Writer Elinor Burkett, in this past weekend's New York Times, takes it upon herself to define womanhood, which she feels is under attack from trans women. Instead, Burkett only succeeds in viciously grinding an anti-feminist axe with the intent of severing trans women from our rightful womanhood. Transmisogyny is where transphobia and misogyny meet, each intensifying the other. It is a form of gendered oppression experienced by trans women, central to which is the vicious lie that we are, or ever have been, men. This is violence, a violence which all too frequently ends in a trans woman's death.
"Good luck with the little drama queen," they say when they find out I'm expecting a girl. It seems we gals have a rep right out of the womb -- as dramatic, irrational whack-jobs. So, when one of us is assaulted and comes forward, many people instantly think: oh she's exaggerating, seeking attention or revenge or a payday. It's a pattern, after all.
On December 6, 1989 a 25-year-old man armed with a rifle and a hunting knife, killed 14 women studying at the technical college before turning the gun on himself. He said that his motives were to fight feminism. It's easy for us to sit back and pretend that women aren't being killed because of their sex nowadays. But the fact of the matter is, it continues to happen.
Today is International Men's Day, so let's join hands today and celebrate all that men have done for the world. Wow, I couldn't even type that with a straight face. But International Men's Day? Seriously? Every day is International Men's Day, or really International Cisgender Men's Day. Every day the achievements of men are celebrated. Every day their innovations are hailed. What's next? International White People Day? International Heterosexual Day? I'm sure some of you would love that.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal law concept used in conjunction with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to guarantee an important legal doctrine: it's better for guilty people to go free than infringe the liberty of the innocent. This high threshold isn't used in civil action, where judges decide guilt on the balance of probabilities standard. And it certainly isn't required in Facebook or any public forum of debate. There may be two different accounts of the same incident; that's OK. Trust me when I say, there is no need to Columbo such a situation.
To the Mr. Misogynists out there, I beg of you to ask, where did you go wrong in life? At what point in your lives did you stumble upon a fork in the road, taking the path poorly traveled, deciding to turn your back on your DNA? Was it in the boys' locker room, after the big game, patting each other on the bum?
I think that we can all agree that the main problem with Canadian history is that men are just way too underrepresented. Take our money, for example. I mean, the queen is on all of our coins! What kind of misandry is this? Sure the five dollar bill boasts our old pal Wilfred Laurier, and the ten dollar bill shows everyone's favourite confederation-loving racist Sir John A. Macdonald, and the fifty dollar bill has séance-holder and dog enthusiast William Lyon Mackenzie King and yeah, fine, the hundred dollar bill is devoted to Nova Scotia's good ole boy Sir Robert Borden, but I mean, come on.
American Apparel founder and CEO Dov Charney, was ousted from his very own company spread like wildfire this morning. And it was predictably greeted with major glee among most of my feminist friends, who've had enough with this guy's gag-inducing sexist marketing campaigns, as well as his own personal conduct with employees. I still have no intention of ever purchasing anything from them in the future. Ousting Dov Charney may have been the right decision to make, American Apparel executive board members, but that's not why you finally got rid of him.
A growing sense of entitlement is leading to gun violence in the U.S. Many people think they are entitled to guns, and are entitled to control the lives of other people. But this isn't the case. Let's be clear -- in life, we are entitled to but one thing: our own lives. Apart from the air he breathed to help sustain his life, we are not entitled to anything else -- no person, no shooter, is entitled to kill anyone.
A man killed six people in a drive by shooting on Friday night in California. On Thursday night the apparent shooter made a video explaining why he was going to embark on the murderous rampage. In this video the man stated that he was a 22-year-old virgin who couldn't attract women. We should avoid reducing the murderer to a crazed individual whose actions can be explained solely by his mental state. Instead, we should analyze how the misogynistic societies we live in enabled the murderer's killing spree.
Dear Tom McLaughlin And Joshua Sealy-Harrington: We need to talk about your recent article in the Globe and Mail about being "silenced" based on gender. First of all, let's get a few things straight here: You are not being silenced. Yes, sometimes your opinions will be discounted because of your identity -- because you know what? In the context of social justice, lived experience trumps everything else every time.
Frankly, in the context of the recent gang rapes of drunk girls (Steubenville, West Auckland's Roast Busters and Halifax, to name a few of the most shocking) liquor marketers should start thinking about the optics and their own fairly flimsy commitment to responsible drinking. Thus far, responsibility has generally been translated into talk of driving and personal health. But corporate social responsibility needs to extend towards perpetuating dangerous attitudes about women, too. And booze marketing is full of them, although, this, by far, is the most offensive I've ever seen.
One day, I pressed play on the PVR and went about my bidness, Max on the couch pumped for some Turtle Power. A few minutes later, I heard this moaning and groaning coming from the television, with some bow-chicka-wow music in the background. What the. I ran to the TV and saw a commercial for a chat line, The Night Exchange.
Sexualized violence against women is one of the world's most common human rights offenses, and yet from New Delhi to Nova Scotia there is an alarming sentiment that persists: good girls do not get raped. Consequently, the flawed logic train seems to stop at the conclusion that if one is the victim of sexual assault, it is probably because the victim brought it on.
There are so many reasons a literary community remains silent when faced with the unpleasant business of sexism or misogyny: many writers fear the repercussions of speaking out because many of the people who get away with both blatant and subtle forms of hate are also in positions of relative power in the literary community.
One of the reasons behind why the media focused on the "ruined" lives of the Steubenville rapists and ignored the suffering of their victim is this: we think she asked for it and doesn't deserve our empathy. She should have known better than to get drunk and lose consciousness at a party full of boys who, being victims of their inherent need for sexual violence, can't be blamed for being male.
My friend has written on her blog that the media is guilty of sensationalism in the coverage of rapes in India. I disagree with her assessment, however. The attention the media is giving to the rape epidemic in India is long, long overdue. Should you be scared? Not really. But ask, is India as safe to travel as anywhere else? The answer is no, it's not.
On February 15, 2013, Muslim students at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, attended a Friday prayer service, seeking enlightenment and spiritual comfort. Instead they were delivered a Khutbah filled with offensive comments against sexual minorities and women. Unfortunately, the Cornell incident is not an isolated one.
Men may take women out on different sorts of dates than they previously did, but the expectation that men be the ones to do this largely remains. When it comes to dating, many men are expected to pay for dates, both by some women, and more commonly, by themselves. Men paying for women on dates because they enjoy their company, and view it as a kind gesture, is not an issue. The issue is that some men still pay for women simply because they are women, and the men would feel emasculated if they did not.