <br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V_4hEvy5b4g&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V_4hEvy5b4g&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />More important than anything: <br /><br />NO EXCUSES! JUST VOTE. Please, vote anything but conservative, but JUST VOTE!<br /><br />(If you're an American, please, for the sake of the entire planet, just vote Obama. We <i>all</i> beg you.)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-24961982612087875282008-10-10T11:17:00.004-04:002008-10-10T11:31:49.670-04:00Sarah Palin's Literary CousinAlthough I really hate that Sarah Palin is the US media darling right now - the other day I realized something. <br /><br />Sarah Palin is a real-life Serena Joy (a character in Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale). <br /><br />Now, if you haven't read The Handmaid's Tale, I really can't paraphrase it so that you'll get it, but if you have read it, but can't remember: Serena Joy is the wife that Offred works under. The one who used to be an evangelist darling... and then may or may not regret the changes that have actually relegated her to her own home after so long... <br /><br />If you're an innocent little American and you know all about Sarah Palin and nothing about Atwood's the Handmaid's Tale - you should read it! It's a wonderful book - an excellent satire and yet horrifyingly frightening possible circumstance. It's a great book to read concerning not just feminism, but totalitarian governments and fundamentalist religion - and how these things can pan out in the world. It's somewhat... ...erk... Orwellian..., but I prefer Atwood as a writer - even if Orwell gets things named after him more than Atwood does... <br /><br />If you're lazy, you <i>could</i> always just watch the Playboy (!...?) endorsed movie from the early '90s. But the book is much better in its social commentary than the movie is. Really, it's an old, somewhat dated, book - but it's an excellent read.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-17152071246971015192008-10-03T16:40:00.005-04:002008-11-08T13:00:19.904-05:00A Word From Margaret Atwood In Defense of the ArtsThis is a piece written by Margaret Atwood in response to Stephen Harper's cuts to the arts.<br /><br />From Thursday's Globe and Mail<br /><br />September 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM EDT<br /><br />"What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we<br />already live in? What do we like? Who are we?<br /><br />At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector<br />accounted for an 'estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).'<br /><br />But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called 'ordinary people' didn't care about something called 'the arts.' His idea of 'the arts' is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand:<br />I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.<br /><br />Every single one of those people is an 'ordinary person.' Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. 'Ordinary people' pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for 'the arts' in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. 'The arts' are not a 'niche interest.' They are part of being human.<br /><br />Moreover, 'ordinary people' are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. 'Ordinary people' have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.<br /><br />They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and 'ordinary people' will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.<br /><br />I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is 'ordinary.' It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of 'ordinary people.' He's the 'niche<br />interest.' Not us.<br /><br />It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is 'ideologically motivated.' Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate<br />his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.<br /><br />Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.<br /><br />The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In<br />communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big<br />statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!"<br /><br />I'd like to also add a point to those who tell the artists to quit whining, that the 4.6 million dollars of cuts only constitutes a drop in the bucket, that overall its not really that much. In looking at the bigger picture, you completely miss the little things, the everyday ways that are effected by this loss. I'm certain that four million dollars are not mere pennies to the 'ordinary' Canadian. Four million dollars would go quite the way for many an artist, musician, curator, director, actor, comedian, educator, gallery, workshop program, radio broadcaster, writer, and well, you get the picture. Most artists are <i>not</i> gala*-going, rich disconnected elitists. In fact, artists that do live comfortably could not have done so for the most part without grant support. It's very hard to work full-time on creation when you are out working in other jobs just to pay your rent. <br /><br />And anyone notice that the programs cut from the budget are the ones that affect visibility and accessibility to Native populations? So much for that apology for Canada's historic (and current) treatment earlier this year, eh Mr. Harper?<br /><br /><br />*Galas, by the way, in which his wife attends. Galas which are thrown by big-wigs in order to raise money to <i>supplement</i> the grants. Galas, which do not compromise the majority of the time spent by artists. Galas, which I'm pretty sure none of the people directly affected by the cuts (which by the way involved pulling money out of already existing programs right from under their feet) are going to.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Revistahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16029404785891473705noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-60027606061374129662008-09-29T16:29:00.006-04:002008-09-29T17:37:09.011-04:00Vote, Damn You!So, it's that time of... not quite four years again, and we've been asked to paddle our butts down to a polling office and cast our votes. <br /><br />The available choices are something that I've been known to whine about. But the actual act of voting has always figured fairly high upon my list of priorities. It's not like it takes a lot of effort or anything... and when it comes down to it, it <i>does</i> make a difference... (a small part of a big difference?). <br /><br />Once upon a time, back when I was ages 12 through to 18, I was so raring to vote... blame Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario for the larger part of the '90s. All's I really remember was: I was a gallery brat. Therefore, I knew the pains of the art communities during those years. The no-funding deals. Or, you know, the basic slash funding, programs. <br /><br />But there was more. I remember my mom pointing out posters (they really made no difference in our small Ultra-Con towns) that stated: "Minimum wage $6.75, Monthly welfare payments $695, Mike Harris' political advisors' hourly wage $495". Or, you know, something along those lines. I might have forgotten the specific numbers by now (I think I have, because I remember the hourly wage being higher than the monthly welfare rate). Point is, at that age, I was already indignant and angry about PC Politics. <br /><br />Oh, yeah, and to add salt to that wound... there was also that minor incident of the new curriculum. And the glorious day that we went to listen to Nelson Mandela speak at the SkyDome (now known horrendously as the "Roger's Centre"), and Harris came out to speak first. And a SkyDome full of angry 11 and 12 year old children booing him. <br /><br />Long story short: while most of my friends were more into their Nintendo systems, I was so ready to cast my vote. I actually spent the 14-16 years reading books about Suffragettes (probably one of the reasons that people called me that dirty ol' f-word, you know... feminist). In Highschool Civics class (the bullshit "understanding the political system" class that Harris' new curriculum added) I railed against the unjust laws that required me to be 18 before I could vote - 16 was more than mature enough! (Of course, my classmates thought I was an utter nerd, and the teacher kind of hated me). <br /><br />The point of this long, rambling story is that voting is a responsibility I feel is very, very, <i>very</i> important. And even if you're voting for the dirty Con Party and their head corporate robot Harper (can you tell I'm biased in favour of the the lefties?) the point is, you're voting. And that is important. <br /><br />The sad thing is that I feel like most people in my generation are still no more interested in being involved than they were in highschool. I know numerous young, <i>university educated</i> people who refuse to vote because: "Oh, it just doesn't matter." "What has the government ever done for <i>me</i>?" and "My guy never wins." And we wonder why there are so few young people trusted in government. A mixture of laziness, apathy and plain old ignorance allows so many people to "justify" why they just shouldn't vote. One friend told me that she creates change through <i>other</i> actions. But activism, however important, <i>shouldn't</i> be constantly necessary. Instead, why not just <i>try</i> to elect a responsible government that responds to its populous? Hell, what's a walk to the polling office compared to having to organise protests or incite the revolutionary mob?<br /><br />I'm sick of people who go on and on about how the world is going to shit and then, if you ask them if they voted, they say "Oh, well, my vote doesn't count for much". No, it doesn't count for much if you don't use it. It'll count for a hell of a lot more if you were to just <i>use</i> your vote.<br /><br />I think that one of the reasons that the advertisements for the respective parties (*cough* Conservatives) have gotten so completely trashy (ie. no <i>political</i> message, just slamming the other guy, like, you know, the <a href="http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Md_Rwb9NoWI">"Gamble on Dion"</a> series?) is because people are just shutting off to actual issues. We don't want to talk about, don't want to deal with it, and don't want to take responsibility of it. <br /><br />And don't even get me <i>started</i> on how the American Election '08 is going.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163928454357103954.post-57843108661841956992008-09-26T09:59:00.004-04:002008-09-26T10:02:57.290-04:00Arts Funding and the ElectionSo, I'm well aware that art funding is not the headlining "issue" for this year's election; in fact, usually the only people who really care about arts funding are... you got it... artists. <br /><br />I was sent this video via my email - it is the husband of a friend talking there. <br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/utJZAR-vFy4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/utJZAR-vFy4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />I just wanted to post this because it raises a reasonably good point. <br /><br />If you can't watch it, it's just saying that Harper's not a big fan of arts funding. (Are you surprised?)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><p><a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" alt="" style="vertical-align:middle;border:0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/EvilFeministWitch" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe in a reader</a></p></div>Medeahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13485964524785061920noreply@blogger.com0